Akodu v Solicitors Regulation Authority

Conditions attached to a solicitor’s practising certificate are regulatory, not punitive. They must be necessary and proportionate to protect the public and secure compliance with professional rules. Where a condition was imposed partly because of misconduct on which the solicitor was later acquitted, the condition should be reconsidered afresh. The reconsidering adjudicator must assess the remaining disciplinary findings and the solicitor’s compliance history, and has a free hand to reimpose the condition if justified. The court may remit the question rather than determine the appropriate condition itself, particularly where the specialist decision-maker has greater relevant experience.

The claimant appealed against conditions attached to his practising certificate. An adjudicator had refused his appeal, and a panel had upheld that decision. The condition in issue restricted him to practice in employment, partnership, or an approved incorporated solicitor’s practice.

The restriction had been imposed partly because of an allegation concerning failures to act in the best interests of lender clients. That finding was subsequently quashed in a related appeal. The remaining matters concerned accounting-rule failures, misleading costs information, previous disciplinary findings, and a poor record of delivering reports. The central issue was whether the restriction remained justified in the public interest and, if so, what should happen pending reconsideration.

1. Appeal allowed and matter remitted. The condition requiring the claimant to practise only in employment, partnership, or an approved incorporated solicitor’s practice was quashed, and the question of conditions was remitted to an adjudicator for reconsideration.
2. Conditions attached to a practising certificate are designed to secure compliance with professional rules in the public interest, rather than to punish the solicitor. Their imposition must be necessary and proportionate in light of the relevant conduct and compliance history. This reflected regulation 6 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority Practising Regulations 2009.
3. The admitted failures to maintain an office-account cash book and an office column of a client ledger were technical in form but important safeguards for the public. The misleading description of fees as disbursements was also relevant, even though no actual financial loss to a client had been shown.
4. The claimant’s previous disciplinary findings and repeated failures to deliver reports were material to the public-interest assessment. There were strong grounds for requiring supervision through employment or partnership. However, the decision-maker had to reconsider the matter because the condition had partly rested on conduct of which the claimant had been acquitted.
5. The reconsidering adjudicator was not inhibited from reimposing the condition. The matter had to be considered afresh, taking account of the disciplinary findings that remained and the claimant’s history. Pending reconsideration, the claimant could practise alone, subject to the existing conditions, and the appeal was allowed only to that extent.
6. The claimant was awarded the costs of both appeals, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

1. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: The claimant had previously been found guilty of professional misconduct, including accounting failures. A later finding relevant to lender-client conduct was quashed on appeal.
2. Adjudicator: An appeal against the practising-certificate conditions was refused.
3. Panel of adjudicators: The adjudicator’s decision was upheld on 9 June 2009.
4. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed. The relevant condition was quashed and the issue was remitted for fresh reconsideration.