Dhillon v Law Society

A disciplinary tribunal must make positive findings on material factual issues and give effect to findings it has made. A solicitor’s failure to comply with a compensation direction may amount to conduct unbefitting a solicitor, even where there was an earlier informal attempt to pay. In assessing penalty, the tribunal must reflect relevant mitigating findings, including an attempted payment, a later payment and health problems. The reviewing court gives due deference to the tribunal’s expertise, but may intervene where the penalty is inappropriate or the tribunal’s approach is flawed.

A solicitor appealed against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal finding that she had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor by failing to comply with a direction requiring payment of £350 compensation to a former client. The tribunal imposed a fine of £3,500 and ordered payment of the application and inquiry costs.

The appellant contended that there had been an attempted payment, that the tribunal had failed to deal properly with the evidential and correspondence issues, and that the penalty was excessive. The central issues were whether the tribunal’s finding could stand and whether the penalty and costs order were appropriate.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The tribunal’s ruling that there was no case to answer had been inadequate because the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors should have proved non-payment. That evidential gap was subsequently closed by the solicitor’s evidence, which accepted that no effective payment had been made before 2 January 2003. It was therefore inappropriate to set aside the finding solely because of the earlier procedural error.
2. The tribunal was required to make a positive finding on the alleged telephone call of 12 December 2001. It was also required to give proper effect to its finding that the solicitor had attempted to pay by delivering a cheque to the address then believed to be the client’s home. That finding materially affected the seriousness of the conduct and the penalty.
3. The finding of conduct unbefitting a solicitor was justified. The solicitor had not made effective payment for more than a year, did not adequately respond to correspondence, did not check whether the cheque had cleared and did not follow up her telephone call. The tribunal was entitled to regard the resulting inactivity as conduct that could not be countenanced.
4. The fine of £3,500 was inappropriate and out of line with the circumstances. The court gave due deference to the tribunal’s expertise, as recognised in