Jack Grunhut v Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited

An appeal from a specialist disciplinary tribunal is ordinarily by way of review. The High Court may interfere where the decision contains an error of law or fact, an error in discretion, or is unjust because of serious procedural irregularity. Particular restraint applies to factual findings, evaluative judgments, dishonesty, integrity and sanction.

For dishonesty, the tribunal must establish the person’s actual knowledge or belief and then apply the objective standards of ordinary decent people. Deliberately creating a false document and knowingly giving false or misleading information may justify striking-off. The exceptional-circumstances exception remains narrow.

Jack Grunhut appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision of 18 January 2024. The Tribunal struck him off after finding proved allegations concerning a backdated trust deed, undisclosed loans from clients, undisclosed referral arrangements, and inadequate client due diligence under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. One allegation was not proved and another was withdrawn.

The appeal challenged the factual findings, findings of dishonesty and integrity, the sanction, and the costs award. The central issues were whether the Tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity, and whether striking-off was disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings on Allegations 1, 2, 4 and 6, its decision to strike the appellant from the Roll, and its costs award were upheld.
2. Under CPR 52.21, the appeal proceeded by way of review. The Court applied the principles summarised in Ali v Solicitors Regulation Authority and Martin v Solicitors Regulation Authority. It was insufficient that the Court might have reached a different conclusion. Intervention required an identifiable legal or evidential error, or a conclusion which could not reasonably be explained or justified. The Tribunal’s specialist expertise required particular caution.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to reject the appellant’s explanations concerning the backdated trust deed and the answers about financial relationships and referral arrangements. It had considered his state of mind, inexperience, supervision, good character and the evidence as a whole.
4. The Tribunal correctly applied the approach in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd: first determining the appellant’s actual knowledge or belief, and then applying the standards of ordinary decent people. Its findings supported dishonesty and lack of integrity.
5. The admitted failure to conduct due diligence on a newly identified beneficial owner established the regulatory breach. Workload and inexperience did not justify appellate interference.
6. On sanction, the Tribunal correctly applied SRA v Sharma and Solicitors Regulation Authority v James. Dishonesty normally leads to striking-off, subject to a small residual category of exceptional cases. The repeated misconduct, reputational harm and absence of a sufficient connection between mitigation and dishonesty justified striking-off.
7. The Tribunal had a wide discretion on costs. Although its calculations could not be precisely reconciled, the award was not shown to be wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision of 18 January 2024 dismissed. The strike-off and costs award were upheld.