In the Matter of the Solicitor's Act 1974; In the Matter of the Court and Legal Services Act No 2 of 2002 (Dr Liaqat Malik)

The Law Society must be satisfied of an applicant’s character and suitability at the time of admission under section 3 of the Solicitors Act 1974. An earlier finding by a Law Society adjudicator that the applicant was fit and proper, whether for registration as a foreign lawyer or eligibility to seek admission, does not preclude that current statutory assessment.

Later complaints and other material need not be disregarded merely because they remain unproved or unresolved. They may properly require consideration by the competent committee. The committee must give due weight to earlier decisions, but must exercise its own judgment on the information and submissions before it.

Dr Malik had previously been registered as a foreign lawyer and had received a certificate of eligibility under the Qualified Lawyers' Transfer Regulations 1990. The relevant Law Society adjudicator had found him fit and proper to become a solicitor, subject to passing specified parts of the transfer test.

After Dr Malik applied for admission on 3 September 2001, the Law Society referred the application to its Exceptional Applications Casework Committee because of his complex history and further complaints. The original committee was reconstituted, causing delay. Dr Malik applied to the Master of the Rolls for immediate admission, contending that the Society could not reopen matters decided by the adjudicator and should disregard unresolved complaints.

The central issue was whether the Law Society could conduct a current assessment of his character and suitability before deciding whether to issue an admission certificate.

Decision

1. The application for immediate admission was refused. Section 3(1)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974 imposes an important public-interest requirement: the Law Society must be satisfied, when the application for its certificate is considered, that the applicant is of suitable character to be a solicitor.

2. The earlier decisions of the Chief Adjudicator did not prevent the Society from performing that duty. Those decisions were relevant, particularly because the adjudicator had applied the same standard when considering Dr Malik’s registration as a foreign lawyer. They were not determinative of the later admission application. Regulation 18 of the Qualified Lawyers' Transfer Regulations 1990 also contemplated that the Society might oppose admission despite an earlier eligibility certificate.

3. There was additional material requiring consideration. It was not right to exclude a substantial body of complaints simply because no impropriety had yet been proved. The material had properly been referred to the Exceptional Applications Casework Committee. The court would not direct that committee how to decide the application or which allegations to disregard.

4. The committee was to treat the Regulation Department’s introductory material as submissions, not instructions. It should give due weight to the earlier adjudicator’s decisions, but reach its own judgment on whether subsequent events justified a different view of present character and suitability.

5. The court nevertheless criticised the Law Society’s delay, its initially unsatisfactory committee composition, and its inadequate explanations. Costs were in effect costs in the cause: Dr Malik would recover the costs of this hearing if he succeeded before the committee; otherwise there would be no order for costs. The costs order was not to be disclosed to the committee.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Phillips MR refused the application for immediate admission and left the application to be determined by the reconstituted Exceptional Applications Casework Committee.
• Law Society: The Society had not issued or refused the requested certificate under the Solicitors Admission Regulations 1994. It referred the application to the Exceptional Applications Casework Committee for determination.