Izegbu v Law Society

A Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal appeal is a rehearing, although the appellate court does not hear the evidence afresh. Findings will stand where the evidence amply supports them. A solicitor may be responsible for accounting failures as a partner and cannot avoid that responsibility by asserting that access to documents was denied. An agreement permitting a non-solicitor to control a solicitors’ practice or share professional fees contrary to the applicable rules may amount to serious misconduct. A fixed or agreed fee may be paid into an office account only where the statutory and evidential requirements are satisfied, including agreement with the solicitor and written evidence. Striking off was justified for clearly dishonest conduct. A costs order was remitted because the Tribunal had failed to consider the solicitor’s means.

The claimant appealed against findings of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal dated 1 May 2007. The Tribunal had found six of seven allegations proved, including breaches concerning accounting records, fee sharing, control of a solicitors’ practice by a non-solicitor, bank accounts and client money. It struck the claimant off the Roll and ordered her to pay costs.

The claimant challenged the findings, the procedure, the dishonesty conclusions, the sanction and the costs order. She did not attend the appeal hearing. The Divisional Court considered whether the appeal should be adjourned, whether the Tribunal’s findings were sustainable, whether striking off was justified and whether the costs order had been properly assessed.

1. Proceeding in the claimant’s absence. The court refused a further adjournment. The claimant had not taken the necessary steps to secure representation, had failed to attend an earlier listing, and had not communicated with the court or respondent. The court nevertheless considered her written case and examined the appeal with care.
2. Nature of the appeal. The appeal was a rehearing rather than a review, although the court did not hear the evidence afresh. The Tribunal’s findings were amply supported by the documents and evidence. The findings that the claimant breached Rule 7, entered into a sham arrangement and permitted a non-solicitor improperly to control a solicitors’ practice were inevitable on the evidence.
3. Accounting and client money. A partner was responsible for the firm’s accounts and could not excuse defective accounting by saying that access to documentation had been refused. Client money could not be treated as an agreed fee under rule 19(5) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 unless the fee was agreed with a solicitor and evidenced in writing. Neither requirement was satisfied.
4. Dishonesty and sanction. The Tribunal was entitled to reject the claimant’s evidence and to find that she had dishonestly attempted to rely on a later amendment to Rule 7 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990. The amendment was not retrospective. In view of the clearly dishonest conduct, striking off was fully justified.
5. Costs. Following Merrick v The Law Society [2007] EWHC 2997 (Admin), the Tribunal should have had regard to the claimant’s means. The costs order was therefore remitted for reconsideration. The appeal was otherwise dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the Law Society’s appeal costs of £21,045.16 plus VAT.

• Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal: On 1 May 2007, found six of seven allegations proved, struck the claimant off the Roll and made a costs order.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal against the findings and sanction, but remitted the costs order to the Tribunal for reconsideration.