Solicitors Regulation Authority v Uddin

On an appeal from a disciplinary tribunal, the High Court must respect the tribunal’s expertise but may intervene where there has been an error of law or the sanction is clearly inappropriate. The tribunal must assess the seriousness of all proven misconduct, including repeated and discrete acts, rather than reducing them to a single underlying arrangement. The principal purpose of solicitor discipline is not punishment but protection of the public and maintenance of confidence in the profession. A substantial fine may be inadequate where deliberate misconduct is serious, prolonged, undermines the administration of justice and involves limited insight. In such circumstances suspension may be required even where the solicitor is not shown to be a continuing danger to the public.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision of 3 July 2013. The tribunal had found that the respondent had knowingly continued to instruct an unqualified and unsuitable expert in housing disrepair claims under an undisclosed contingency arrangement, but imposed a fine of £2,000.

The SRA contended that the tribunal had failed to consider all relevant misconduct when determining sanction and that the fine was clearly inappropriate. The central issues were whether the tribunal had erred in law and what sanction was required having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct and the public interest.

1. The appeal was allowed. The tribunal’s order imposing a fine of £2,000 was quashed and a 12-month suspension from practice was substituted.

2. Under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the High Court could make such order on the appeal as it thought fit. Applying Salsbury v Law Society [2009] 1 WLR 1286 and Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, substantial respect was due to the tribunal’s expert sentencing decision. That respect did not prevent intervention where the tribunal had erred in law or imposed a clearly inappropriate sanction.

3. The tribunal’s sanction reasoning focused on the contingency arrangement and treated the misconduct as involving one improper agreement. That was irreconcilable with its findings that the respondent had continued, over approximately 15 months and on more than 30 occasions, to instruct a person whom he knew to be unfit, unqualified and incompetent to act as an expert. Each instruction constituted a discrete act of serious professional misconduct.

4. The tribunal had also failed to address adequately the overriding objective of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the solicitors’ profession. The absence of a finding that the respondent was a danger to the public did not answer that wider question.

5. The misconduct was deliberate, prolonged and damaging to the proper administration of justice. The respondent’s asserted desire to provide access to justice might explain his conduct but could not justify instructing a known unsuitable expert under an undisclosed contingency arrangement. His lack of candour and limited insight aggravated the seriousness.

6. Having regard to the governing disciplinary principles, a financial penalty was clearly inappropriate. A fixed suspension of 12 months was the appropriate sanction. The appellant was awarded costs summarily assessed at £25,000 inclusive of VAT.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the SRA’s appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision dated 3 July 2013, quashed the fine and substituted a 12-month suspension.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: found the allegations proved and imposed a fine of £2,000.