Razeen, Re a Solicitor No. 15 of 2008

Conditions on a solicitor’s practising certificate are regulatory, not penal. Their purpose is to protect the public interest; protection of the profession’s reputation is incidental to that purpose. The regulator must identify the specific risk which the conditions address, because without doing so it cannot assess their reasonableness or proportionality. It must weigh all the circumstances, including favourable as well as adverse matters. A solicitor’s knowing and sustained failure to ensure required supervision can establish a sufficient risk that professional rules will not be followed, justifying conditions requiring supervised or approved practice. Such conditions need not necessarily continue for a substantial period, and later evidence of compliant practice may support an unconditional certificate.

Mr Razeen, a solicitor qualified in Sri Lanka and admitted in England, appealed conditions imposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority on his 2007/2008 practising certificate. The conditions required him to practise in employment or partnership, or under approved arrangements in an incorporated practice, and to disclose them to relevant persons.

The conditions followed a reprimand by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after Mr Razeen admitted failing to ensure that a partnership was adequately and properly supervised. An allegation that the partnership was a sham had been withdrawn. He sought an unconditional certificate or permission to practise alone on limited terms. The central issue was whether the restrictions were necessary and proportionate to an identified public risk.

Appeal dismissed. Sir Anthony Clarke MR upheld the conditions imposed on Mr Razeen’s practising certificate.

1. Regulatory purpose. The power to impose practising-certificate conditions is regulatory rather than penal. Its purpose is to protect the public interest. Protecting the reputation of the profession is an incident of that public-interest purpose. The court applied the principle stated in Re A Solicitor No. 6 of 1993, that conditions may provide professional oversight until supervision is shown to be unnecessary.
2. Risk, necessity and proportionality. The regulator must identify the specific risk which the conditions are intended to address. Without identifying the risk, it cannot properly assess the reasonableness or proportionality of the conditions. It must consider all the circumstances, including both adverse and favourable matters. The fact that the original officer may not have had the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s findings in mind did not undermine the decision, because the adjudicator had considered them on appeal.
3. Application. Mr Razeen had practised for nearly three years while knowingly failing to ensure the supervision required under the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990. That established a clearly apparent risk that he would not ensure compliance with professional regulations. The adjudicator had not found that the partnership was a sham; the relevant finding was that Mr Razeen operated unsupervised while knowing that supervision was required. His competent conduct of the practice, compliant books and absence of client complaints were positive matters, but did not remove the identified risk. The conditions were therefore necessary and proportionate.
4. Duration and future review. The conditions did not necessarily need to remain in force for a substantial period. Because the evidence of Mr Razeen’s attempts to obtain employment was insufficiently detailed, the court dismissed the appeal but indicated that he should provide precise particulars to the regulator. A comparatively short period of approved employment, together with his experience and evidence of compliant practice, might support an unconditional certificate on a future application.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mr Razeen appealed against the conditions upheld by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The appeal was dismissed: [2008] EWCA Civ 1220.
2. Solicitors Regulation Authority: an authorised officer imposed the conditions on 12 February 2008. An adjudicator dismissed Mr Razeen’s appeal on 25 March 2008.
3. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: after the allegation of sham partnership was withdrawn, Mr Razeen admitted failing to ensure adequate and proper supervision. The Tribunal reprimanded him and ordered him jointly liable for costs.