Scalora (A Solicitor), Re

[2009] EWCA Civ 928

Case details

Case citations
[2009] EWCA Civ 928
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
16 January 2009
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Professional regulation Character and suitability Professional dishonesty
Keywords
character and suitability solicitor enrolment professional dishonesty false qualification statement training contract medical mitigation public risk professional reputation remorse costs discretion
Outcome
appeal dismissed (petition/application refused)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

The character and suitability test for enrolment as a solicitor is necessarily high. It concerns risk to the public and damage to the profession’s reputation, rather than punishment, reward or redemption. The applicant bears the burden of satisfying the test.

A deliberate false qualification statement made to obtain a training contract is serious dishonesty. It is no answer that the applicant might have obtained the contract by telling the truth or hoped to obtain the qualification later. Serious illness, medication, confusion and personal mitigation do not excuse the conduct where the applicant understood the form and evidence does not establish an inability to appreciate the truth. Later lack of frankness with referees may reinforce concerns about character and suitability.

Factual background

Mr Scalora enrolled on part of a graduate diploma in law but never obtained the qualification. In an application to Linklaters for a training contract, he stated that he had passed the diploma. Linklaters later learned that the statement was false, withdrew the offer and reported the matter to the regulator.

An SRA adjudicator cancelled his student membership on 28 April 2008. The review panel dismissed his appeal on 10 December 2008. Mr Scalora petitioned the Master of the Rolls under Regulation 32(3)(ii), whose authority had been delegated under section 73(2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The central issue was whether his illness, confusion and subsequent conduct meant that the false statement did not demonstrate dishonesty or unsuitable character.

Held

  1. Disposition. The petition was dismissed and the application was refused. The court upheld both the adjudicator’s cancellation of student membership and the review panel’s decision.
  2. Applicable test. The court applied the principles approved in Jideofo v the Law Society No 6 of 2006. The character and suitability test is necessarily high. It addresses risk to the public and damage to the reputation of the profession, rather than punishment, reward or redemption. No person has a right to admission or enrolment, and the applicant bears the burden of satisfying the test. Individual facts remain critical, including the nature of the wrongdoing and the applicant’s part in it.
  3. Dishonesty. The evidence established that Mr Scalora deliberately entered false information about having passed the GDL in order to obtain a training contract. His hope that he would obtain the qualification later did not justify stating that he had already obtained it. Nor was it relevant that he might have secured a training contract had he told the truth. The court regarded the circumstances as potentially equivalent to the calculated withholding of information considered in Begum v Solicitors Regulation Authority (No 11 of 2007).
  4. Illness and later conduct. The medical evidence established serious illness but did not address with precision whether it affected Mr Scalora’s ability to know that the statement was untrue or to understand the application form. If his condition could lead him to behave in this way, that itself presented a risk. His later failure to disclose the matter fully to a referee, even when his health was more controlled, raised further concerns about judgment and integrity. His inconsistent explanations and failure fully to accept the seriousness of the dishonesty meant that the claimed remorse did not demonstrate suitable character.
  5. Costs. Exercising the costs discretion, the court ordered Mr Scalora to pay £1,500 as a contribution towards the Law Society’s costs, payable within 28 days.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Master of the Rolls’ delegated jurisdiction was exercised by Waller LJ under section 73(2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The petition was dismissed and the application refused: [2009] EWCA Civ 928.
  2. SRA review panel: On 10 December 2008, the panel dismissed Mr Scalora’s appeal and confirmed cancellation of his student membership.
  3. SRA adjudicator: On 28 April 2008, the adjudicator cancelled Mr Scalora’s student membership.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
appeal dismissed (petition/application refused)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.