Obi v Solicitors Regulation Authority

On an appeal against a disciplinary sanction, the High Court may interfere only where the sanction was clearly inappropriate. For non-dishonest conduct falling below the standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, striking off may be justified, but it does not automatically follow. The disciplinary tribunal must ordinarily explain why suspension would be inadequate. It must also address material mitigation and procedural features, including an existing period of disqualification partly attributable to allegations later not proved. Failure to engage with such a significant matter may make the reasons insufficient. The appropriate remedy is remission for reconsideration by a differently constituted tribunal.

The appellant appealed against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to strike him from the roll. He had admitted involvement in setting up a solicitors’ firm before he was qualified, falsely witnessing a mortgage deed as a solicitor, and misrepresenting his position to the Law Society. Two allegations concerning forged practising certificates and deception were not proved at the second hearing.

The appellant had already been struck off for approximately four years, partly on the basis of those allegations. He argued that the remaining findings did not justify striking off and that the tribunal had failed to give proper weight to the earlier period of disqualification. The central issues were whether the sanction was clearly inappropriate and whether the tribunal had given adequate reasons for selecting striking off rather than suspension.

1. Appeal allowed and sanction remitted. The court’s jurisdiction was limited to reviewing whether the SDT’s sanction was clearly inappropriate, applying [2009] 1 WLR 1286 and [2012] EWCA Civ 421.
2. The allegations found proved did not allege dishonesty. The exceptional-circumstances approach applicable to proven dishonesty therefore did not determine the sanction. Nevertheless, the conduct involved setting up a firm before the appellant was entitled to do so, representing himself as a solicitor, and making a blatant misrepresentation to the professional regulator. It plainly fell below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness.
3. Under Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, striking off may be appropriate for serious non-dishonest conduct directed to protecting the reputation of the profession, but striking off is not inevitable. The choice between suspension and striking off is a difficult evaluative judgment. The tribunal should ordinarily state why suspension is inadequate.
4. The second SDT’s reasoning was insufficient. It did not address the appellant’s existing four-year period of disqualification, although counsel had expressly relied on it in arguing that no further suspension was required. That period was material because some of the allegations underlying the earlier sanction had not been proved at the second hearing. The tribunal also referred to matters arising from the unproved allegations without giving counsel an opportunity to address them.
5. The matter was remitted to a differently constituted SDT. The new tribunal was to proceed on the basis that allegations (i), (ii) and (v) were proved, disregard matters concerning allegations (iii) and (iv), consider whether to take account of the admitted false evidence, and assess the appellant’s current position and any updated mitigation.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: At the second hearing in September 2010, allegations concerning the appellant’s involvement in setting up a firm, witnessing a mortgage deed as a solicitor, and misrepresentation to the Law Society were proved. Allegations concerning forged practising certificates and deception were not proved. The appellant was struck off and ordered to pay costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed to the extent that the sanction decision was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for reconsideration.