SDT publishes first guide to sanctions-setting process

Both this article and the SDT press release conspicuously fail to mention is that the SDT was criticised for not being clear about sanctions in Hazelhurst v SRA [2011] EWHC 462 (Admin). That was in March 20i1, so it has taken the SDT almost 18 months to respond to that criticism.

It is interesting to note that the SRA say that employed staff are either let off or effectively stopped from working.

This means either a not guilty finding or the equivalent of a striking off with nothing in between. What about warnings, fines and suspensions?.Where is the fairness?

'Solicitor', my friend, you are spot on!!

All who agree please say so.

The position in relation to employees who are not solicitors is dealt with in section 43 of the Solicitor Act 1974 (and para 4 of the Guidance Note). The SDT has no power to fine or suspend them, because they are not solicitors.

One important thing which is lacking in the Guidance Note is any consideration of the approach will the SDT will take in deciding whether to sanction a regulatory settlement (that is, a settlement deal entered into between the SRA and the respondent solicitor).

The section on costs against the SRA (paras 60 to 62) reflects the unsatisfactory nature of the authorities on the topic. If a solicitor defeats the allegations made against him, he should be awarded his costs. It should not be necessary, in order for him to be awarded his costs, for him to show that the prosection was improperly brought or was a shambles. This puts solicitors at a serious disadvantage and means that they may be better off pleading guilty to allegations, even if they believe they have a good defence to them. This aspect of the process has been further distorted by the SRA's decision to revise the minimum terms, so that solicitors are no longer automatically entitled to be covered by their insurers in respect of the costs of defending proceedings in the SDT.

It would be interesting to know who wrote the Guidance Note. Let us hope that it was not someone who regularly appears for the SRA before the SDT.

The "chilling effect" argument is obviously nonsense: the SRA is not going to be deterred from bringing a prosecution simply because (if the proseuction fails) the respondent solicitor will be awarded his costs. As the law currently stands, the "chilling effect" is felt by the respondent solicitor, who may be reluctant to defend himself because he knows that, even if his defence succeeds, he is unlikely to recover his costs.

As for re-admitting solicitors who have been found guilty of dishonesty, it can (in theory) happen: the solicitor can apply to have his name restored to the roll (though the chances of that application succeeding are, quite rightly, very low indeed).

Another area which is ripe for review is the question of imposing conditions on practising certificates. This is usually done by the SRA following a conviction by the SDT. The SRA will often impose conditions even if the SDT's judgment made no reference to the imposition of such conditions. This cannot possibly be fair: the prosecutor is, in effect, punishing the solicitor despite the fact that he has already been punished by the SDT.

Having read the so called SDT sanctions it does not respond to the accusations levied on it. The SDT have dispensed with human rights and labelled honest people dishonest to explain their existence. They know that they got a lot of cases wrong, their published decisions speak for itself and are testamentary unto their work and the decision makers entrusted with the life and existence of their fellow human beings with blood and water in their veins. A lot of their decisions are so troubling that there is no world comparison.
Solicitor A was found dishonest for trying to deceive the dubious investigation officer that threatened, abused and intimidated her into writing a file note dated the same year of investigation. The SDT stated that the act of trying to deceive the investigation officer is dishonest and struck her off and imposed a fine of £38,000. They saw evidence of the intimidation, threat yet they could not be bothered. The same Chairmain that struck her off stated that solicitor B convicted by a Magistrate Court for fare evasion is not dishonest and was fined only £1700 pounds. Solicitor A before the Tribunal hearing was labelled a danger to the public and conditions imposed on her practicing certificate.
Solicitor C was convcted by the jury under Proceed of crime Act and money laundering at the SDT Sdt she was fined £1800 and remains in practice.
Solicitor D was convicted by the jury under proceed of crime Act at the SDT he was fined £2000 and he remains on the roll.
Solicitor E took the sum of £14,000 from his client who was on legal aid and is serving long sentence for drug and money laundering offences and had 41 client cases over drawn and had qualified accounts for many years, He was never referred to the SDT but was fined £425.00 by the SRA. in house. where does the sanction fall on this few examples. In all cases of dishonesty the SRA should pursue the matter in the Courts where there are proper tarrifs that will fit the offence. If the Tribunal can fine up to £1.4 on a case because they have been asked to generare £50 million. then such cases should go for proper litigation. I wonder if the Tribunal saw and read this case. ECHR W.R V Austria

The point being made about recusals is exactly if the president of the SDT at that time and the vice president being at the senior level should have known better.

Forget about being recused at an earlier stage. Should not have sat on that case AT ALL.

For your information that member did not recuse himself he was forced to recuse.

I am not the Anon at 13:17. That person was different. I am at 11:04.

If you let the case run with the chair with conflict of int., next you are criticised why did you not get that person to recuse themselves.

However if you ask the person to recuse and they refuse then you have a good reason to appeal.

Got any evidence to back them up?

Cite it, then. Now's your chance. If you're a lawyer, you'll know that what is required is evidence, not rumour and innuendo.

You made a statement, which you have failed to back up with any evidence at all (despite being invited to do so). As far as I am concerned, that it is a pretty good defintion of rumour. If you don't want to cite your evidence because you're frightened about the implications of doing so, say that. At the moment, you're just another on the long list of people who use this site to make extreme statements about the SRA without backing them up with any evidence. You say you've got plenty of evidence, so let's hear it. If you're not willing to disclose it on here, presumably you're disclosing it to a regulatory lawyer or MP or someone else in a position of suitable authority, so that action can be taken. Is that right?

So, you've seen the evidence, but you don't want to cite it, because this is not the appropriate forum? To which forum are you proposing to disclose it, then? Chapter 10 of the Handbook obliges a solicitor to report serious misconduct to the SRA. That would include alleged serious misconduct on the part of a solicitor sitting on the SDT. Have you shown the evidence to the SRA? Or is the answer "no, because they're all in on it - this thing that I have evidence of but am not prepared to disclose".

There is an awful lot of tosh above. Anon 13.7 refers to A B C D cases with quoted results. These are matters of record if they came before the Tribunal and were adjudicated on. Give the names so we thirsters after knowledge can see for ourselves Anon 13.7's gleaming brilliance? None of us wish to plough through the 1300+ cases on the SDT website.

Nothing clever or sinister about recusal. The Tribunal may not see the relevant papers until shortly before the hearing. Some Respondents fail to cooperate and behave as if the Tribunal doesn't exist. Only themselves to blame if a Tribunal member realises late in the day that he is 'that particular Bill Brown' not another man of same name. There are many reasons, some far-fetched others sound, where a member may be asked to recuse or feel it appropriate to recuse himself.

It is trite law that a regulator acting properly may not be penalised in costs just because the Respondent wins. See e.g.: Baxendale-Walker v Law Soc [2007] EWCA Civ 233 per Laws LJ,not a soft touch. The Tribunal however are willing to listen carefully to a proper submission to reduce payable costs, such as refusing any costs of a hearing when content the case could and should have been agreed and concluded before it got that far. Me 16.47 has a good point and there ought to be some protection akin to a Part 36 offer on costs.

It is wrong to accuse the Tribunal of being the SRA'a poodle, as anyone who has been there will know.