SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY v SOOPHIA KHAN & Ors

A non-commercial body’s statutory entitlement to carry on reserved legal activities does not exempt its directors or employees from the separate requirement to be authorised or exempt. An employee who performs reserved legal work remains personally responsible for carrying it on, even where the employer is entitled to do so.

The regulator may obtain an injunction against a solicitor to restrain threatened criminal breaches where there is more than a merely technical infringement, a real risk of continuation, and the injunction is necessary to protect the public and make regulatory intervention effective. Ancillary relief may be granted against a company through which the solicitor acts.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened in the practice of a solicitor who was the sole principal and director of a law firm. After the intervention, the solicitor asserted that the firm’s business and client files had been transferred to a not-for-profit company, through which she could continue providing reserved legal services despite suspension of her practising certificate.

The Authority sought injunctions restraining the solicitor from carrying on reserved legal activities or holding herself out as entitled to do so, and restraining the company from carrying on such activities through her. The issues included the construction of the Legal Services Act 2007, the Authority’s standing to seek relief which would restrain criminal conduct, and whether injunctive relief was necessary and sufficiently certain.

1. Statutory entitlement of individuals. Ms Khan’s primary argument failed. Section 23 of the Legal Services Act 2007 gives a qualifying not-for-profit body transitional entitlement to carry on reserved legal activities, but it does not exempt the body’s individual directors or employees from the requirements of section 13(2). The statutory context, particularly sections 14, 15 and 16, required that conclusion.
2. Employees and directors. Under section 15, an employee carrying on a reserved legal activity in that capacity carries on the activity himself or herself, whether or not the employer is entitled to do so. The extended meaning of employee includes a manager, and a director is a manager under section 207. Where the employer provides legal services to the public, both employer and employee may be carrying on the same reserved activity. Section 16 confirms that the employer may commit an offence where the employee is not entitled.
3. Application to the evidence. Ms Khan’s issuing proceedings, serving documents, entering appearances and seeking to exercise rights of audience created a real risk that she would continue carrying on reserved legal activities. The fact that she acted in the name or capacity of JFP did not remove her personal responsibility. The injunction did not prevent non-reserved legal advice, acting as a McKenzie Friend, or representation in a coroner’s court where permission was obtained, provided full disclosure was made.
4. Standing and discretion. Although civil injunctions restraining crime are exceptional, the principles in City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Limited [1992] 3 All ER 697 were satisfied. There was more than a mere infringement of criminal law, a real risk of continuation, and a need for coercive relief because prior orders and other remedies had not secured compliance. The SRA’s statutory regulatory role supplied a sufficient public interest.
5. Relief against JFP. The court had inherent and statutory jurisdiction under section 50 of the Solicitors Act 1974 to grant ancillary relief against JFP, so that the injunction against Ms Khan would be effective. The injunction against JFP was limited to reserved legal activities carried on through Ms Khan; it did not prevent JFP using another authorised employee.