Naim Lone v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd

An appellate court reviewing a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision must respect the Tribunal’s factual findings and specialist evaluative judgments. Intervention is justified only for an error of law, fact or discretion, a serious procedural irregularity, or a conclusion outside the range reasonably open to the Tribunal.

A solicitor’s good faith, lack of dishonesty, absence of actual loss and eventual rectification may mitigate misconduct, but do not excuse breach of a court order or substitution of the solicitor’s own arrangements for the protections imposed by that order. Solicitors must also manage conflicts of interest so that a person with a personal financial interest does not continue professional work on a client’s matter.

Mr Lone appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 15 January 2021.

The Tribunal found proved that he had dealt improperly with client money in breach of a court order and the applicable regulatory requirements, had permitted a conflicted former solicitor to work on another client’s estate matter, and had failed adequately to protect the estate’s loan. It imposed an £8,000 fine and ordered him to pay £29,359.05 in costs.

The appeal challenged the findings of misconduct, the sanction and the costs order. The central issue was whether the Tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision was not wrong within the meaning of CPR 52.21(3), nor unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The court order governing client C’s money was clear. Mr Lone did not place the money in his own client account, placed it in another firm’s client account, and had no written agreement authorising that course. Breach of the order, and the substitution of his own judgment for the court’s protection of the funds, amounted to impropriety. His good intentions, lack of personal gain, lack of dishonesty, client C’s lack of objection and the absence of actual loss were matters of mitigation only.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to find that person B had worked on client D’s estate matter beyond any necessary handover. Person B had a direct personal interest in the repayment of estate money and was in dispute with client D. Allowing him to undertake professional work therefore compromised the solicitor’s independence and was contrary to the client’s best interests. Mr Lone could instead have worked with the intervention agent.
4. The Tribunal was also entitled to conclude that Mr Lone should either have taken available steps to secure the loan, including the proposed charge, or obtained and clearly recorded a different agreement or instruction. The eventual repayment of the loan mitigated the misconduct but did not remove the conflict or the risk.
5. The Tribunal properly applied the three-stage sanctions guidance. It was entitled to consider potential as well as actual harm, including the exposure of substantial client funds to avoidable risk and the impact on public confidence. An £8,000 fine was within the available range.
6. The costs order was also within the Tribunal’s broad discretion. The SRA was overall successful, the unproved aspects had been properly charged, and an issues-based assessment would have been disproportionate. The summary assessment of £29,359.05 disclosed no appealable error.

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal — On 15 January 2021, the Tribunal found most allegations proved, imposed an £8,000 fine and ordered costs of £29,359.05.

High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 was dismissed.