Manak v Solicitors Regulation Authority

A professional disciplinary tribunal must give reasons for imposing continuing restrictions on practice and must hear submissions on the proposed restrictions. Restrictions imposed after a period of suspension must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the future risk; past misconduct alone does not automatically justify them. An appellate court reviewing a tribunal’s factual findings does not conduct a rehearing and should respect the tribunal’s assessment of witnesses. A tribunal’s decision on sanction attracts respect, but may be altered where it is legally erroneous or disproportionate.

The appellant, a solicitor, appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against findings and sanctions imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The tribunal had found breaches of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct and the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules, lack of integrity, recklessness and inadequate supervision. It imposed a two-year suspension followed by six indefinite practice restrictions.

The appellant challenged the findings, sanction and costs. The central issues were whether the tribunal’s findings were wrong, whether the continuing restrictions were procedurally fair and proportionate, and whether the costs order could be disturbed.

1. Appeal largely dismissed. The court affirmed the tribunal’s findings of misconduct, the two-year suspension and the costs order. It quashed restrictions preventing the appellant from holding client money, signing a client account and working as a solicitor except in employment approved by the SRA.
2. The appeal was a review under CPR 52.21(3). The court would interfere if the tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. It would not rehear the evidence or substitute its own assessment of witnesses. The tribunal was entitled to accept parts of Mr Dhillon’s evidence despite credibility concerns.
3. The tribunal’s finding of lack of integrity was properly supported by the established professional definitions in Hoodless and Blackwell v FSA and [2003] UKFSM 007, and Williams v SRA [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin). The reasons for the finding were compelling.
4. The two-year suspension was appropriate and was not manifestly excessive. The period during which the appellant had not practised before the suspension did not constitute service of the sanction.
5. A tribunal contemplating continuing restrictions must invite submissions from the solicitor or representative. It must explain why restrictions are necessary, why the particular restrictions are appropriate, and why they should be indefinite or time-limited. Past misconduct does not, without more, establish the need for future restrictions.
6. The restrictions preventing the appellant from being a proprietor or partner could properly remain. The other three restrictions were disproportionate because they would make employment as an assistant solicitor difficult and could imply misappropriation of funds. The costs decision disclosed no proper basis for appellate intervention.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision dated 12 January 2018 was allowed only to the extent that three continuing restrictions were quashed. The tribunal’s decision and order were affirmed in all other respects.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: findings of professional misconduct were made and a two-year suspension, indefinite practice restrictions and a costs order were imposed.