Bush v Laskey

On an appeal under Solicitors Act 1974, the court should assess whether the material before the specialist disciplinary tribunal establishes an arguable or prima facie case of professional misconduct or dishonesty. Suspicion arising from a solicitor’s conduct of publicly funded litigation is insufficient without supporting evidence. A solicitor may properly decline to search for a favourable expert and may obtain provisional views before deciding whether to commission a report. An optimistic assessment of prospects or value for funding purposes does not, without more, establish dishonesty. The appeal was dismissed.

Mr Bush appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s dismissal of his complaint concerning Mrs Laskey, the solicitor who had acted for him in proposed medical-negligence proceedings. He alleged that she had acted against his interests, deliberately undermined his case, and made dishonest statements when seeking public funding.

The tribunal, applying rules 6.1 to 6.3 of the Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings Rules 2007, concluded that there was no prima facie case. The central issue was whether the evidence justified appellate intervention.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court’s statutory jurisdiction under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 included power to make such order as it thought fit, including refusing to hear the appellant or remitting the matter to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
2. The disciplinary system depended upon the conscientious assessment of the specialist tribunal. The court examined the material placed before the Legal Complaints Service, the Legal Services Commission, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the tribunal. None had identified professional misconduct or dishonesty, and the appellant relied on no new evidence.
3. The sequence of events concerning Dr White did not establish an arguable or prima facie case that Mrs Laskey had deliberately attempted to undermine the claim. A solicitor dealing with public money could properly decline to search for a favourable expert and could seek the expert’s provisional views in writing before proceeding.
4. The fact that Mrs Laskey later did not use Dr White’s report did not make her earlier conduct dishonest. Nor did the difference between the value and prospects of success asserted when public funding was sought and the lower value later asserted in negligence proceedings establish dishonesty. The earlier assessment had been informed by counsel and other material.
5. The court could not reach a different or contradictory conclusion on the evidence. Costs were ordered against Mr Bush in the sum of £5,741.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: Mr Bush’s application was dismissed on 18 June 2009; the order was drawn up on 21 July 2009 after the tribunal concluded under rules 6.1 to 6.3 of the Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings Rules 2007 that there was no prima facie case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 dismissed.