Appeal by solicitor against decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Garnham J
[2016] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564648

Application for order disallowing a firm from acting for the defendants.

Arnold J
[2016] EWHC 416 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Crescent Farm (Sidcup) Sports Ltd v Sterling Offices Ltd 1972
The plaintiffs, as purchasers, and the first defendants, as sub-purchasers, were parties to a conveyance of land which provided that the purchasers had the option of re-purchasing if, within the following 20 years, the first defendants wanted to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564438

Lady Clark of Calton
[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 4
Bailii
Scotland

Legal Professions

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559242

The claimant company said that its now defendant solicitors had acted for them in the purchase of land, but then also to act in a subsale of the land, creating a ransom strip.

Saffman HHJ
[2016] EWHC 96 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559187

[2014] EWHC 4553 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542538

Investors had paid sums to the appellant solicitors for investment within a scheme run by a client of te firm. No terms were explicit save that the client was to be invested. When the funds were lost by the client, the claimants sued the solicitors, who now appealed against a finding of breach of trust.
Held: The deposits were made without any terms as to safety being promised or required. The appeal succeeded.

Moore-Bick, Underhill, Briggs LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 59, [2015] WLR(D) 57
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542259

Application relates to a complaint made to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (‘SLCC’) by a firm of solicitors. The complaint is about the conduct of another solicitor.

Lady Smith
[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 4
Bailii
Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2009
Scotland

Legal Professions

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540501

Action for account against the claimants’ former solicitor.

David Richards J
[2014] EWHC 3080 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540355

[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 94
Bailii
Scotland

Legal Professions

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.539152

The SRA alleged that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had erred in not finding proven some of the serious allegations against the defendant solicitors proven.
Held: Some of the appeals succeeded.

Holman J
[2016] EWHC 3455 (Admin)
Bailii
Solicitors Act 1974
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Solicitors Regulation Authority v Wingate and Another Admn 7-Feb-2017
Orders following principal judgment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.581949

[2014] EWHC 2974 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536536

Guidelines for procedures for courts to make wasted costs orders.

Gazette 24-Jun-1992
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (1991 No 789)
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.80405

[2014] EWHC 1680 (Admin)
Bailii
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.526071

Renewed application for permission to appeal against the dismissal of appeal against the ruling by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that his complaint against the respondent solicitors disclosed no case to answer.

Patten LJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1564
Bailii
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518772

(Inns of Court) The regulation of barristers has been delegated by the judges to the Inns of Court. Five judges sitting as Visitors of the Inns of Court stated that ‘the judges as visitors have always had supervisory powers and their decision, upon an appeal by a barrister or student to them, has always been the final determination of such matter’.
Paull J said: ‘all through the history of the Inns (of Court) . . a call to the bar does not mean a call to the bar of any court. It only means a call to the bar of the particular Inn.’ And further that since 1292 the power to ‘provide and ordain . . attorneys and lawyers . . was left to the discretion of the justices’ so that: ‘from that time onwards for many years not all those who had been called to the bar of their Inns were allowed to practise in the courts at Westminster. From time to time regulations were made by the judges prescribing the period of time which must elapse after call to the bar of an Inn before the right to audience in the courts was exercised. By the middle of the 17th century it was accepted by the judges that, provided the call had been published in the Inn and the oaths of allegiance and supremacy taken, no further qualification was required to entitle the person called to the bar of his Inn to appear in any of the King’s courts for any client who saw fit to retain his services . . It is clear that the judges never passed over the whole control to the Inns. They kept quite a tight rein on the internal affairs of the Inn, particularly in so far as such affairs related to those who might practise before them. This is of great importance because from time to time the word ‘delegation’ appears in reference to the powers of the Inns given to them by the judges. One of the problems is the precise meaning of that word ‘delegation’ in the context in which it has been used.’
Paull J then observed: ‘The latest example of the use of the word ‘delegation’ is in Attorney-General of Gambia v N’Jie . . where Lord Denning uses the words: ‘By the common law of England the judges have the right to determine who shall be admitted to practise as barristers and solicitors: and, as incidental thereto, the judges have the right to suspend or prohibit from practice. In England this power has for a very long time been delegated, so far as barristers are concerned, to the Inns of Court: and, for a much shorter time, so far as solicitors are concerned, to the Law Society.’
It will be noticed that Lord Denning uses the same word ‘delegated’ in regard to the rights of the judges over who should appear before them as advocates in the case of barristers and their rights in the case of solicitors. Clearly the word ‘delegate’ so used cannot have precisely the same meaning in each case, since the rights of solicitors are to some extent governed by Acts of Parliament and solicitors do not appear before High Court judges as advocates.
It seems clear that Lord Mansfield in his use of the word ‘delegate’ was not using that word in the narrow sense in which it is sometimes used today and which is the basis of the doctrine ‘delegatus non potest delegare’; neither was Lord Denning. Both were using it in the sense that, in regard to the Inns, the judges over a long period, from time to time, had concurred in the Inns performing the duty of selecting those persons who were fit and proper persons to be called to the bar and to be entitled to a right of audience in the courts and the duty of suspending or prohibiting such persons from practice. The exercise of these duties has been at all times, and remains, subject to the visitorial jurisdiction of the judges. Further, the judges in relation to their judicial duties as to who should have the right of audience have never divested themselves of those duties, nor could they ever do so.’

