Solicitors Regulation Authority v Dennison

In solicitor disciplinary proceedings, proven dishonesty will almost invariably justify striking the solicitor off the Roll. The residual category in which striking off is inappropriate is very small. The court must assess the nature, duration and extent of the dishonesty, the benefit obtained and its effect on others. The fact that conduct was non-criminal, unusual in its factual setting, historic, or unlikely to be repeated does not by itself justify a lesser sanction. Personal mitigation has limited weight because the primary purposes of sanction are protecting the public and maintaining confidence in the profession. A specialist disciplinary tribunal is entitled to respect, but the High Court may intervene where its decision contains an error of law or is clearly inappropriate.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the sentence imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 20 November 2009. The Tribunal had found that Anthony Lawrence Clarke Dennison dishonestly concealed his one-third interest in Legal Report Services Ltd, which provided medical reports to clients of his firm under the TAG scheme, thereby creating a conflict of interest and generating secret profits.

The Tribunal imposed a fine of £20,000 for the LRS misconduct, together with fines for unrelated allegations. It declined to suspend or strike him off. The central issue was whether the fine was clearly inappropriate and whether the circumstances justified departure from the normal consequence of striking off following a finding of dishonesty.

1. Appeal allowed. The fine imposed for the LRS matter was quashed and an order striking the respondent off the Roll of Solicitors was substituted.
2. The governing approach was derived from Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 and Salsbury v Law Society [2008] EWCA Civ 1285; [2009] 1 WLR 1286. Sanctions are principally protective and reputational rather than punitive. They aim to protect the public, prevent repetition and maintain confidence in the profession. Personal mitigation therefore has limited effect, although Articles 6 and 8 ECHR must be considered.
3. Dishonesty is among the most serious breaches of professional standards. Striking off is almost invariably appropriate, subject only to a very small residual category. Whether a case falls within that category depends on factors including the nature and extent of the dishonesty, its duration, the benefit received and its effect on others. The distinction between criminal and non-criminal conduct is not determinative. The court referred in this respect to Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharma [2010] EWHC 2022 (Admin).
4. The Tribunal’s reasoning was too summary and did not explain why the normal consequence of a dishonesty finding should be displaced. The unusual commercial setting did not reduce the gravity of a solicitor deliberately concealing a conflict and making a secret profit from services arranged for clients.
5. The passage of time did not mitigate the misconduct because the wrongdoing had been concealed until 2007. The payment made to former partners was a commercial settlement, its allocation to clients was uncertain, and it did not answer the profession’s reputational concerns. The absence of a future public risk was relevant to protection of the public but did not address the need to maintain confidence in the profession.
6. The conduct was deliberate, concealed over several years, financially motivated, involved approximately 7,000 clients and was followed by a failure to be frank with the Tribunal. The respondent’s personal circumstances and the non-criminal character of the conduct could not justify suspension or a fine.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s penalty imposed on 20 November 2009. The appeal was allowed, the penalty for the LRS matter was quashed, and striking off was substituted.