Ndjoli (A Solicitor), Re

An applicant for admission as a student member of the Law Society bears the burden of establishing the requisite character and suitability. The assessment protects the public and the reputation of the profession; it is not concerned with punishment, reward or redemption.

Convictions for dishonesty make it rare for an applicant to satisfy that test. The nature of the dishonesty and the applicant’s part in it remain material, but personal mitigation will usually carry limited weight. An applicant seeking to overcome the effect of such convictions must provide a coherent and evidenced account capable of showing exceptional circumstances or rehabilitation.

The appellant had applied for student enrolment while undertaking the legal practice course. He disclosed three convictions for benefit fraud under section 111A of the Social Security Administration Act 1991. The Solicitors Regulation Authority refused enrolment under regulation 6(4)(i) of the Training Regulations 1990, and its review panel upheld that refusal.

He appealed under regulation 6(4)(ii). He relied on remorse, personal and family circumstances, the passage of time and references. Before the Court of Appeal he gave a further and materially fuller account of the offending. The central issue was whether the regulator had erred in finding that the convictions and the available evidence showed insufficient character and suitability for student membership.

1. Appeal dismissed. Sir Anthony Clarke MR held that the decisions of the adjudicator and review panel were entirely justified. The Solicitors Regulation Authority had made no error of principle.

2. The applicable inquiry was one of character and suitability, directed to risk to the public and to the profession’s reputation rather than punishment, reward or redemption. The applicant bore the burden of satisfying that inquiry. The facts of each case remained important, including the nature of the wrongdoing and the applicant’s part in it: Jideofo v The Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 3.

3. Dishonesty is especially significant because the profession depends upon the honesty and good faith of its members. It will therefore be rare for a person convicted of dishonesty to establish the requisite character for admission as either a student member or a solicitor. Personal mitigation is relevant but ordinarily carries little weight. Exceptional circumstances may in principle justify admission, but the present facts did not do so.

4. The three benefit-fraud convictions were the necessary starting point. The appellant had not shown that they were wrongful. His successive accounts were confused and did not reliably reconcile the dates of the offences, the convictions, or his explanation of the benefit claims. His personal achievements, family circumstances and references did not displace the effect of those convictions on the material available.

5. Any future application would require a coherent, documented account of the events, supported where appropriate by relevant evidence. On the evidence before the court, the refusal of student enrolment stood.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the refusal of student enrolment.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority review panel. Upheld the refusal of the application for student membership.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority adjudicator. Refused student enrolment under regulation 6(4)(i) of the Training Regulations 1990.