Paull, Lloyd-Jones, Stamp, James and Blain JJ
[1970] 1 QB 160
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mehey and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Visitors To The Inns of Court and Others CA 16-Dec-2014
The court was asked whether disciplinary proceedings against a number of barristers were invalid on the ground that some of the individuals who heard those proceedings or appeals therefrom were disqualified from sitting.
Held: The appeals . .
Cited – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board SC 6-Dec-2017
The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.540219

The appellant solicitor had entered into an arrangement with a company to receive referrals of personal injury cases. She said that the agreements were deliberately devised to hide the fact that unlawful referral fees were to be paid, by requiring the subcontracting of associated services to a subsidiary of the insurance company at inflated fees levels. Litigation as to these agreements became known to the SRA who brought disciplinary proceedings, against which fine the solicitor now appealed. She said it had not amounted to a fee sharing arrangement.
Held: The appeal failed. The appellant’s case had been presented on a basis that the question related to the lifting or otherwise of the corporate veil. It was not. The question was whether the arrangements properly construed infringed the rules against paying rewards to introducers and against fee-sharing. Here the true person being reqrded was the parent insurance company

Sir Anthony May, Blake J
[2009] EWHC 1183 (Admin)
Bailii
Solicitors’ Introduction and Referral Code
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Smith, Stone and Knight Limited v Birmingham 1939
Implied Agency between Parent and Subsidiary
An application was made to set aside a preliminary determination by an arbitrator. The parties disputed the compensation payable by the respondent for the acquisition of land owned by Smith Stone and held by Birmingham Waste as its tenant on a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.346858

What is integrity for a solicitor?

The Court considered the meaning of ‘integrity’ as that word is used in the SRA’s Code of Conduct and Principles.
Held: Integrity indicated that something higher was expected of a solicitor than simple honesty. It was a useful shorthand for denoting adherence to the ethical standards of the profession, though an unrealistically high standard was not to be required.

Rupert Jackson, Sharp, Singh LJJ
[2018] EWCA Civ 366, [2018] WLR(D) 147
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Legal Professions

