In the Matter of the Solicitor's Act 1974; Re A Solicitor (No 8 of 2001)

A court exercising regulatory jurisdiction over a solicitor’s practising certificate is not determining alleged misconduct. It must exercise its wide discretion by reference to the welfare of the public and the standing and reputation of the profession. Serious allegations of unsupervised work by unqualified staff, accounting irregularities and excessive legal aid claims may justify an immediate restriction on legal aid work pending a disciplinary tribunal, although the allegations remain unresolved. A procedural defect in the initial decision may cease to have practical consequences where the appellant receives clear notice of the omitted matters and a full opportunity to address them on appeal.

Isabella Iyama-Onibudo appealed from the decision of the Appeals Committee of the Office of Supervision of Solicitors dated 10 November 2000. The Committee had dismissed her appeal against an OSS Adjudicator’s decision dated 9 September 2000 imposing an immediate condition on her practising certificate prohibiting legal aid work pending proceedings before the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal.

The appeal concerned whether the condition should remain stayed pending the tribunal hearing. It also raised a procedural complaint because matters concerning a second practice had not been apparent from the Adjudicator’s decision. The central issue was whether the interim restriction was justified in the public interest and in the interests of the profession.

Lord Phillips MR delivered the judgment of the court and dismissed the appeal.

1. Nature of the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal was exercising a regulatory, rather than disciplinary, function. It did not determine the misconduct allegations reserved for the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. The court nevertheless had a wide discretion concerning the practising certificate. That discretion had to be exercised by reference to the welfare of the public served by the solicitor and the standing and reputation of the solicitors’ profession.
2. Justification for the interim condition. The allegations relating to both practices disclosed extreme concern. They included the apparent use of numerous unqualified staff without proper supervision, accounting irregularities, suspected overclaims for legal aid payments and conduct potentially amounting to fraud. The applicant had been expected to supervise work while herself being subject to supervision. Without deciding the merits, the court held that the restriction prohibiting legal aid work was amply justified in the public interest and in the interests of the profession pending the tribunal hearing.
3. Procedural irregularity. The Adjudicator’s decision did not make clear that matters concerning the second practice were also relied upon. This was a procedural irregularity. However, those matters had been made plain for the appeal and the applicant had addressed them fully. Any continuing consequences of the original irregularity therefore no longer persisted.
4. A separate complaint concerning non-attendance at an immigration appeal was not sufficiently significant to affect the decision.

The appeal was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the Law Society, to be assessed if not agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the interim practising-certificate condition and ordered costs to be assessed if not agreed.
• Appeals Committee of the Office of Supervision of Solicitors: on 10 November 2000 dismissed the appeal from the Adjudicator, while directing that the condition should not take effect pending the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• OSS Adjudicator: on 9 September 2000 imposed an immediate condition prohibiting the applicant from undertaking legal aid work pending determination by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal.