Williams v The Law Society of England And Wales (Solicitors Regulation Authority)

For the purposes of the statutory trust arising on intervention, a solicitor’s “practice” means the activities carried out by the solicitor or authorised body in that capacity, rather than merely the legal entity through which those activities are conducted.

Where a partnership’s activities continue through a successor LLP, the successor practice may include the former partnership practice. Money attributable to work carried out by a solicitor while a partner may therefore fall within Solicitors Act 1974, Schedule 1, paragraph 6, even though the intervention resolution does not name the former partnership.

The claimant, a solicitor, sought to enforce a consent order concerning the withdrawal of an intervention into his practice and the release of money received by the Solicitors Regulation Authority from the Legal Aid Agency.

The money included sums attributable to work carried out while the claimant practised in partnership. The partnership had subsequently converted into an LLP, into which the claimant’s practice continued, before the regulatory intervention.

The central issue was whether the statutory trust under Schedule 1, paragraph 6 of the Solicitors Act 1974 extended to money attributable to the former partnership practice.

1. Meaning of practice. The application raised the scope of the statutory trust under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974. “Practice” means the activities of the solicitor or authorised body carried out in that capacity. It is distinct from the name or structure through which those activities are conducted.
2. Continuity of the practice. The claimant and his former partner each had a practice within the LLP, although they practised as members of it rather than separately. The activities formerly carried on through the partnership continued through the LLP and did not end merely because the legal structure changed.
3. Scope of the statutory trust. Money attributable to the claimant’s activities while he was a member of the partnership fell within paragraph 6(1), read with paragraph 6(2)(a)(i), as money held in connection with his practice or former practice. The intervention therefore brought that money within the statutory trust and the Intervention Powers (Statutory Trust) Rules 2011.
4. The court’s earlier concern that this construction might capture money held by firms with which a solicitor had practised long before the intervention was substantially answered by the requirement that the money be held by or on behalf of the solicitor or his firm in connection with that solicitor’s practice or former practice. Other money held by the former firm remained outside the trust.
5. The alternative submission that the SRA would in any event have needed to investigate entitlement was not necessary to decide. The surrounding circumstances justified enquiries concerning the proper recipient and supported the view that the claimant’s application had been brought prematurely.
6. Agreement had been reached concerning the LAA monies and the agreed sums had been paid. No substantive declaration or other relief was therefore required. The issue of costs remained.