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.605790

The solicitor who had been admitted to the Roll for two years had disbursed clients money to relatives, as part of the conveyance of property without adequate security but in the expectation that the money would be repaid. The Tribunal found that the solicitor was honest and had not stolen client money ‘in a premeditated fashion’. The Tribunal took the view that ordinarily the conduct would merit striking off but, in light of the facts of the case, it made a more lenient order. The Divisional Court heard fresh evidence of good character and took the view that the suspension was disproportionate, imposing a fine in substitution.
Held: The Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision was re-instated. The court had given insufficient reason for disturbing it. A solicitor who was in breach of the Law Society’s rules should expect severe sanctions. The rules served not just to discipline solicitors, but also to protect the public. The reputation of a profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual mamber. Membership of a profession brings benefits, but also costs.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘It is required of lawyers practising in this country that they should discharge their professional duties with integrity, probity and complete trustworthiness.’ and ‘Because orders made by the tribunal are not primarily punitive, it follows that considerations which would ordinarily weigh in mitigation of punishment have less effect on the exercise of this jurisdiction than on the ordinary run of sentences imposed in criminal cases. It often happens that a solicitor appearing before the tribunal can adduce a wealth of glowing tributes from his professional brethren. He can often show that for him and his family the consequences of striking off or suspension would be little short of tragic.’
As a principle it requires a very strong case to justify interference by the CA in a penalty imposed by the Tribunal, since its members are best qualified to weigh the seriousness of the professional misconduct before them.
. . Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. Lapses from the required high standard may of course take different forms and be of varying degrees. The most serious involves proven dishonesty . . If a solicitor is not shown to have acted dishonestly, but is shown to have fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, his lapse is less serious but it remains very serious indeed in a member of a profession whose reputation depends on trust. A striking off order will not necessarily follow in such a case, but it may well. The decision whether to strike off of suspend will often involve a fine and difficult exercise of judgment . . . on all the facts of the case. Only in a very unusual and venial case of this kind will the Tribunal be likely to regard as appropriate any order less severe than one of suspension. It is important that there should be full understanding of the reasons why the Tribunal makes orders which might otherwise seem harsh. There is in some of these orders a punitive element; a penalty may be visited on a solicitor who has fallen below the standard required of his profession in order to punish him for what he has done and to deter any other solicitor tempted to behave in the same way. Those are traditional objects of punishment. But often the order is not punitive in intention ‘
and ‘In most cases the order of the Tribunal will be primarily directed to one or other or both of two purposes. One is to be sure the offender does not have the opportunity to repeat the offence. This purpose is achieved for a limited period by an order of suspension; plainly it is hoped that experience of suspension will make the offender meticulous in his future compliance with the required standard. The purpose is achieved for a longer period, and quite possibly indefinitely, by an order for striking off. The second purpose is the most fundamental of all: to maintain the reputation of the solicitor’s profession as one in which every member, of whatever standard, may be trusted to the end of the earth. To maintain the reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied readmission. If a member of the public sells his house, very often his largest asset, and entrusts the proceeds to his solicitor, pending reinvestment in another house, he is ordinarily entitled to expect the solicitor will be a person whose trustworthiness is not, and never has been, seriously in question. Otherwise, the whole profession and the public as a whole is injured. A profession’s most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires.’

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Rose, Waite LJJ
Times 08-Dec-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 512, [1993] EWCA Civ 32, [1994] 2 All ER 486, [1994] COD 295
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McCoan v General Medical Council PC 1964
The Board advised: ‘Their Lordships are of opinion that Lord Parker CJ may have gone too far in In re a Solicitor [1960] 2 QB 212 when he said that the appellate court would never differ from sentence in cases of professional misconduct, but their . .

Cited by:
Cited – In the Matter of a Solicitor and In the Matter of Solicitors Act 1974 Admn 15-Dec-1997
The appellant solicitor had been found to have appropriated client funds to himself. He appealed an order striking his name from the Roll of solicitors. He had repaid the sums, and said that he had paid them to satisfy a blackmailer.
Held: An . .
Cited – Dr Gosai v The General Medical Council PC 10-Apr-2003
PC (The Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The doctor challenged the decision of the committee to invoke its power to restrain him from making further applications to be restored to the register.
Cited – Darby v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The solicitor appealed findings of misconduct. He had acted for a builder who complained about breaches of confidentiality and a failure to provide written information on costs.
Held: The appeal was by way of a rehearing (Preiss), but should . .
Cited – Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Medical Council and Dr Solanke Admn 30-Apr-2004
The council appealed against what it said was a lenient sentence imposed on a doctor for malpractice.
Held: It was relevant to take account of the way criminal courts dealt with appeals against lenient sentences. The test in relation to an . .
Cited – Singleton v The Law Society QBD 11-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed his striking off the roll of solicitors. He said he had not been dishonest. He was said to have made entries to show receipts into client account to support payments out when such receipts had not occurred. He denied this was . .
Cited – Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society Admn 30-Mar-2006
The solicitor appealed being struck off. He had given a character reference in circumstances where he did not have justification for the assessment.
Held: ‘The appellant knew that Barclays Bank trusted him to provide a truthful reference. . .
Approved – Gupta v The General Medical Council PC 18-Dec-2001
(The Health Committee of the GMC) A doctor had been found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council. She appealed on the basis that they had not given reasons for the factual basis . .
Cited – Baxendale-Walker v Law Society CA 15-Mar-2007
The solicitor appealed a finding that he had given a reference which he knew to be inappropriate, and his consequential striking off. The tribunal had found his evidence manifestly untrue.
Held: There were no grounds for disturbing the . .
Cited – Jideofo v The Law Society; Evans v The Solicitors Regulation Authority 31-Jul-2007
(Master of the Rolls) Each applicant challenged decisions not to allow them to become student members of the Law Society.
Held: The test for character and suitability was a necessarily high one; was one which was not concerned with punishment, . .
Cited – Ali and Another, Re Solicitors No 21 and 22 of 2007 CA 29-Apr-2008
The claimants challenged revocation of their student membership of the Law Society. The revocation had been made on the basis that they had declared work to be their own unaided work when they were said to have colluded on an assignment.
Held: . .
Cited – Mubarak v General Medical Council Admn 20-Nov-2008
The doctor appealed against a finding against him of professional misconduct in the form of a sexualised examination of a female patient.
Held: The reasons given were adequate, and the response of erasure from the register was the only one . .
Cited – Law Society v Salsbury CA 25-Nov-2008
The Society appealed against an order quashing the striking-off of the solicitor.
Held: Bolton was still the leading case though the solicitor must be given an opportunity for a fair trial. Though it was not necessary to show a very strong . .
Cited – Coke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Cited – Solicitors Regulation Authority v Dennison Admn 22-Feb-2011
The Authority appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent by the Soicitoirs Discipinary Tribunal. He had been found to have taken undisclosed referral fees in personal injury litigation giving rise to conflicts of interest and to have . .
Cited – Hazelhurst and Others v Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 11-Mar-2011
The claimants appealed against disciplinary orders. A member of staff had stolen substantial sums from client account. They had admitted breaches of the Accounts and Practice rules, but personally made good all losses. They said that the Solicitors . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.78479

