In the Matter of the Solicitor's Act 1974: Re A Solicitor (No 4 of 2001)

When deciding whether to impose a restrictive condition on a solicitor’s practising certificate while disciplinary allegations remain unresolved, the regulator or appellate court should consider the age of the underlying events, the progress of the disciplinary process and the practical effect of the condition. Where the events occurred about ten years earlier and the condition would effectively end the solicitor’s practice before the disciplinary proceedings were determined, immediate imposition may be too drastic. The appropriate course may be to adjourn the appeal, maintain the stay on the condition pending the disciplinary outcome and press for a speedy conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

Malcolm Congreve Brown, a sole-practising solicitor, appealed against a decision of the Appeals Committee of the Office of Supervision of Solicitors dated 21 December 2000. The Committee had dismissed his appeal from an Adjudicator’s decision of 4 October 2000 granting a practising certificate for 1999/2000 subject to restrictive conditions, including practice only in approved employment or partnership.

The conditions arose principally from unresolved disciplinary allegations concerning Brown’s involvement in alleged mortgage frauds in 1990 and 1991. The criminal charges had been dismissed after the trial judge ruled that there was no case to answer, but disciplinary proceedings remained pending. The central issue was whether the conditions should take effect before those proceedings were determined.

Lord Phillips MR adjourned the appeal and continued the stay on the imposition of the conditions until the result of the disciplinary hearing was known. Costs were reserved.

1. The purpose of the conditions was protection of the public and the profession. Nevertheless, their immediate imposition would be very drastic because the relevant events had occurred about ten years earlier and the condition would, in practical terms, require Brown to cease practising unless he could secure approved employment or partnership.
2. The driving offence and the late payment of counsel’s fees did not justify the conditions. They were matters of background only. The serious issue was the unresolved disciplinary case concerning the alleged mortgage frauds.
3. The disciplinary proceedings were already in train and could and should be dealt with speedily. It was therefore appropriate to leave the practising-certificate conditions in abeyance pending the disciplinary outcome rather than require them to take effect immediately.
4. The adjournment did not determine the underlying disciplinary allegations. The court coupled its order with a strong recommendation that the disciplinary proceedings, which had already been pending for nine months, be brought to a speedy conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from the Appeals Committee, adjourned the appeal and continued the stay on the practising-certificate conditions pending the disciplinary hearing; costs reserved. [2001] EWCA Civ 475
• Appeals Committee of the Office of Supervision of Solicitors: On 21 December 2000, dismissed Brown’s appeal from the Adjudicator and refused an extension of time for the condition to take effect.
• Adjudicator: On 4 October 2000, indicated that a practising certificate would be granted subject to conditions requiring approved employment or partnership and imposing related restrictions.