Ojelade v The Law Society

A Solicitors Act 1974 section 43 order is regulatory, not punitive. It protects public confidence in the solicitors’ profession and permits control over persons employed in solicitors’ practices. The appellate court should respect the informed judgment of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal unless it has erred in principle or reached an unsustainable conclusion. A tribunal may make a full or partial costs order after considering the allegations proved and the circumstances. Where the appellant’s counsel agreed that the order and full costs were appropriate, and the tribunal had evaluated the evidence and mitigation, there was no basis to interfere.

The claimant, a Nigerian-qualified lawyer who was not a United Kingdom solicitor, appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The tribunal had made a section 43 order restricting his employment in connection with a solicitor’s practice without the Law Society’s written permission and had ordered him to pay the Law Society’s costs.

The tribunal found that he had acted without his employer’s knowledge or authority in representing a client of another firm, but rejected the more serious allegation that he had misrepresented the firm under whose supervision he was acting. The issues were whether the section 43 order was unnecessary or disproportionate and whether the full costs order was erroneous.

1. Appeal dismissed. The section 43 order and the tribunal’s costs order were upheld.
2. A section 43 order under the Solicitors Act 1974 is a regulatory safeguard, not a punishment. Its purpose is to protect the reputation of the solicitors’ profession and maintain public confidence in solicitors and their employees.
3. The order was justified notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances and the tribunal’s rejection of the allegation that the claimant had dishonestly misrepresented his position. Acting for a person who was not a client of the claimant’s employer, and who was instead a client of another firm with which he had no connection, constituted a serious error of judgment warranting closer supervision.
4. The court was required to respect the tribunal’s informed and expert assessment. The fact that the appellate court might have adopted a different approach was insufficient to justify intervention. The tribunal had considered the claimant’s financial circumstances and mitigation and had not acted disproportionately.
5. As to costs, Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2006] EWHC 643 Admin confirmed that a tribunal could make a partial costs order where some allegations failed. It did not follow that the Law Society should pay part of the claimant’s costs. In this case counsel had agreed, without subsequent objection, that a full costs order subject to detailed assessment was appropriate. The tribunal was best placed to assess the relative importance of the allegations and had not erred in giving effect to that position.
6. The court made no order as to the costs of the appeal. The tribunal’s existing costs order remained in force.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: On 19 January 2006, with detailed reasons issued on 15 February 2006, made a section 43 order restricting the claimant’s employment in a solicitor’s practice and ordered him to pay the Law Society’s costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 was dismissed. The tribunal’s orders were upheld.