Firmin, Re Solicitors' Admissions Regulations 1974

When deciding whether to impose restrictive conditions on a solicitor’s practising certificate, the decision-maker must act fairly and proportionately. Material adverse history should not be relied on at the final stage if it has not been put to the solicitor as a possible basis for the proposed conditions. Past complaints may be considered in a later assessment where they are properly relevant to the overall picture, but they cannot by themselves justify conditions that would effectively prevent practice. Where a disciplinary tribunal has made strong favourable findings about mitigation, those findings cannot properly be challenged only through general submissions on appeal.

Mr Martin Firmin appealed against a Review Panel decision made on behalf of the Law Society. The Panel had allowed his out-of-time review application but dismissed the review and maintained a condition on his practising certificate requiring him to practise only in approved employment, partnership or an approved incorporated practice.

The condition followed failures to deliver accountants’ reports, although the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal had found the allegations proved but accepted that Mr Firmin had done everything possible to arrange filing and made no substantive order against him. The central issues were whether the Review Panel had fairly relied on Mr Firmin’s wider disciplinary history and whether the condition was justified and proportionate.

1. Appeal allowed. The first condition on Mr Firmin’s practising certificate was removed. The Law Society was ordered to pay his costs of £350 plus VAT. The period for compliance with the second condition was extended by three months from the date of judgment.
2. The Review Panel had relied on Mr Firmin’s overall history and earlier breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules, although the original decision and the recommendation for review had focused exclusively on the late submission of accounts. The earlier complaints related to the period before the relevant practice amalgamation and had not been put to Mr Firmin as a possible basis for imposing the restrictive conditions. Taking them into account at the final stage was inconsistent with fair process.
3. The earlier history could not properly justify the conditions. It remained open to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors to consider future complaints together with past history if further concerns arose, but that wider assessment was not properly before the court.
4. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal had accepted, in strong terms, that Mr Firmin had done everything reasonably possible to comply with the accountants’ report obligations and had been let down by his accountant. The Law Society had not specifically challenged those findings. General submissions by its advocate were insufficient to undermine them.
5. Against the accepted mitigation, the remaining failure to obtain the reports did not make it proportionate or justified to impose a condition likely to require Mr Firmin to cease practising. The first condition was therefore disapplied.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Firmin, Re Solicitors' Admissions Regulations 1974 [2003] EWCA Civ 1478 — appeal allowed; the first practising-certificate condition was removed, time for compliance with the second condition was extended by three months, and costs were awarded to Mr Firmin.