The claimants appealed against disciplinary orders. A member of staff had stolen substantial sums from client account. They had admitted breaches of the Accounts and Practice rules, but personally made good all losses. They said that the Solicitors Discliplinary Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decisions.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the SDT failed to give any reasons for its apparent refusal to take into account any of the mitigating factors it referred to in its judgment and accordingly allow the first ground of appeal. As the matters relied upon by the appellants in this ground of appeal go to the core of their case, of itself, it provides a sufficient reason for this court to revisit the decision of the SDT.’
The court considered the appropriate penalty and said: ‘The responsibility of the appellants for the breach and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession require the imposition of a sanction. Determination of the appropriate sanction requires account to be taken of the appellants’ conduct. Conduct which positively reflects upon the appellants’ character can be viewed by the public as evidence of their own trustworthiness. I regard their conduct as identified in paragraph 43 above as such evidence. Each appellant has made his own financial reparation; as a result no client has suffered. This latter fact is relevant to the question of whether a financial penalty is appropriate.’

Nicola Davies DBE J
[2011] EWHC 462 (Admin)
Bailii
Solicitors Act 1974
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bolton v The Law Society CA 8-Dec-1993
The solicitor who had been admitted to the Roll for two years had disbursed clients money to relatives, as part of the conveyance of property without adequate security but in the expectation that the money would be repaid. The Tribunal found that . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Macleod v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (the Disciplinary Committee of the Rcvs) PC 24-Jul-2006
Held: The brevity of the disciplinary committee’s consideration of the issues relating to sanction, as contained in its determination, permitted the court to examine afresh the appropriateness of the penalty imposed. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bass and Another v Solicitors Regulation Authority Admn 18-Jul-2012
The appellants challenged the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal finding them in breach of the 1998 Rules in that they had failed to prevent a former partner making unauthorised, if small, withdrawals of residual balances from client . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.430526

A solicitor sought to rely on a letter from his client as justifying the presentation of a new and larger bill.
Held: ‘there is the question whether the plaintiff ever required the defendants to deliver to him in lieu of the gross sum bill ‘a bill containing detailed items.’ I cannot see that he has. To require a bill to be taxed is plainly not per se a requirement that a detailed bill should be delivered; for as provisos (b) and (c) to section 64 itself make plain, a lump sum bill may be taxed.’ The court must be concerned with the substance of the request.
Megarry J
[1973] 1 WLR 623
Solicitors Act 1957 64
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Penningtons (a Firm) v Brown CA 30-Apr-1998
The claim concerned the plaintiffs claim for costs having represented the defendant successfully. They delivered a bill which detailed disbursements, and gave a 14 line narrative, but no other detail. The defendant requested more detail, being . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.182996

