Sooriakumar v Law Society

A solicitor who is held out as a partner remains responsible for compliance with the firm’s professional obligations, even if he takes no active part in the practice. Failure to discharge those responsibilities may constitute conduct unbefitting a solicitor. In disciplinary appeals, the tribunal is the expert body best placed to assess misconduct and sanction. An appellate court should interfere only in a clear case. A fine may be proportionate where the misconduct is serious but dishonesty is neither alleged nor established.

This was a statutory appeal under the Solicitors Act 1974 against findings and a fine imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The appellant had been a partner in Tooting Law Chambers but had played no active role and had not been a signatory to its accounts. The Tribunal found that he had lent his name to the partnership and had failed to discharge the responsibilities of a solicitor-partner.

The appeal concerned both conviction and sentence. The central issues were whether inactivity relieved the appellant of responsibility for breaches of the Solicitors Accounts’ Rules 1998 and whether the fine of £7,500 was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant’s inactivity did not relieve him of responsibility. He was held out publicly as a partner and was therefore responsible for compliance with the Solicitors Accounts’ Rules 1998. His abdication of that responsibility was a serious professional failing.
2. The Tribunal had properly considered the appellant’s evidence and was entitled to conclude that his conduct was unbefitting a solicitor. The absence of dishonesty did not make the misconduct insignificant.
3. In determining sanction, the court applied the approach in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512. Professional discipline protects public confidence in solicitors’ integrity, probity and trustworthiness. Dishonesty ordinarily attracts the gravest sanctions, but misconduct falling below the required standards remains serious even where dishonesty is absent.
4. The court also applied the appellate restraint described in Newfield v Law Society [2005] EWHC 765 (Admin). The disciplinary tribunal is best placed to assess the seriousness of professional misconduct. Its decision on sanction should not be disturbed unless it is clearly wrong or outside its discretion.
5. The £7,500 fine was within the Tribunal’s discretion and was commensurate and proportionate. The comparison with another solicitor’s lesser sanction did not undermine the Tribunal’s reasoning because the mitigating circumstances differed.
6. The respondent’s costs were summarily assessed at £7,179.25 including VAT, payable by the appellant.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings and £7,500 fine were upheld. Costs were summarily assessed at £7,179.25 including VAT.