Farrelly, Re Solicitor's Act 1974, No 14 of 2001

A person seeking solicitor training must satisfy the standards of honesty and integrity expected of a solicitor. Deliberately misleading omissions from applications, interviews or curriculum vitae may establish that the person lacks suitable character. Fair dealing requires disclosure of a suspended training contract and a pending application for its cancellation, even where the applicant also has legitimate reasons for seeking a transfer. Honesty may likewise require disclosure of earlier failed legal examinations where the curriculum vitae otherwise presents a misleading picture of academic achievement. Under the Training Regulations 1990, attendance at the Professional Skills Course and credit for its papers depended on satisfactory completion of the Legal Practice Course.

Mr Farrelly appealed to the Court of Appeal from decisions of Law Society adjudicators concerning his suitability to become a solicitor, the revocation of his student membership and the consequences of his conduct during applications for a new training contract. The adjudicators found that he had concealed the suspension and proposed cancellation of his training contract, had submitted a misleading curriculum vitae and had failed to make material disclosures to the prospective new firm. A separate issue concerned papers taken on the Professional Skills Course before completion of the Legal Practice Course. The central questions were whether the findings about honesty and integrity were justified and whether credit or a waiver could be granted under the Training Regulations 1990.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Phillips MR upheld the adjudicators’ conclusions that Mr Farrelly fell short of the standards of honesty and integrity expected of a solicitor.

1. Misleading application. An applicant for a new training contract must disclose circumstances that materially explain why an existing traineeship is ending. The letter to Bird & Bird concealed the suspension of the existing contract and the pending application to cancel it. Its stated reasons for the proposed transfer therefore gave a seriously misleading account.
2. Misleading curriculum vitae. Omissions can be deliberately misleading where they create a false picture of academic or professional history. The curriculum vitae failed to disclose the earlier unsuccessful Legal Practice Course year and presented the later course as if all listed electives had been passed. Honesty required disclosure of the relevant failures together with their explanation.
3. Silence at interview and on joining. Mr Farrelly deliberately failed to disclose the dispute and termination proceedings during interviews. His later explanations for not raising the matter when he joined the new firm were rejected as unconvincing. The adjudicators were entitled to draw the conclusions they did after interviewing him.
4. Professional Skills Course. Regulation 31 of the Training Regulations 1990 provided that only a person who had satisfactorily completed the Legal Practice Course could attend the Professional Skills Course. Mr Farrelly was not entitled to credit for papers taken before completing the Legal Practice Course. The refusal of a waiver under regulation 31(2) disclosed no proper ground of challenge.
5. The appeal against the suitability finding and the appeal concerning the Professional Skills Course papers were both dismissed. No application for costs was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the Law Society adjudicators’ findings on suitability and the Professional Skills Course papers.
• Law Society Appeal Adjudicator: upheld the relevant findings concerning Mr Farrelly’s conduct and suitability.
• Law Society first-instance Adjudicator: determined issues arising from the termination of the training contract and Mr Farrelly’s conduct during his training and subsequent applications.