An undertaking by one solicitor to another to pay costs must be honoured. A client’s fraudulent intent did not vitiate the solicitor’s undertaking.
Times 01-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 13-Sep-1993
England and Wales

Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.88855

References: Times 20-Aug-1999
Ratio: When a barrister had accepted a brief, the duty to appear on a fixed date hearing could only be set aside by conflict with another professional duty. Counsel, who were also Members of Parliament, attending at votes in the House of Commons were not, in that act, attending to such a professional duty, and so breached the Code if they failed to attend at court.
Statutes: Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales 1990

Last Update: 30-Aug-16
Ref: 81348

References: [1849] EngR 639, (1849) 7 CB 875, (1849) 137 ER 347
Links: Commonlii
Ratio Assumpsit against several defendants for work and labour by the plaintiff as an attorney, with counts for money paid, &e. Plea,-by one of the defendants,-to the whole declaration, that the action was commenced, after the 6 & 7 Vict. e. 73, for the recovery of fees, charges, and disbursements due to the plaintiff as an attorney, as in the first count mentioned, and that no signed bill had been delivered to the defendant, or sent by the post to, or left for him at, his counting-house, office of business, dwelling-house, or last known place of abode :-Held, on special demurrer, that the word ‘disbursements’ applied to the count for money paid; and that the plea sufficiently negatived the delivery of a bill of costs within the terms of the statute

Last Update: 16-May-16
Ref: 298944

References: , [1835] EngR 741, (1835) 3 Ad & E 404, (1835) 111 ER 467 (A)
Links: Commonlii
Thie Court will not, in a summary way compel an attorney of the Court to pay over money to a party entitled to it, though the attorney has received it from a client to be paid to such party, if the application is not made on behalf of the client.

References: , [1832] EngR 869, (1832) 9 Bing 403, (1832) 131 ER 667
Links: Commonlii
An attorney is not compelled to proceed to the end of a suit in order to be entitled to his costs, but may, upon reasonable cause and reasonable notice, abandon the conduct of the suit, and in such case may recover his costs for the period during which he was employed.
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Underwood, Son & Piper -v- Lewis CA ([1894] 2 QB 306)
  Solicitors had declined to continue to act for their client before the litigation in which they were acting had been completed. They brought an action for the amount of their bill of costs for work done to date. The trial judge held that a solicitor . .
• Cited – Richard Buxton (Solicitors) -v- Mills-Owens and Another CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 122, Times, [2010] WLR (D) 49, WLRD, [2010] 17 EG 96, [2010] 3 Costs LR 421, [2010] CP Rep 26, [2010] 1 WLR 1997, [2010] 9 EG 166)
  The solicitors felt that the instructions received from their client were to pursue points which neither they nor counsel thought were properly arguable. They withdrew from the case, and now appealed against a refusal of their costs on the basis . .

References: , [1833] EngR 333, (1833) 1 My & K 98, (1833) 39 ER 618
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Brougham LC
On a bill which sought to charge a solicitor with a fraud practised on the Plaintiffs in the course of proceedings on his client’s behalf, the Court refused to order the production of entries and memorandums contained in the Defendant’s books, or of written communications, made or received by him, relating to those proceedings, and admitted by the answer to he in the Defendant’s custody.
And, generally, it seems that a solicitor cannot be compelled, at the instance of a third party, to clisclose matters which have come to his knowledge in the conduct of professional business for a client, even though such business had no reference to legal proceedings, either existing or in contemplation.
Lord Brougham LC said: ‘The foundation of this rule is not difficult to discover. It is not (as has sometimes been said) on account of any particular importance which the law attributes to the business of legal professors, or any particular disposition to afford them protection, though certainly it may not be very easy to discover why a like privilege has been refused to others, and especially to medical advisers. But it is out of regard to the interests of justice, which cannot be upholden, and to the administration of justice, which cannot go on, without the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the practice of the Courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which form the subject of all judicial proceedings. If the privilege did not exist at all, every one would be thrown upon his own legal resources; deprived of all professional assistance, a man would not venture to consult any skilful person, or would only dare to tell his counsellor half his case. If the privilege were confined to communications connected with suits begun, or intended, or expected, or apprehended, no one could safely adopt such precautions as might eventually render any proceedings successful, or all proceedings superfluous.’
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Regina -v- Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL (Independent 27-Oct-95, Times 25-Oct-95, [1996] AC 487, Bailii, [1995] UKHL 18, [1996] 1 FLR 513, [1996] 1 Cr App R 385, (1995) 159 JP 785, [1996] Fam Law 210, [1995] 3 WLR 681, [1995] 4 All ER 526)
  B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
• Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another SC ([2013] WLR(D) 20, Bailii, [2013] UKSC 1, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2010/0215, SC Summary, SC)
  The appellants resisted disclosure to the revenue of advice it had received. It claimed legal advice privilege (LAP), though the advice was from its accountants.
  Held: (Lords Sumption and Clarke dissenting) LAP applies to all communications . .

