Harris v The Solicitors Regulation Authority

On an appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the High Court normally proceeds by way of review and must accord considerable respect to the Tribunal’s expert assessment of professional misconduct and sanction. Intervention is justified where, despite that respect, the sentence is clearly inappropriate. Disciplinary sanctions are primarily protective and regulatory rather than punitive. Mitigation, personal hardship and the absence of dishonesty must be considered, but they do not outweigh the need to maintain public confidence in solicitors’ integrity, probity and trustworthiness. Serious and wide-ranging breaches of the professional and accounts rules may justify suspension even where the solicitor has admitted much of the misconduct and has no previous disciplinary history.

Michael Abraham Philip Harris appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 30 March 2011. The Tribunal found ten allegations proved, including breaches concerning referral fees, costs information, client accounts, client funds, lender disclosure, wills benefiting the solicitor and loans from an estate. Eight allegations were admitted and two were denied but proved.

The Tribunal suspended Mr Harris from practice for two years and recommended that any return to practice should be in an employed environment. The suspension was stayed pending the appeal. The principal issues were whether the Tribunal had erred in law, whether its findings concerning the wills and estate monies were adequately reasoned, and whether the two-year suspension was excessive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The suspension was upheld and was directed to commence at 4 pm on 5 August 2011.

2. An appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 normally proceeds by way of review under CPR rule 52.11(1). Applying Law Society v Salisbury [2008] EWCA Civ 1285, the High Court must respect the Tribunal’s expert and informed sentencing decision, but may intervene if the sentence is clearly inappropriate.

3. The Tribunal’s failure expressly to identify the standard of proof did not matter. Mr Harris had admitted eight allegations, and the two remaining allegations concerned breaches of mandatory professional rules. The Tribunal’s findings inevitably established those breaches.

4. The Tribunal was entitled to deal with the allegations concerning the wills and estate loans together. There was no legal excuse for contravening the mandatory rules, and no discernible error of law in the Tribunal’s findings or reasoning.

5. The misconduct was serious and wide-ranging. The accounts breaches put clients at real risk and damaged the reputation of the profession. The mitigation had been properly recorded and considered. Consistently with Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, the absence of dishonesty, previous disciplinary appearances and personal hardship did not make suspension inappropriate. Nothing less than suspension could properly be imposed, and two years was proportionate.

6. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs. In the absence of agreement, the costs were to be subject to detailed assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision dated 30 March 2011 was dismissed. The two-year suspension was upheld.
• High Court: On 26 May 2011, Burton J stayed the suspension pending the outcome of the appeal.