Ellis v The Law Society

A solicitor may hold strong or unpopular views without ordinarily facing disciplinary action merely for expressing them. Disciplinary action may be justified where abuse and obsession permeate the solicitor’s professional approach and materially prejudice the service provided to clients. Persistent, unfounded and offensive attacks on the legal system may show that the solicitor cannot impartially advise and represent clients within it. In determining penalty, the protection of the profession’s reputation and public confidence is fundamental. Indefinite suspension may therefore be appropriate where continuing conduct makes the required professional standard impossible to maintain.

The appellant, a solicitor, appealed under section 49(1)(a) of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to suspend him indefinitely and order costs. The complaints concerned failure to comply promptly with directions arising from a client complaint, failure to respond properly to correspondence, and inappropriate, offensive and derogatory communications concerning the Law Society, the complainant and members of the judiciary.

The underlying adjudication and review had already been unsuccessfully challenged. The Tribunal found the allegations proved and concluded that the appellant’s continuing conduct brought the profession into disrepute. The issues were whether those findings were open to the Tribunal and whether indefinite suspension and the costs order were justified.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings, indefinite suspension and costs order were upheld.
2. The appellant could not resist compliance with the adjudication by alleging corruption, abuse of power or defects in the wider process. The Tribunal was entitled to reject those matters as irrelevant and to find the first two allegations proved.
3. A solicitor may hold strong or unpopular views. Disciplinary action should not ordinarily follow merely because views are intemperate or because there is concern about mental health. The relevant fact-sensitive question may be whether abuse and obsession have permeated the solicitor’s professional approach to the real detriment of a client.
4. That threshold was met. The appellant’s persistent allegations and attacks had transformed a simple client complaint into allegations of corruption and affected his professional dealings. The Tribunal was entitled to find the remaining allegations proved.
5. Applying the principle in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, protection of the profession’s reputation and public confidence was fundamental. The appellant’s continuing rejection of the legal system made it impossible to see how he could impartially advise and represent clients to the necessary standard. Indefinite suspension was appropriate.
6. The costs challenge failed. Fixing costs at £4,000 against a claim of £5,021 was reasonable.

The appeal was brought to the Administrative Court under section 49(1)(a) of the Solicitors Act 1974 from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision dated 11 January 2007. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.