Solicitors Regulation Authority v Siaw

An appellate court reviewing a specialist disciplinary tribunal should exercise considerable restraint, but must intervene where the tribunal has made an error of law or principle, or reached an evaluation outside the range of reasonable decisions. Under the Ivey test, dishonesty is determined by applying the standards of ordinary decent people to the respondent’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts. Motive is not an additional requirement. Findings that a solicitor knowingly retained client money which should have been paid into the firm’s client account, and gave untrue and misleading answers to the regulator, were inconsistent with a finding of no dishonesty. Serious dishonesty involving client money and misleading the regulator warranted striking the solicitor from the Roll.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision concerning Mr Siaw. The Tribunal found that he had received £500 from a client into his personal bank account, failed to account for it to his firm, and later gave untrue and misleading answers to the regulator. It found breaches of integrity and professional obligations but rejected dishonesty and imposed a £10,000 fine.

The appeal concerned whether the Tribunal’s findings of no dishonesty were legally and evidentially sustainable, whether it had applied the correct approach to dishonesty, and whether the sanction was clearly inappropriate.

1. The appeal was allowed on Grounds 1 to 3. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s findings that dishonesty had not been proved and substituted findings that the respondent had acted dishonestly in both respects alleged, with dishonesty proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The Court applied the appellate restraint principles applicable to specialist disciplinary tribunals. Intervention was justified because the Tribunal’s reasoning contained errors of law and principle and its findings as to the respondent’s alleged private, pro bono belief were inconsistent with its other findings and the evidence.
3. The Tribunal had found that the respondent knew that all or part of the £500 was costs and that it should be paid into the firm. It had also found that his answers to the regulator were untrue and misleading. Those findings were inconsistent with the conclusion that he lacked dishonesty.
4. The Tribunal had impermissibly introduced motive into the Ivey test by asking whether the respondent intended to deprive the firm of money or concertedly mislead the regulator. Once his knowledge of the relevant facts was established, the issue was whether ordinary decent people would regard his conduct as dishonest.
5. The findings that the respondent held a deep or muddled belief that he was acting privately for a friend were unsustainable. They conflicted with the documents, the retainer of the firm, the fee discussion, the respondent’s conduct in using firm documentation, and the evidence concerning the alleged tribunal fee.
6. The only appropriate sanction for the dishonesty was striking off, absent exceptional circumstances. None was established. The dishonesty involved client money and was aggravated by misleading the regulator. The Court also held, in the alternative, that the £10,000 fine was excessively lenient and clearly inappropriate even if the misconduct were characterised only as a serious lack of integrity.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: By judgment dated 17 May 2019, found breaches involving lack of integrity and professional obligations, rejected dishonesty, and imposed a £10,000 fine.
• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, allowed the appeal, substituted findings of dishonesty, quashed the fine, and ordered that the respondent be struck off the Roll.