The court was considering a case where proceedings under paragraph 6(5) to terminate an intervention had been brought at a time when the solicitor against whose practice the intervention had been made was being proceeded against by the SDT on charges of dishonesty.
Held: ‘if Mr Wilson Smith is not found guilty, then the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings by no means necessarily determines the outcome of the application. Although I presume that the civil burden of proof will be applied by the tribunal it will obviously want to be satisfied on tolerably clear evidence before it concludes that Mr Wilson Smith was guilty of dishonesty. It is therefore by no means impossible that the tribunal will be doubtful about Mr Wilson Smith’s honesty but will conclude that it is not satisfied on the evidence that Mr Wilson Smith was dishonest. That would not be inconsistent with the Society’s maintaining the position that there is ‘reason to suspect dishonesty’ . . on the part of Mr Wilson Smith.’
Judges:
Mr Justice Neuberger
Citations:
Unreported 21st February 2000
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – P S and others v Law Society ChD 16-Jul-2004
The applicants sought orders directing the respondent to withdraw its intervention in the solicitors practice of the first claimant. They had become concerned at the possibility that investment schemes managed by one partner were being being used . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.199218
