Williams v Solicitors Regulation Authority

In professional disciplinary proceedings, dishonesty and want of integrity are distinct concepts. Dishonesty requires the requisite subjective element; want of integrity is assessed objectively against the high professional standards expected of a solicitor. Serious allegations must be clearly and fairly pleaded, and the respondent must have proper notice and an opportunity to answer them. The rule in Browne v Dunn is flexible and turns on overall fairness. An appellate court reviewing a specialist tribunal will interfere only where its findings are plainly wrong or there has been serious procedural irregularity. A finding of dishonesty based on an allegation not directly put in cross-examination was procedurally unfair in the circumstances, whereas separately pleaded and fully tested findings of want of integrity were upheld.

Mr Peter Williams, a former solicitor, appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that he was dishonest in representing to the client’s trustee in bankruptcy that the client did not have a valuation of property at £3.9 million, and had acted without integrity in making representations about negotiations with a purchaser. It had also found a want of integrity in representations that he acted for F Ltd.

The Tribunal struck him off and ordered him to pay substantial costs. The appeal challenged the pleading of the allegations, the fairness of the cross-examination and hearing, the Tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence, and the use of material resembling an earlier judgment in the sanction section. The central issues were whether the adverse findings were procedurally fair and whether the surviving findings were plainly wrong.

1. Outcome. The appeal succeeded in part. The findings of dishonesty concerning the £3.9 million representation and want of integrity concerning the F Ltd representations were set aside for serious procedural unfairness. The finding of want of integrity concerning the negotiation representations was upheld. The parties were directed to make written submissions on the further course of the appeal.
2. Nature of the review. An appeal from the Tribunal proceeded by way of review, not rehearing. The Tribunal was a specialist tribunal that had heard and seen the evidence over many days. Its findings should not be disturbed unless plainly wrong or affected by serious procedural irregularity.
3. Dishonesty and integrity. Dishonesty and want of integrity are separate, though overlapping, regulatory concepts. Want of integrity arises where, judged objectively, a solicitor fails to meet the high professional standards expected of a solicitor. It does not require conscious wrongdoing. The President agreed that integrity is not merely a lesser form of dishonesty.
4. Pleading and fairness. Serious allegations, particularly dishonesty, must be fairly and squarely pleaded with sufficient particularity. The respondent must receive notice of the case and a proper opportunity to answer it. The rule in Browne v Dunn is not inflexible. The question is whether fairness overall required the allegation to be put directly in cross-examination. Here, ambiguity in the pleading, the absence of cross-examination on the £3.9 million representation, the lack of substantive closing submissions on it, and errors in the Tribunal’s reasoning made the dishonesty finding unfair.
5. Negotiation representations. The representations were expressly pleaded, addressed in the respondent’s evidence, tested in cross-examination, and dealt with in submissions. The Tribunal was entitled to find that they deliberately created a false impression and demonstrated want of integrity, even though Northern Rock was not proved to have suffered an unfair advantage.
6. Other matters. Motive is not an ingredient of dishonesty or want of integrity, although it may be relevant to the assessment of the evidence. The use of precedents and clerks to prepare drafts is unobjectionable where the final judgment reflects the tribunal’s own reasoning and is reviewed and approved by its members. The practice was not prohibited by paragraph 3(11) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007.

1. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: found dishonesty in relation to the £3.9 million representation and want of integrity in relation to the negotiation and F Ltd representations; struck Mr Williams off the Roll and ordered him to pay £195,000 costs.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal in part. The dishonesty finding and the F Ltd finding were set aside for procedural unfairness. The negotiation-representations finding was upheld.