Sancheti v Solicitors Regulation Authority

An appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is a review. The High Court may intervene only where the decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. A disciplinary tribunal constituted under the statutory scheme is not inherently biased because it includes practising solicitors or because the regulator is associated with the profession. A hearing may proceed in a respondent’s absence where non-attendance is voluntary and reasonable steps have been taken to secure participation. Article 6 does not require further adjournment where the respondent has had sufficient time, disclosure and a genuine opportunity to attend. Striking off is an appropriate sanction for serious dishonesty and misuse of client or third-party funds.

The appellant, a solicitor, appealed against findings by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that nine allegations were proved, including four allegations of dishonesty. The allegations concerned breaches of professional undertakings, failures to account for client and third-party funds, failures to maintain a client account and accounting records, and failure to pay stamp duty received for that purpose. The tribunal proceeded in the appellant’s absence under rule 16(2) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 and ordered that he be struck off.

The appellant alleged institutional bias, inadequate disclosure, insufficient time to prepare, inability to participate effectively, inadmissible hearsay and breach of article 6. The central questions were whether the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity, and whether the sanction was disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under section 49(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974 and CPR Part 52, the appeal was a review. The court would allow it only if the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The statutory composition of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal did not create actual or apparent bias. The inclusion of solicitor members served a legitimate purpose, and the appellant identified no evidence of partiality beyond the fact that decisions had been adverse to him. The reasoning in Pine v Law Society supported that conclusion.
3. The tribunal was entitled to find that adequate disclosure had been given. Relevant papers had been supplied or were already available to the appellant. No document or class of documents was identified which should have been disclosed and might have assisted his defence.
4. The tribunal was entitled to refuse to treat a document described as a draft response as the appellant’s definitive answer. He had repeatedly failed to comply with directions, had ample time to plead his case and had not asked the tribunal to treat the draft as his formal answer. The refusal did not make the hearing unfair.
5. The tribunal was entitled to proceed in the appellant’s absence under rule 16(2). His absence was voluntary. Travel, accommodation and subsistence arrangements had been offered, and there was nothing more reasonably required to facilitate his attendance. The guidance in R v Hayward and Tait v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was properly considered.
6. The appellant’s article 6 rights were engaged but not infringed. He had sufficient time, proper disclosure and a fair opportunity to participate. The witnesses’ evidence was not inadmissible merely because some witnesses were solicitors, and the appellant could have challenged the evidence by attending.
7. The findings of dishonesty were open to the tribunal. In light of the serious misconduct, including misuse of client and third-party funds, striking off was neither disproportionate nor inappropriate. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s appeal costs, summarily assessed at £45,110.22.

High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was dismissed. The tribunal’s order striking the appellant from the Roll of Solicitors was upheld.