Ali & Anor, Re Solicitors No 21 & 22 of 2007

Assessment of a prospective solicitor’s character and suitability is a high, regulatory assessment directed to protecting the public and the profession. It is not a punishment. The nature of the misconduct, the person’s part in it, and any risk flowing from it require individual examination.

Where dishonesty is alleged, the Law Society should prove it to the civil standard and state clearly whether it has been found. The absence of dishonesty is significant but does not itself establish suitability. Academic misconduct involving a false declaration may justify revocation without dishonesty, but the decision must reflect the precise conduct and any genuine explanation. The appellate power under the Training Regulations 1990 permits an order removing a prohibition where current suitability is shown, without quashing the original revocation.

These joined appeals arose from alleged academic collusion during a Legal Practice Course written assessment. Each appellant submitted a declaration that the work was unaided and that she had not consulted anyone about it.

The Law Society revoked both appellants’ student memberships on 6 February 2007. Its Adjudication Panel upheld those decisions on review. Ms Ali admitted obtaining another student’s assistance with her draft. Ms Naeem admitted seeking assistance from Ms Ali and looking at a page of Ms Ali’s draft. Neither Law Society decision made a finding of dishonesty.

The central issues were whether the appellants lacked the requisite character and suitability despite the absence of such a finding, and whether the court could remove the prohibition on Ms Naeem pursuing a training contract while leaving the revocation decision intact.

1. Ms Ali’s appeal was allowed and the Law Society’s revocation order was quashed. Ms Naeem’s appeal was allowed in part. The revocation decision remained in force, but the prohibition on her pursuing a training contract was removed.

2. The character and suitability inquiry is regulatory. It asks whether admission would create a risk to the public or the profession’s reputation, rather than whether the person deserves punishment, reward or redemption. The facts of the individual case are critical. Dishonesty normally has particular importance because professional reputation depends upon members’ honesty and good faith.

3. Where the Law Society positively alleges dishonesty, it should prove it to the appropriate civil standard. Its adjudicators and panels should determine expressly whether dishonesty is established and record that conclusion. The absence of a dishonesty finding was a significant factor for each appellant, although it did not prevent a finding that a person lacked suitable character.

4. Ms Ali had breached the declaration by consulting another student and by submitting work that was not wholly unaided. However, the evidence supported her genuine belief that third-party proofreading was permitted. The permissible scope of proofreading had not been made sufficiently clear, and no investigation had tested her account. On the available material, the Panel had been wrong to find that she failed the character and suitability test.

5. Ms Naeem had plainly breached the declaration. Her conduct was negligent and she had no comparable explanation for thinking that consultation was allowed. The original decision was therefore not quashed. However, her subsequent responsible employment, references and present understanding of the seriousness of the conduct established that she then satisfied the test. Regulation 32(3)(ii) of the Training Regulations 1990 gave the court power to make that alternative order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Ms Ali’s appeal was allowed and the revocation order was quashed. Ms Naeem’s appeal was allowed in part; the revocation decision was retained, but the prohibition on pursuing a training contract was removed.
• Law Society Adjudication Panel: upheld the revocation decisions on review. The judgment records 20 August 2007 for Ms Ali and 20 July 2007 for Ms Naeem, although it later records 20 August 2007 for Ms Naeem.
• Law Society: revoked both appellants’ student memberships on 6 February 2007.