Solicitor, Re (In the matter of the Solicitors Act 1974: Re A Solicitor No 1 of 2001)

A condition requiring a solicitor to practise only in approved employment or partnership after serious accounting breaches is protective, not punitive. It may remain while public protection requires it, subject to regulatory review. However, a requirement that an approved partner countersign every client-account cheque should be varied where it would impede efficient practice and a weekly payment schedule, briefly explained and initialled by the partner, would provide more effective oversight.

Following serious breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal fined Mr Walker and recommended that he practise only in approved employment or partnership. The Law Society imposed that condition on his practising certificate. On an earlier appeal, Lord Woolf upheld it and directed periodic accounts. The Law Society later approved Mr Chohan as a proposed partner, but required him to countersign every client-account cheque. The Appeals Committee rejected Mr Walker’s challenge to that requirement. Before the Court of Appeal, Mr Walker challenged both the continuing approved-partnership condition and the cheque-signing safeguard. The central issues were whether the original protective condition should now be lifted and whether the additional safeguard was a reasonable means of securing partner oversight of the practice’s accounts.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed in part. The challenge to the continuing condition requiring approved employment or partnership was dismissed. The requirement that the approved partner countersign every client-account cheque was substituted by a weekly reporting requirement.
2. The approved-partnership or approved-employment condition was imposed to protect, and to be seen to protect, the public from risks arising from the solicitor’s serious accounting irregularities. It was regulatory and protective rather than punitive. The fact that the breaches were several years old and that the solicitor had taken steps to improve his accounting systems did not establish a sufficient basis for reversing the earlier decision upholding the condition.
3. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors commonly reviewed conditions of this kind. Although about three years was regarded as the normal period, the duration had to bear some relation to the time elapsed since the events giving rise to the condition. The court urged the Office to examine the solicitor’s current practice and consider those matters, but left the condition in place.
4. The additional cheque-signing condition was understandable because the proposed partner’s requested waiver appeared to undermine the purpose of requiring a partner to oversee the accounts. Nevertheless, requiring countersignatures on every cheque could hinder conveyancing transactions and become a formality rather than meaningful scrutiny. A more effective safeguard was a weekly schedule of payments made from the practice’s client accounts, containing brief explanations, which Mr Chohan was to initial and date within 48 hours of production.
5. A further two months was allowed for the proposed partnership negotiations to resume. The solicitor was directed to raise any immediate difficulty with the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. As the principal issue had been unsuccessful and the variation could have been achieved without the appeal, the solicitor was ordered to pay the Law Society’s costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal under section 13 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the court dismissed the challenge to the continuing approved-partnership condition and varied the cheque-signing condition: [2001] EWCA Civ 43.
• Law Society Appeals Committee: By decision dated 7 September 2000, the Committee rejected Mr Walker’s appeal against the requirement that the approved partner countersign client-account cheques. No citation is stated in the judgment.
• Earlier appeal before the Master of the Rolls: Lord Woolf upheld the approved employment or partnership condition, allowed six months for compliance and directed the provision of accounts at two-month intervals.