The claimant challenged the intervention by the Law Society in her solicitors practice.
Held: Though there were some breaches of the solicitors’ accounts rules there was insufficient basis for the Society to have behaved in the way it had and the intervention was withdrawn. The judge expressed unhappiness that the consequences of the intervention were so serious for the applicant. The Society Panel had made their decision on the basis of their suspicions of dishonesty, but they had not recorded their reasons for that conclusion, nor had they given evidence at court to support their conclusions, and nor despite the extensive attempts by the Society to find evidence after the event. There was nothing to support the suggestion of dishonesty. There had been breaches of the rules, but the response of the Society had been disporoprtionate.
 4 All ER 717,  EWHC 1409 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Giles v The Law Society CA 20-Oct-1995
A notice of the Law Society’s suspicion of dishonesty founding an intervention in a solicitor’s practice, did not need to particularise the acts suspected. Sedley LJ said: ‘it is by common consent a matter for the court’s judgment [on an application . .
Cited – Holder v Law Society ChD 25-Jul-2002
The applicant solicitors’ practice had been subject to an intervention by the respondent. He claimed that by intervening in his practice, his human right to enjoy his possessions without interference had been infringed.
Held: The power of . .
Cited – Potter v Law Society 20-Dec-1999
The Law Society intervened in the solicitor’s practice where there were considerable grounds to suspect that the solicitor was knowingly allowing his firm to be used in connection with a large fraud, even if he was not a participant in the fraud . .
Cited – Buckley v Law Society (No 2) ChD 1984
A court deciding a case about a solicitor under paragraph 6(5) of schedule 1 should come to its conclusion in the light of all the evidence existing at the time the matter came to be decided and not at the time of the relevant intervention. When . .
Cited – Sritharan v Law Society CA 27-Apr-2005
The Law Society had intervened in the applicant’s legal practice as a solicitor, and his practising certificate had been automatically suspended. He applied to the court to remove the suspension.
Held: The powers exercised were statutory. The . .
Cited – Dooley v Law Society (2) ChD 23-Nov-2001
The respondent intervened in the claimant’s legal practice. He claimed a duty on the Law Society to administer his former practice in such a way as to maximize recovery of outstanding fees and disbursements.
Held: The Law Society had no duty . .
Cited – Law Society v Bultitude CA 16-Dec-2004
The solicitor had committed breaches of the accounts rules. The Society appealed an order suspending him from practice for two years.
Held: Many solicitors who had improper recourse to client funds intended to repay those sums. Striking off . .
Cited – Preedy and Okoronkwo v Law Society ChD 2004
The Society had intervened in the Solicitor’s practice. The solicitor had made no attempt to comply with the Accounts rules at all, and there was not even a separate client bank account. . .
Appeal from – Sheikh v The Law Society of England and Wales CA 23-Nov-2006
The solicitor had asked the court to set aside the intervention in her practice by the Society. The Society appealed an order that the notices be withdrawn.
Held: The court in making its order had not given proper weight to the history of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228239