A Solicitor, Re

The Solicitors Regulation Authority may impose conditions on a practising certificate in its regulatory jurisdiction, even where the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has imposed disciplinary sanctions without equivalent conditions. The two jurisdictions are distinct. The Tribunal’s decision is a significant factor, but it does not bind the Authority. Conditions are lawful where necessary and proportionate to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. A restriction requiring practice only within an approved employment, partnership or incorporated practice may be proportionate where the solicitor requires support.

Mr Olufeko appealed under section 13(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a Solicitors Regulation Authority adjudicator’s decision granting him a practising certificate subject to three conditions. The conditions restricted him to approved employment, partnership or incorporated practice, required disclosure of the conditions and their reasons, and prohibited him from acting as a training principal or supervisor.

The conditions followed disciplinary findings by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, including a three-month suspension, although the Tribunal had not imposed practising-certificate conditions. The appeal concerned the relationship between the Tribunal’s disciplinary jurisdiction and the Authority’s regulatory jurisdiction, and whether the conditions were unreasonable or disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Authority had jurisdiction to impose conditions on a practising certificate in order to protect the interests of the public and the reputation of the profession. Its jurisdiction was regulatory, not punitive, and was distinct from the Tribunal’s disciplinary jurisdiction under the Solicitors Act 1974.
2. Under Camacho v the Law Society [2004] EWHC 1042 (Admin), the Authority could not bind itself to accept a recommendation from the Tribunal. It had to consider the practising-certificate application on the material available when made. The Tribunal’s failure to impose conditions remained a significant factor which the Authority had to take into account, but it did not determine the regulatory decision.
3. The adjudicator was entitled to conclude that, having regard to the solicitor’s regulatory and disciplinary history, he required support and should not practise alone. The condition limiting practice to employment, partnership or an approved incorporated solicitors’ practice was reasonable and proportionate. The disclosure and training-supervision conditions were also unobjectionable.
4. Approval of the proposed firm or practice was not inherently unreasonable or disproportionate. Approval should be given where there was no good reason to refuse it. Conditions might be removed after a reasonable period of compliant practice. Any future application should set out in detail the attempts made to obtain employment or a partnership.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2007] EWCA Civ 840. Appeal from the Solicitors Regulation Authority adjudicator’s decision dated 14 February 2007; appeal dismissed.