Scott v Solicitors Regulation Authority

A solicitor may lack integrity even where the subjective element of dishonesty is not proved. Integrity and dishonesty are distinct concepts. The relevant question is whether, viewed objectively and in the circumstances of the case, the solicitor showed moral soundness, rectitude and steady adherence to the professional ethical code. Reckless or indifferent handling of client money may satisfy that test.

The High Court will give considerable respect to the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s sanctioning decision, particularly where the tribunal has applied the correct principles and made justified findings of serious misconduct. Striking off is not confined to cases involving dishonesty.

The appellant, a solicitor and former member of a law firm, appealed under section 49(1)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s determination. The tribunal found breaches involving failure to co-operate with the regulator, improper withdrawals and transfers from client account, provision of banking facilities through client account, and financial mismanagement.

The tribunal found the conduct objectively dishonest but did not find the subjective element of dishonesty established. It nevertheless found that the appellant lacked integrity and ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The central issues were whether the tribunal had applied the correct test for integrity and whether striking off was clearly inappropriate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal’s factual findings were not challenged, and the appellant accepted that his conduct was objectively dishonest and lacked integrity.
2. Dishonesty and lack of integrity are not synonymous. The absence of the subjective element required for dishonesty does not prevent a finding of lack of integrity. The court respectfully agreed with the approach in SRA v Chan [2015] EWHC 2659 (Admin), that want of integrity can be identified by an informed tribunal or court by reference to the facts of the particular case.
3. The tribunal was entitled to assess the conduct in the round. The appellant had effectively surrendered control of client-account receipts and payments to a person who lacked authority, permitted client money to be used without legitimate underlying transactions, failed to make proper enquiries, and showed no regard for his obligation to protect client money and assets. His mistaken belief that the third party controlled the relevant companies did not answer the professional obligations.
4. The tribunal’s inaccurate quotation from Hoodless and Blackwell v FSA [2003] UKFTT FSM007 was immaterial. The tribunal reached the correct conclusion on the facts, and the integrity issue did not require a separate subjective inquiry equivalent to dishonesty.
5. On sanction, the High Court should pay considerable respect to the expert tribunal’s decision unless there is an error of law or the sanction is clearly inappropriate. The misconduct was prolonged, involved substantial sums and serious misuse of client money, loss of control of the client account, reputational harm and insufficient responsibility. The principles in Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 and Emeana [2013] EWHC 2130 (Admin) supported the conclusion that striking off was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed on both merits and sanction.

Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal: found the charges substantiated, found lack of integrity, ordered striking off and fixed costs at £42,500.

High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 49(1)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974, both on the merits and as to sanction.