Stokes v Law Society

A disciplinary tribunal must determine the real issue raised by the charges and evidence. In a solicitor-conduct case involving instructions through agents, that required consideration of the solicitor’s authority and whether communications with the client’s agents were sufficient, rather than treating the client’s identity as the sole issue. Findings against another person, including that person’s admissions, cannot be treated as evidence against the solicitor without proper analysis. Where the tribunal’s reasoning is materially affected by those errors or by failure to consider significant documents, its decision may be quashed. Disorderly appeal bundles may also affect costs.

The claimant, a solicitor, appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision finding him guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor. He had conducted litigation in the name of Nordstern while receiving instructions through intermediaries.

The appeal concerned his authority to act, whether direct communication with Nordstern was required, and whether communications with intermediaries were sufficient. It also concerned the Tribunal’s treatment of the evidence and significant documents.

1. Appeal allowed. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision dated 22 April 2003 was quashed.
2. The Tribunal had focused on the wrong question. The issue was not simply whether Nordstern was the claimant’s client, but whether the claimant had authority to act and whether communications through Bentley and Insurance Recovery Services were sufficient to keep Nordstern informed.
3. The Tribunal’s reasoning was fatally undermined by several errors. It stated that Bentley had given oral evidence when he had not. Bentley’s admissions and findings against him could not properly be treated as evidence against the claimant. The Tribunal failed adequately to consider significant correspondence, including the letter from Insurance Recovery Services to Gustav Ziegler dated 7 August 1996 and the claimant’s letter to Ziegler dated 3 March 1995. It also failed to address the absence of any complaint by Nordstern or Ziegler.
4. The professional duties relied upon by the Law Society could support a finding against the claimant only if communications with the intermediaries were inadequate to keep Nordstern properly informed. That issue had not been properly determined.
5. The Law Society was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the appeal and one third of his costs before the Tribunal. The chaotic appeal bundles were relevant to the costs order, applying the warning given in Haggis v the DPP.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: On 22 April 2003, the Tribunal found the claimant guilty, fined him £5,000 and reprimanded him.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 was allowed and the Tribunal’s decision was quashed. The Law Society was ordered to pay the claimant’s appeal costs and one third of his costs below.