In the Matter of the Solicitor's Act 1974; Re A Solicitor (No 15 of 2001) (Errol Weston Ellis-Carr)

Restoration to the roll after striking-off for criminal dishonesty is exceptional. The decision is not principally punitive and, where public reoffending is not the concern, the central issue is whether restoration would preserve the standing of the solicitors’ profession. Rehabilitation is highly significant: the longer the applicant behaves exemplarily after the offence, the greater the weight it attracts. The disciplinary tribunal retains a discretion and must assess whether the applicant has become a person of unquestionable integrity, propriety and trustworthiness. A previous refusal does not permanently close the door, but an appellate court should interfere only where the tribunal has applied the wrong legal approach or reached a decision lacking a proper basis.

The appellant, a solicitor struck from the roll after convictions for five counts of theft involving client money, applied again for restoration. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal refused the application on 10 October 2001, having considered the exceptional nature of restoration, the seriousness of the misconduct, the compensation-fund losses and the unpaid debt.

This was a renewed appeal following an earlier refusal of restoration in December 1997, which Lord Woolf MR upheld in June 1998 after correcting the tribunal’s approach to its discretion. The central issues were whether the tribunal had again treated restoration as effectively unavailable and whether the additional period of rehabilitation justified appellate intervention.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Master of the Rolls held that the tribunal had not approached the application as though it possessed no discretion. Its quotation from Bolton v The Law Society and reference to the governing principles did not support that inference.
2. The relevant issue was not punishment. Nor was there a realistic concern that the appellant would reoffend if restored. The decisive consideration was the standing of the solicitors’ profession and whether restoration could occur without endangering that standing.
3. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal was well placed to decide whether, and when, restoration could properly take place. Rehabilitation was a significant factor. The longer a struck-off solicitor conducted himself in an exemplary manner after the offence, the greater the weight to be given to that rehabilitation.
4. The previous decision had not permanently barred a further application. In an appropriate future case, the tribunal might be satisfied that, notwithstanding serious offences, a reasonable member of the public would be confident that the applicant was a person of unquestionable integrity, propriety and trustworthiness. The present tribunal had not reached that conclusion.
5. There was no proper basis for the court to allow the appeal and thereby overrule the tribunal’s decision. The Law Society was awarded its costs, there being no special circumstances justifying departure from the ordinary order.

• Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal: refused restoration to the roll on 10 October 2001.
• Court of Appeal: dismissed the renewed appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the Law Society’s costs.