References: [1815] EngR 448, (1815) G Coop 80, (1815) 35 ER 484
Links: Commonlii
A solicitor for one of the parties in a suit cannot become the solicitor for the opposite party, though he is separated from the partnership which jointly were so employed on the other side, and the remaining partner still continues so employed, and the deed of dissolution stipulated that he should not act as solicitor for that party.
This case cites:

• See Also – Earl Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton (Commonlii, [1789] EngR 567, (1789-1817) 2 Ves Jun Supp 570, (1789) 34 ER 1231)
  A solicitor even though he may not be continuing to act for a particular client, must never be permitted to disclose, to the injury of that client, matters of which he had learned whilst so employed. . .
• See Also – The Earl of Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton (Commonlii, [1813] EngR 513, (1813) 2 Ves & Bea 113, (1813) 35 ER 262)
  . .

This case is cited by:

• See Also – Earl Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton (Commonlii, [1815] EngR 511, (1815) 19 Ves Jun 261, (1815) 34 ER 515)
  An Attorney or solicitor cannot give up his client, and act for the opposite party, in any suit between them. . .
• See Also – Marquis Cholmondeley And The Hon Ann Seymour Damer -v- Lord Clinton (Commonlii, [1816] EngR 865, (1816) 2 Mer 71, (1816) 35 ER 867 (B))
  . .
• See Also – Marquis Cholmondeley And The Hon Ann Seymour Damer -v- Lord Clinton, Sir Lawrence Palk, And Others (Commonlii, [1816] EngR 880, (1816) 2 Mer 81, (1816) 35 ER 871)
  . .
• See Also – Marquis Cholmondeley And The Honourable Ann Seymour Damer -v- Lord Clinton, Francis Drake, Ambrose St John, John Inglett Fortescue, Sir Lawrence Palk (Deceased), William Seymour, And Others (Commonlii, [1817] EngR 606, (1817) 2 Mer 171, (1817) 35 ER 905)
  . .
• See Also – The Marquis of Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton (Commonlii, [1819] EngR 158, (1819) 2 B & A 625, (1819) 106 ER 494)
  Where A, in a conveyance to uses, settled an estate for life on himself, remainder in tail to his issue, with an ultimate limitation to the heirs of SR in fee; and at the time of the settlement A was himself the right heir of SR.
  Held: that . .
• See Also – Marquis Cholmondeley And The Honourable Ann Seymour Damer -v- Lord Clinton etc (Commonlii, [1820] EngR 550, (1820) 2 Jac & W 1, (1820) 37 ER 527)
  . .
• See Also – Marquis of Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton HL (Commonlii, [1821] EngR 422, (1821) 4 Bligh PC 1, (1821) 4 ER 721)
  Equity follows the law . .

References: [1857] EngR 761, 7 Vict c 73, (1857) 69 ER 1214
Links: Commonlii
The Act 10 & 11 Vict. s. 69 does not deprive this Court of its jurisdiction to order taxation of a solicitor’s bill of costs for Parliamentary business. To entitle a client to an order for taxation of his solicitor’s bill of costs after the expiration of twelve months from its delivery he must shew either pressure or gross overcharge, amounting to what this Court designates as fraud. But it is not necessary to shew both.

