In the Matter of the Solicitor's Act 1974; Re A Solicitor (No 4 of 2002) (David Robert Martin)

When considering whether to continue a practising-certificate condition, the Law Society’s reasons must fairly represent whether reports are due under the statutory timetable. A report is not outstanding under section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974 merely because an additional condition requires earlier filing. A pending appeal and confusing correspondence may explain delay, but do not by themselves excuse late filing. If overdue accounts are submitted satisfactorily under an undertaking, the next certificate may issue without a special accounting condition, leaving the normal statutory obligations to apply.

Mr Martin, a sole-practising solicitor, appealed from the Law Society’s decision to continue a condition on his practising certificate requiring half-yearly accountants’ reports within two months of each period. The condition followed a late report for the accounting period ending 30 April 1998 and was maintained by an adjudicator and the Review Panel. Mr Martin argued that the Panel’s stated reason—that reports for periods ending 30 October 2000 and 30 April 2001 were outstanding—was misleading because the reports were not yet due under section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The central issue was whether the condition should continue.

1. Appeal and reconsideration. Lord Phillips MR concluded that Mr Martin had good grounds for objecting to the Review Panel’s only stated reason. On 16 October 2001 no accountant’s report was outstanding under section 34 of the Solicitors Act 1974; the reports were outstanding only by reference to the special conditions imposed on his certificate.
2. The Court accepted that Mr Martin’s uncertainty about whether to instruct accountants to prepare six-monthly or annual accounts was not, by itself, a satisfactory explanation for the late report. It nevertheless recognised that the Law Society’s correspondence, including repeated references to requests for extensions while the appeal was pending and the absence of a response from the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, was liable to cause confusion.
3. Mr Martin undertook to submit the previous year’s accounts in proper form within 28 days. If he complied satisfactorily, the Court considered that his next practising certificate should not contain a special condition concerning accounts. The statutory obligation to submit the required reports would then apply normally and should be observed strictly.
4. The application was adjourned. If the Law Society was satisfied that the undertaking had been fulfilled, it could notify the Master of the Rolls’ clerk and no further hearing would be necessary; Mr Martin would then receive his next certificate without the accounting condition. If not, the matter could be restored for further consideration.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from the Law Society’s Review Panel decision, Lord Phillips MR adjourned the application pending compliance with the undertaking. The matter could be restored if compliance was unsatisfactory; otherwise the next practising certificate would issue without the special accounting condition.