Newell-Austin v Solicitors Regulatory Authority

In disciplinary appeals under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the appeal is by way of review. The test for dishonesty is the combined subjective and objective test in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley. Lack of integrity is different: it is assessed objectively, and the solicitor need not realise that the conduct would be regarded as lacking integrity. The solicitor’s knowledge or intention concerning the underlying conduct remains relevant, but recklessness is not an essential element.

The appellant appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike her from the Roll and order her to pay £85,000 in costs. The Tribunal found lack of integrity in relation to the management of her firm and dishonesty in failing to give the SRA accurate information about a proposed partner’s arrest and exclusion from the office.

The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s approach to integrity, the consistency of its integrity and dishonesty findings, and its factual conclusion that the appellant had deliberately misled the SRA.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was by way of review, not rehearing. Greater deference was required where the Tribunal’s conclusions depended on oral evidence and credibility.
2. The dishonesty test was the combined test in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley: the conduct must be dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people, and the respondent must have realised that it was dishonest by those standards.
3. Lack of integrity is assessed objectively and is distinct from dishonesty. No subjective realisation that the conduct lacked integrity is required. Knowledge or intention concerning the underlying conduct remains relevant, but recklessness is not essential.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to find lack of integrity from the appellant’s recruitment of partners to obtain insurance, ceding control to unadmitted staff, failure to supervise and safeguard client money, and disregard of obvious risks. Those findings were not inconsistent with the conclusion that dishonesty had not been proved on the same factual basis.
5. The Tribunal was also entitled to find dishonesty in failing to tell the SRA that the proposed partner had been arrested and excluded from the office. The absence of a specific duty under the application form to report an arrest did not prevent the withholding of material information from being deliberate and deceitful.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: struck the appellant from the Roll and ordered her to pay the SRA’s costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974.