Solicitors Regulation Authority v Farrimond

Professional discipline is directed principally to maintaining public confidence in the integrity, probity and trustworthiness of the profession. Personal mitigation, medical illness, previous good character and the prospect of rehabilitation remain relevant, but cannot outweigh the need to protect that confidence where the misconduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued membership. The High Court should respect the specialist tribunal’s decision on sanction, while intervening where the sanction is clearly inappropriate, taking account of Convention rights. A solicitor convicted of attempted murder and serving a substantial term of imprisonment cannot remain on the Roll, even under indefinite suspension. Striking off remains appropriate, with restoration available if the statutory requirements and compelling evidence of recovery are later established.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that Iain Farrimond had breached the SRA Principles 2011 after pleading guilty to attempted murder. The Tribunal took account of his severe depressive illness, substantial mitigation, long professional career, remorse and the prospect of recovery. It imposed indefinite suspension rather than striking him off.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, arguing that indefinite suspension was clearly inappropriate and that striking off was the only proper sanction. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s sanction could stand in light of the seriousness of the offence and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession.

1. The appeal was allowed. The sanction of indefinite suspension was set aside and an order striking Mr Farrimond’s name from the Roll of Solicitors was substituted.

2. Garnham J, applying Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, held that the central concern in professional discipline is maintaining well-founded public confidence that solicitors are persons of unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness. The jurisdiction is not primarily punitive and differs from criminal sentencing. Personal consequences, good character, remorse, medical evidence and rehabilitation prospects must be considered, but do not determine the sanction.

3. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is an expert tribunal and its decisions on sanction command considerable respect. Following The Law Society v Brendan John Salsbury [2008] EWCA Civ 1285, the High Court should intervene where, despite that respect, the sanction is clearly inappropriate. The Tribunal must also take account of the solicitor’s rights under articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

4. The attempted murder was a very serious offence. The respondent’s illness substantially reduced culpability but did not provide a defence or extinguish responsibility. On these facts, committing attempted murder was wholly incompatible with remaining on the Roll or continuing to be an officer of the court. Keeping his name on the Roll during a six-year custodial sentence would undermine public confidence.

5. Leveson P agreed. He stated that a solicitor serving any substantial term of imprisonment should not remain on the Roll, even if indefinitely suspended. Restoration could be sought later, but would require the clearest evidence of recovery and fitness.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2018] EWHC 321 (Admin) allowed the SRA’s appeal, set aside indefinite suspension and substituted striking off.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: imposed indefinite suspension on 2 August 2017 after finding breaches of the SRA Principles 2011.