Krivinskas v Law Society

A disciplinary tribunal may find dishonesty without proof of a corrupt motive. The question is whether the solicitor knowingly acted dishonestly when the facts are assessed directly. Introducing a prospective borrower to a person facing fraud charges, without warning of that material fact, could itself constitute dishonest conduct. A tribunal need not explain every finding of fact, but it must give intelligible reasons on the key issues. Its reasons are read as a whole.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Peter Edward Krivinskas guilty of several professional misconduct allegations, including mishandling client funds, breach of an undertaking, acting despite a conflict of interest, and dishonestly introducing a prospective borrower to George Steen, who was facing fraud charges concerning similar loan transactions. The tribunal struck him off the Roll.

On his appeal as of right, he argued that dishonesty had not been proved, that the tribunal’s reasons were inadequate, and that missing documents might have affected its decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the tribunal’s findings and the order striking the claimant from the Roll.
2. A corrupt motive is not a necessary element of dishonesty. The test must be applied directly to the facts. The claimant knowingly introduced Mr L to Steen for loan funding while aware that Steen faced charges involving similar loan frauds. Mr L was not warned and was exposed to a very high risk of being defrauded. That conduct was capable of being regarded by solicitors as dishonest.
3. The claimant’s changing explanations did not, by themselves, prove dishonesty. They were relevant to whether he knowingly acted dishonestly. The tribunal was entitled to infer knowledge from the obvious risk, the claimant’s previous involvement in a transaction bearing a strong scent of fraud, the disappearance of documents, and the remaining documentary evidence.
4. The tribunal’s reasons were adequate when read as a whole. It need not justify every finding of fact, but it had to explain how it resolved the key issues. Its reasoning made clear why it concluded that the claimant knew his conduct was dishonest.
5. The tribunal’s reasoning on the separate allegation of attempting to mislead the investigator contained a non sequitur, and its reference to other transactions bearing the hallmarks of fraud was inapt. Neither matter was integral to the completed reasoning on dishonesty.
6. The non-production of 26 documents could not assist the claimant. None could have affected the tribunal’s conclusion. Since the dishonesty finding stood, the striking-off penalty also stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision of 11 February 2005 to strike the claimant from the Roll.