Solicitor, Re A

Under regulation 12(a) of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990, the Law Society has a general discretion to determine which heads of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test an applicant must take. In exercising that discretion it must consider all relevant circumstances, including the applicant’s knowledge and experience of the relevant area of English law and, in particular, practical experience. The routes under regulations 12(a) and 12(b), implementing different European regimes, pursue a common objective by different means and cannot be assimilated so that the criteria in one route weaken the requirements of the other. Academic qualifications and overseas practice may be relevant, but do not themselves justify exemption where the applicant lacks equivalent practical or vocational experience in a common-law jurisdiction or in England and Wales.

Dr Sabine Pittrof, a German-qualified lawyer, applied under regulation 12(a) of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990 for exemption from the property and litigation heads of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test. She relied on an Australian law degree, academic qualifications and practical experience in Germany.

The Law Society granted exemption from the common-law head but refused exemption from property and litigation. A reviewing adjudicator confirmed that decision. Dr Pittrof appealed to the Master of the Rolls under regulation 17(1)(b) of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990 and regulation 27 of the Master of the Rolls (Appeals and Applications) Regulations 2001. The central issue was whether the Law Society had exercised its discretion on a wrong principle by failing to treat her qualifications and experience as equivalent to those relevant to other routes to admission.

1. Application refused. The Law Society’s adjudicators had exercised their discretion within its proper ambit and on no wrong principle.

2. The route under regulation 12(a), implementing Directive 89/48/EEC, and the route under regulation 12(b), implementing Directive 98/5/EC, pursue the same broad objective but use different means. The first relies on recognition followed, where required, by an aptitude test; the second relies on integration through professional practice in the host state. The two regimes cannot be assimilated, and criteria under one cannot be used to undercut the requirements of the other.

3. An Australian-qualified lawyer differs materially from an applicant holding only an Australian academic qualification. Admission in Australia involves vocational and practical training in a common-law jurisdiction. Without equivalent training and experience in property or litigation law, the applicant’s law degree did not justify treatment under regulation 12(a) equivalent to that available under regulation 11(1).

4. Regulation 5 required the Law Society, when making determinations under regulations 6–15, to have regard to the nature and extent of the applicant’s practical experience in the law of England and Wales and to any other qualification. Accordingly, the discretion under regulation 12(a) required consideration of all relevant circumstances, including knowledge and experience of the relevant area of English law, with particular weight given to practical experience.

5. The applicant’s academic experience of Australian law, common-law principles and cross-border work, and her German practice, were not practical experience gained in the practice of England and Wales. The refusal of exemption from the property and litigation heads therefore fell within the proper exercise of the Law Society’s discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dr Pittrof appealed the Law Society’s refusal, following a review by a second adjudicator. The application for exemption from the property and litigation heads was refused: [2007] EWCA Civ 597.