In the Matter of the Solicitor's Act 1974: Re A Solicitor (No 12 of 2001) (J C Pollard)

Under section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974, protection of clients and maintenance of public confidence are independent considerations. Proposed safeguards may remove direct risks to clients without resolving the wider concern that rapid re-employment within the profession could damage confidence in legal services. Repeated dishonesty by a struck-off solicitor, together with only a short period of rehabilitation, did not constitute an exceptional case. Favourable references did not require approval of the application.

Evans Dodd applied under section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to employ J C Pollard, who had been struck off for repeated dishonesty involving client funds and for a separate breach as trustee. The proposed role excluded access to money and contact with clients. The Law Society’s Adjudicator refused approval, and its Appeals Committee dismissed the appeal. Evans Dodd appealed, arguing that the discretion had been improperly fettered by the Law Society’s policy and that the proposed safeguards eliminated any risk to the public. The central issue was whether approval should nevertheless be refused to protect public confidence in the profession.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Phillips MR held that the Appeals Committee’s decision that it was too soon to permit Mr Pollard to work within the profession could not be faulted.
2. Section 41 discretion. The Law Society was entitled to treat both protection of clients and maintenance of public confidence in legal services as relevant considerations under section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The application of a policy identifying dishonesty cases as normally unsuitable did not improperly fetter the discretion where the policy allowed exceptional cases.
3. Public confidence. The proposed employment would not expose members of the public to an apparent direct risk because Mr Pollard would have no access to client or firm funds and no contact with clients. That did not resolve the separate reputational concern. If the public knew that a solicitor with this record of dishonesty had been rapidly re-employed within the profession, they could justifiably be concerned.
4. Exceptional case and rehabilitation. The dishonesty consisted of a pattern of repeated offences over approximately 20 months and demonstrated a serious character defect, despite the relatively modest sums involved. An impressive but short period of rehabilitation and favourable references were insufficient to make this an exceptional case under the policy.
5. Costs. Costs were awarded in favour of the Law Society in the fixed sum of £1,500. No costs were sought against Mr Pollard personally.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed against the Appeals Committee’s refusal of approval.
• Law Society Appeals Committee: On 5 March 2001, dismissed the appeal from the Adjudicator’s refusal.
• Law Society Adjudicator: Refused Evans Dodd’s application under section 41 of the Solicitors Act 1974.