Iqbal v Solicitors Regulations Authority

A solicitor’s professional trustworthiness extends beyond honesty and integrity to include competence. Repeatedly representing persons as partners without taking elementary steps to confirm their agreement or status may amount to manifest incompetence. Where such conduct demonstrates that the solicitor is not fit to practise, striking the solicitor from the roll may be the only appropriate sanction. A disciplinary tribunal must also keep separate findings of dishonesty from findings of incompetence when deciding penalty.

The claimant, a solicitor, appealed against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike him from the roll. The allegations concerned repeated representations that two individuals were partners in his firm and breaches of the Solicitors’ Account Rules. The tribunal had found that dishonesty was not proved, but its sentencing reasons referred to conduct intended to mislead mortgage lenders. The central issues were whether the tribunal had proceeded on an impermissible finding of dishonesty and whether striking off was justified on the basis of incompetence.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court reconsidered the sanction on the basis that dishonesty had not been established, because the tribunal’s reference to conduct intended to mislead appeared inconsistent with its express finding that the allegations of dishonesty had not been proved.
2. Strict compliance with the Solicitors’ Account Rules is of substantial importance, although the tribunal had treated those breaches as insufficiently serious to affect the appeal.
3. The claimant had repeatedly held out persons as partners when they were working elsewhere, had not joined his practice, or denied becoming partners. The repeated failure to take elementary steps to verify their status demonstrated manifest incompetence.
4. Professional trustworthiness includes the standards of competence which the public are entitled to expect of a solicitor. A solicitor who manifests incompetence in matters as serious as partnership status is not fit to remain on the roll. Being a solicitor is a privilege, and striking off was therefore the only appropriate sanction.
5. The court observed incidentally that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal should review its practice of drawing no adverse inference from a solicitor’s failure to give evidence or submit to cross-examination. This observation was prospective and did not affect the decision.
6. There was no order as to costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s sentence dated 4 August 2009 dismissed.