Gregory v The Law Society

An order under section 43(1)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974 is protective rather than punitive. It may be made without a finding of dishonesty where conduct arising in a solicitors’ practice makes it undesirable for the person concerned to be employed there without supervision. Section 43(1)(a), concerning criminal offences, does not limit the natural meaning of section 43(1)(b). The court should respect the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s assessment, intervening only where its decision is unjust, inappropriate, disproportionate or unreasonable.

The claimant appealed against an order made by the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The order required the Law Society’s written permission before he could be employed by a solicitor, registered European lawyer or incorporated solicitors practice.

The Tribunal had found that he had recklessly described himself as a solicitor or trainee solicitor when unqualified, and had pursued a claim for costs which he knew or ought to have known was unjustified. It made no finding of dishonesty, but held that the two matters cumulatively demonstrated the need for regulatory control. The central issue was whether that conduct fell within section 43(1)(b) and whether the order was proportionate.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The order under section 43 was upheld, with the Law Society’s costs subject to detailed assessment.

2. Section 43 is protective, not punitive. Its purposes include protecting the public, maintaining confidence in the solicitors’ profession and ensuring appropriate control over persons whose past conduct demonstrates a need for supervision. The order does not prohibit employment; it requires prior approval and permits scrutiny of the proposed employment circumstances.

3. A finding of dishonesty is not required under section 43(1)(b). Dishonesty would strengthen the case for an order, but conduct falling short of dishonesty may suffice if it makes employment in connection with a solicitors’ practice undesirable. Section 43(1)(a), which concerns criminal activity, does not restrict the ordinary meaning of section 43(1)(b), which concerns conduct arising within the practice.

4. The Tribunal was entitled to consider the claimant’s conduct cumulatively. His reckless misdescriptions, combined with pursuing a substantial costs claim unsupported by any agreement and using a solicitors’ firm to pursue it, were capable of satisfying section 43(1)(b). The fact that he had been poorly supervised and had acted without deliberate dishonesty were mitigating matters, but did not prevent the order.

5. On an appeal under section 49(4), the court should accord appropriate respect to the Tribunal’s assessment of misconduct and the measures required to maintain standards and public confidence. It must nevertheless consider whether the decision was just, appropriate and proportionate. Mere disagreement with the course the court itself might have taken is insufficient. The circumstances did not justify interference.

• High Court (Administrative Court): upheld the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s section 43 order and dismissed the appeal.