Ip v Solicitors Regulation Authority

A solicitor’s professional duties to the court or tribunal apply whether or not the solicitor is formally on the record. A limited retainer cannot displace duties of candour, accuracy and integrity. The technically correct use of a procedural safeguard may nevertheless be an abuse of process where it is used for an improper purpose. Striking off may be proportionate for persistent conduct involving abuse of process and serious failures of integrity, even where dishonesty is not proved.

The appellant, an immigration solicitor, challenged the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike him from the Roll and order him to pay £10,000 costs. The SDT found proved that he brought meritless and abusive judicial review applications, engaged in a systematic course of conduct designed to undermine the immigration system, and breached the duty of candour on without-notice applications for interim relief. Allegations including dishonesty were not proved.

The issues were whether the SDT had erred in its findings, whether the appellant’s retainer or absence from the record limited his duties to the Tribunal, and whether striking off and the costs order were proportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The SDT’s findings that allegations 1.1 to 1.3 were proved survived challenge.
2. A solicitor’s duty to the court or tribunal is independent of the retainer and of whether the solicitor is on the record. A solicitor who prepares grounds intended for use in proceedings cannot avoid professional obligations by declining to appear formally. A client care letter cannot rewrite those obligations.
3. The use of paragraphs 353 and 353A of the Immigration Rules may constitute an abuse of process even where the procedural steps are technically available. The relevant question is whether the process was used for an improper purpose. The combination of late submissions, applications lacking merit, repeated submissions and attempts to obtain stays that disrupted lawful removal justified the SDT’s conclusion.
4. Urgent without-notice applications require frank disclosure of the relevant immigration and litigation history. The duty of candour is especially important because the judge depends upon the legal representative for a fair account.
5. A judicial review application does not end merely because a removal direction has been cancelled or the case has become academic. Formal steps must be taken under the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
6. The SDT was entitled to treat the conduct as systematic, lacking integrity and seriously damaging to the administration of justice. It was also entitled to consider deterrence. Significant weight was due to its specialist assessment, and striking off and the £10,000 costs order were justified.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: found three allegations proved, struck the appellant from the Roll of Solicitors and ordered £10,000 costs.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and upheld the sanction and costs order.