Williams v Solicitors Regulation Authority

On an appeal from disciplinary proceedings, the court may determine sanction rather than remit where it is fully informed, the misconduct is non-specialist, and remission would cause disproportionate delay and expense.

Want of integrity does not carry an automatic presumption of striking-off. Sanction must reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, the purposes of sanction, and proportionality. Personal mitigation is relevant, but protection of the public and confidence in the profession remain central.

A disciplinary tribunal has a broad costs discretion. On appeal, interference is justified for legal error, failure to consider relevant evidence, or inadequate reasons. Costs may be reduced where serious allegations were improperly or questionably pursued.

The appellant, a solicitor, appealed disciplinary findings made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. In the earlier decision, the court quashed a dishonesty finding based on the £3.9m representation and set aside a want-of-integrity finding concerning the F Ltd representations, but upheld a want-of-integrity finding concerning negotiation representations.

This judgment determined whether sanction should be remitted, the appropriate sanction, the appellant’s challenge to the Tribunal’s costs order, and costs of the substantive appeal. The central issues were whether the court could determine sanction itself, whether striking-off was proportionate, and how the Tribunal’s costs discretion should be reviewed.

1. Non-remission. The court retained the sanction issue. It was fully informed by the Tribunal’s detailed findings, the misconduct did not involve technical specialist matters, and remission to a newly constituted tribunal would cause substantial delay and additional expense. The decision whether to remit is one of judgment in the circumstances of each case, with relevant guidance from Marinovich v GMC [2002] UKPC 36, Salsbury v Law Society [2009] 1 WLR 1286, and the other authorities cited.
2. Sanction. Under section 47 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the available sanctions range from reprimand and fine to restriction, suspension and striking-off. Want of integrity does not create a presumption of striking-off. Each case depends on its facts and the gravity of the departure from required standards. The seriousness of misconduct is assessed by culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, followed by identification of the purpose of sanction and selection of a proportionate sanction, applying the approach in Fuglers and others v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179.
3. The negotiation representations involved deliberate and repeated misrepresentations by an experienced solicitor, intended to influence a bank and creating a foreseeable risk of disadvantage. The conduct was serious, aggravated by lack of insight, but was not at the highest level. The purposes of sanction included punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and maintenance of confidence in the profession, as explained in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 1286. A nine-month suspension was proportionate; striking-off was excessive.
4. Costs below. Rule 18 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 gives the Tribunal a broad discretion, including power to order costs despite some allegations failing. The appellate court should be slow to interfere, but the changed landscape following the quashing of the dishonesty finding justified reconsideration. The allegations concerning misleading the court and property value were at least highly questionable. The order for £195,000 was set aside and replaced by an order for £60,000.
5. Appeal costs. The parties had each succeeded on important issues. Applying the ordinary appellate approach, and considering the substantial time devoted to the competing challenges, there was no order as to the costs of the substantive appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): In [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin), the court allowed the appeal in part, quashing the dishonesty finding based on the £3.9m representation and setting aside the want-of-integrity finding concerning the F Ltd representations, while dismissing the appeal concerning the negotiation representations. The present judgment substituted a nine-month suspension for striking-off and varied the costs orders.