In the matter of the Solicitors Act 1974 v Re A Solicitor

Practising-certificate conditions may be imposed only where they are necessary in the interests of the public and the reputation of the profession. They must also be reasonable and proportionate. The relevant reputation is that of the profession as a whole, rather than that of its regulator.

A serious and recent regulatory and disciplinary history may justify conditions requiring oversight of a solicitor’s practice while the solicitor establishes a satisfactory record of compliance. The justification is assessed on the material available when the conditions were imposed. A fresh application for a later practising certificate must nevertheless take account of the solicitor’s current circumstances.

The appellant solicitor challenged conditions imposed on his 2007/2008 practising certificate by an authorised officer of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. An SRA Adjudicator dismissed his internal appeal.

The conditions restricted him to practice in an approved employment, partnership, or incorporated-practice arrangement, and required disclosure of the conditions to prospective professional associates. They followed disciplinary findings concerning accounts-rule breaches, conflicts of interest, and failures to disclose material information, together with further regulatory history.

The alternative request to approve an earlier partnership was no longer live because the proposed partner had been struck off. The central issue was whether the conditions on the 2007/2008 certificate were justified, reasonable, and proportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the conditions imposed on the 2007/2008 practising certificate were justified when imposed and were reasonable and proportionate.

2. The SRA officer and Adjudicator had misstated the governing test by referring to confidence in the SRA’s regulation of the profession. The correct question is whether conditions are necessary in the interests of the public and the reputation of the profession as a whole. Necessity alone is insufficient: the conditions must also be reasonable and proportionate. This was the test stated in Awan v The Law Society, [2003] EWCA Civ 1969, and restated in Brandon v The Law Society, [2008] EWCA Civ 967.

3. Applying that test afresh, the solicitor’s admitted disciplinary breaches, the SDT’s assessment that the conduct was at the serious end of the scale, and his wider regulatory history justified supervision. The conditions appropriately required him to demonstrate over time that he could practise consistently with his professional obligations. The absence of an allegation of dishonesty did not render the admitted misconduct minor or make the safeguards disproportionate.

4. The court could not determine approval of the former partnership arrangement in this appeal. In any event, that application had become impossible after the proposed partner was struck off. The later application for a 2008/2009 certificate was for the SRA to determine. It had to consider both the historical record and the solicitor’s current position, including the suitability of his new partner, without the court prejudging that decision.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the solicitor’s appeal and upheld the conditions on the 2007/2008 practising certificate.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority Adjudicator: on 30 May 2008 dismissed the solicitor’s appeal from the authorised officer’s decision.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority authorised officer: on 2 April 2008 imposed the practising-certificate conditions.