References: [1851] EngR 898, (1851) 9 Hare 384, (1851) 68 ER 556
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Turner V-C
A, who was an equitable mortgagee by deposit of deeds ot property belonging to the estate of B, was paid off by C, on an agreement with the executors of B. (as their solicitor stated) that proceedings should be taken in A’s name to enforce the mortage security, and thereby to effect a sale of the whole or part of the mortgaged property; and the solicitor of the executors filed a claim for foreclosure in the name of A against the representatives of B. A denied that he had given authority to file the claim in his name, and moved that it might be taken off the file. Held that, there being only assertion against assertion, and the solicitor alone stating that the instructions were given in the presence of A, the case was to be governed by Allen v. Bone, and the claim was dismissed, with costs, to be paid by the solicitor.
That, in such a case, the Court could not adjudicate between the solicitor, by whom the claim was filed, and the Defendants, the representatives of B, by whom the instructions were given to file the claim in A’s name; and the Court left the solieitor to any legal remedy he might have against such parties.
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Griffiths -v- Evans CA ([1953] 2 All ER 1364, [1953] 1 WLR 1424)
  The parties disputed the terms on which the solicitor had been engaged, and in particular as to the scope of the duty undertaken by and entrusted to the solicitor as regards advising the client.
  Held: Where there is a dispute between a . .

References: Unreported, 22 November 1996
Coram: Chadwick LJ
The court considered a solicitor’s duties to avoid a conflict of interest in a conveyancing transaction as between a lay client and a lender. Chadwick LJ said: ‘In my view, the words ‘if in the course of doing the work he is instructed to do’ reflect an important and significant qualification to the solicitor’s duty to disclose information relevant to the lending risk. A solicitor is obliged to disclose information which comes into his possession in the course of doing the work which the lender has instructed him to do; but he is not obliged to disclose information which has come into his possession independently of any work which the lender has instructed him to do – including, for example, information which has come into his possession as a result of earlier transactions in which he has been retained by the borrower.’
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Marks and Spencer Group Plc and Another -v- Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 741)
  The defendant firm of solicitors sought leave to appeal against an injunction requiring them not to act for a client in making a bid to take over the business of the claimant, a former client of the firm.
  Held: Leave was refused. The appeal . .

References: Unreported, 20 December 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 himself.
Statutes: Solicitors Act 1974
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Sheikh -v- The Law Society ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1409 (Ch), [2006] 4 All ER 717)
  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 . .

References: [1852] EngR 485, (1852) 12 CB 154, (1852) 138 ER 860
Links: Commonlii
A warrant of attorney was attested by an attorney introduced by the plaintiff, and who had on one former occasion acted professionally for the plaintiff, and who afterwards acted as the plaintiff’s attorney in entering up judgment and issuing execution upon the warrant of atttorney : The court set it aside. In such a case, the court will not impose upon the defendant the terms of bringing no action.

References: Unreported, 17 March 1994
Coram: Latham J
The court considered the management of the statutory Solicitors Compensation Fund: ‘Given, however, what I have already said about the statutory purpose of the compensation fund, it seems to me that it is appropriate to say that the clearest case in which a grant will be made, pursuant to an application for compensation, will be where the solicitor himself has been dishonest and obtained money himself from the applicant which the applicant has thereby lost. That being the general rule, it seems to me that the Law Society is entitled to say that the further the application departs from that particular set of circumstances, the more cautious the Law Society should be in making a grant. It follows that any circumstance which takes the facts behind an application outside that general rule will be a relevant consideration for the Law Society to take into account. ‘
Statutes: Solicitors Act 1974 36
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Regina -v- Law Society ex parte Birkett Admn (Bailii, [1999] EWHC Admin 770)
  Some twenty years after the events, the claimant still sought compensation following the alleged negligence of his former solicitor. He now sought it from the Law Society’s compensation fund. The Law Society said the nature of his claim was outside . .

References: [1849] EngR 1058 (B), (1849) 4 Exch 492
Links: Commonlii
A solicitor or attorney cannot recover for business done by him in that character, unless he have obtained a certificate which was in force for the period the work was done – Where a solicitor applied for and paid for a certificate for the period between October, 1847, and November, 1848, and the officer, by mistake, dated it October, 1848, and November, 1819 – Held, that the solicitor was not enititled to recover for business done in 1849

References: [1997] EWCA Civ 1685
Links: Bailii
The applicant appealed a decision of the Joint Regulation Committee. He had been admitted, and had practised as a barrister in Pakistan. He had qualifications and experience which he asserted should give some exemption from the normal examination and pupillage requirements for admission to the English Bar. The Visitors pointed out that the academic qualifications had not been recognised by the Committee. Although the applicant did indeed have considerable experience, the court could not criticise the decision of the Committee as unreasonable. They faced clear requirements which the applicant did not meet.