Dean & Dean, R (on the application of) v The Law Society and Their Agents

The Law Society may use its investigative production powers where it has substantial and proper grounds for investigating suspected professional misconduct or regulatory non-compliance. The solicitor’s answers to allegations do not remove the need to inspect source documents. A without-notice inspection is justified where notice may frustrate the preservation of evidence, provided the power is exercised fairly and for proper purposes. Once validly invoked, the solicitor must comply. A claim based on procedural unfairness will fail where the alleged procedural objections do not undermine the regulatory purpose and there is no arguable evidence of an improper or discriminatory motive.

Dean & Dean, a firm of solicitors regulated by the Law Society, challenged notices requiring production of documents and information under Solicitors Act 1974 and the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998. The notices concerned investigations arising from complaints about the firm and its senior partner, including alleged dishonesty, irregular use of client money and the reliability of documents.

The claimant sought permission for judicial review and continuation of interim orders obtained without notice. It alleged that the notices circumvented an existing request for information, were issued without adequate disclosure of complaints, imposed an unreasonable timetable, and were motivated by victimisation. The central issue was whether the Law Society had proper grounds to issue and execute the notices, including without notice.

1. Permission refused. The claimant had no realistic prospect of establishing that the notices were unlawful or procedurally unfair. The interim orders made by Forbes J and Stadlen J were discharged, and the notices were declared lawful and valid.
2. The powers under section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 and rule 34 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 are far-reaching. Parliament had regarded them as necessary to protect the public and the profession. They must nevertheless be exercised fairly and on proper grounds.
3. The existence of an earlier request for the solicitor’s response to allegations did not create an expectation that the Law Society would not also seek documents relating to those matters. Nor was the solicitor’s prior knowledge of a complaint material to whether production could properly be required without notice.
4. The relevant question was whether proper grounds existed both for issuing the notices and for requiring production without notice. The purpose of the latter procedure was preservation of evidence. Information from several sources, concerns about the firm’s financial position, possible removal or alteration of documents, and contemporaneous press reports provided substantial grounds for urgent action. The court did not decide whether the complaints were true.
5. Once the statutory power was properly invoked, the solicitor was under a duty to comply. The Law Society was not required to accept assertions that matters were satisfactory without access to the source documentation needed to test those assertions.
6. The material did not support an inference that the notices were issued for an oblique purpose, including victimisation connected with the solicitor’s campaigning or discrimination proceedings. The claimant’s interim applications had also been advanced on partial and misleading information, frustrating the evident purpose of the inspection.
7. The defendant’s costs were ordered to be assessed on the indemnity basis, with an interim payment of £70,000.

This was a first-instance application for permission to apply for judicial review. Interim orders had previously been made by Forbes J and Stadlen J, but no appeal from a substantive lower-court judgment was identified.