Sohal v Solicitors Regulation Authority

Where a solicitor has engaged in deliberate and repeated dishonesty, striking off remains the normal sanction. Mitigating features such as youth, inexperience, personal pressure, psychological injury, good character and absence of personal financial gain may justify a lesser sanction in an appropriate case, but they do not prevent striking off where the misconduct is serious, sustained and threatens confidence in the profession or client money.

The High Court should accord considerable respect to the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s expert sentencing decision. It may interfere only where the sanction is clearly inappropriate.

The appellant appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike him off the Roll. The Tribunal had found breaches of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007 and the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998, including deliberate dishonesty in concealing substantial client-account irregularities.

The appeal challenged sanction only. The appellant relied on youth, inexperience, pressure arising from the financial problems, psychological injury following a road accident, and fresh medical evidence. The central questions were whether the fresh evidence should be admitted and whether striking off was clearly inappropriate in the circumstances.

1. Fresh evidence. The more recent medical reports were credible but could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use before the Tribunal. They added no significant material to the evidence of Dr Harris and would not have influenced the result. Applying the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 and the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 Weekly Law Reports 1489, the reports were refused admission under CPR 52.11(2).
2. Approach to sanction appeals. The Tribunal is an expert and informed body particularly well placed to assess the sanction required to protect the public interest. In accordance with Salsbury v Law Society [2008] EWCA Civ 1285, the High Court must pay considerable respect to the Tribunal’s decision and may interfere only where it is clearly inappropriate.
3. Dishonesty. Striking off is the normal sanction for solicitor dishonesty because the profession’s reputation for honesty must be maintained, as explained in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 Weekly Law Reports 512. Exceptions may arise, including according to the factors identified in SRA v Sharma [2010] EWHC 2022 (Admin), where the dishonesty is momentary, isolated, does not benefit the solicitor, or has limited effect on others.
4. The misconduct here was deliberate, repeated and substantial. It included false accounting entries, a sophisticated forged charitable document, the creation of numerous false bills and postings, and a determined attempt to frustrate the SRA’s imminent investigation. There was also a risk to client money. Although the appellant was young, inexperienced, psychologically affected, of good character and had not sought direct personal financial gain, those matters did not make striking off inappropriate. The Tribunal was entitled to impose it, and the judge would have reached the same conclusion.
5. The appeal was dismissed. The respondent was awarded costs of £29,444.81. No additional restriction on enforcement was imposed.

• Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal: On 17 April 2013, the Tribunal found serious breaches of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007 and the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1998 and struck the appellant off the Roll.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against sanction was dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision was upheld.