L v The Law Society

An appeal concerning admission to, or discipline within, the solicitors’ profession must ordinarily be heard in public. Spent convictions do not themselves constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a private hearing under rule 10 of the Master of the Rolls (Appeals and Applications) Regulations 2001.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 confers defined protections but does not make spent convictions confidential. Its admissions exemption extends to an independent appeal from the regulator’s decision. Confidentiality promised during the regulator’s internal process creates no legitimate expectation of confidentiality before an independent tribunal whose proceedings are presumptively public.

Whether privacy is justified depends on necessity and the interests of justice. Personal embarrassment, distress and possible adverse publicity are insufficient where open proceedings protect public confidence in the integrity of a regulated profession.

The Law Society revoked L’s student membership after reconsidering whether he possessed the character and suitability required for eventual admission as a solicitor. Following an unsuccessful internal review, L brought a substantive appeal to the Master of the Rolls under regulation 32(3)(ii) of the Training Regulations 1990.

L applied for the appeal to be heard in private. He relied principally on the fact that his criminal convictions were spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. He also relied on the confidentiality of information provided during the admissions process, his private life under articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the possible effects of publicity upon his work and family.

The central issue was whether those matters amounted to exceptional circumstances under rule 10 of the Master of the Rolls (Appeals and Applications) Regulations 2001, sufficient to displace the general requirement for a public hearing.

1. The application was refused. Rule 10 of the Master of the Rolls (Appeals and Applications) Regulations 2001 establishes public hearings as the general rule. Because the Law Society did not consent to a private hearing, L had to establish exceptional circumstances. Neither the spent convictions nor the additional matters relied upon met that standard.

2. The protections conferred by section 4(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 are subject to exceptions. Applications for admission to the solicitors’ profession are exempt under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. The exemption extends to proceedings concerning admission and therefore covered the substantive appeal. For that process, spent and unspent convictions stand on the same footing.

3. The 1974 Act creates limited privileges rather than confidentiality. It does not convert convictions which were matters of public record into private information. Outside the admissions process and appeal, L retained the Act’s protections concerning employment and defamation.

4. The SRA’s policy made conviction information confidential within its admissions process. That policy did not govern an appeal to the Master of the Rolls. Such an appeal is an independent appellate and supervisory proceeding, not a further internal review conducted by an SRA adjudicator. The confidentiality promised by the regulator therefore created no legitimate expectation that the independent appeal would be private.

5. Article 6(1) of the Convention, CPR 39.2 and Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 recognise that privacy may be justified where protection of private life requires it or publicity would prejudice justice. Those conditions were not satisfied. A person seeking entry to a regulated profession accepts that relevant convictions may enter the public domain. Open proceedings maintain confidence that only persons of suitable character enter a profession whose members must be wholly trustworthy.

6. Embarrassment, distress, possible harm to ancillary work and a stated intention to abandon the appeal did not make privacy necessary. The preliminary hearing transcript was closed, but the preliminary judgment was ordered to be public in anonymised form. Identification of L was prohibited without the Master of the Rolls’ permission.

1. Master of the Rolls: Refused L’s preliminary application for the pending substantive appeal to be heard in private. Ordered an open anonymised judgment and prohibited identification of L without permission.

2. Law Society appeal stage: L brought a substantive appeal under regulation 32(3)(ii) of the Training Regulations 1990 after an unsuccessful internal review.

3. Law Society: Revoked L’s student membership on character and suitability grounds after reconsidering his position in 2007.