SRA wins appeal for dishonesty strike-off
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has successfully appealed to the High Court to have a lawyer struck off the roll for dishonesty, overturning an ‘unduly lenient’ Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal verdict.
The tribunal in February 2011 ordered Millard Spence of Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, to be suspended for three years after he had continued to practise without a practising certificate or professional indemnity insurance. In its appeal, the SRA argued the sentence was unduly lenient. The High Court agreed and last week ordered Spence to be struck off.
In its judgment, the court understood why the tribunal had not seen the case as the most serious example of dishonesty, but ruled that clients were at the highest possible risk if he continued to practise without insurance or a certificate.
David Middleton, SRA executive director, said: ‘It was important to bring the appeal against the SDT's decision in this case to maintain the principle that a finding of dishonesty will almost invariably indicate that a solicitor is a risk to the public and therefore that strike off is the appropriate order to be made.
‘We do not believe that substantial fining powers are a substitute for strike-off when the risk to the public is substantial.’
Spence set up his own practice in July 2007, but in September 2007 his professional indemnity insurance ran out. His practising certificate was subsequently cancelled by the SRA following non-payment of the fee for 2007-08. The SRA intervened in Spence's practice in July 2008.
The tribunal found Spence guilty of making dishonest and misleading statements to the SRA, including informing the SRA that he was at home rather than acting as an advocate in a criminal case when his firm was inspected in February 2008.
Comments
Clearly the right decision.
Clearly the right decision. Even if this isn't at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of dishonesty, the risk to the public at large who might instruct him without knowing he was uninsured was clearly substantial.
Not quite as big as win for the SRA as they might make out though, given that the offence occurred half a decade ago.
Robinson v SRA
A more interesting decision is Robinson v SRA [2012] EWHC 2690 (Admin), where the appellant solicitor tried to overturn the penalties imposed by the SDT, principally on the basis that the SDT was said to have discriminated against the solicitor by reason of his ethnic origins. Not surprisingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
The SDT had ordered that the solicitor be suspended for one year and that he should not practise as a sole principal or in partnership without the prior consent of the SRA. Curiously, the SRA did not cross-appeal and seek to have the solicitor struck off.
culture of dishonesty
I am not a lawyer and am astounded that any lawyer practising the least dishonesty should not be struck off permanently. When I was young, you were either honest or you were not. Once it was known that you had behaved dishonestly in some way, you were finished. Dishonesty was seen as something inherent, that you could not be trusted to "recover" from. Now we seem to live in a culture of dishonesty, where the prime motivation seems to be to look after No 1, watch your back, and not get caught.
Dishonest behaviour
The attitude to dishonesty was much the same when I was growing up. I feel that in today's world everyone should be entitled to make the odd mistake when they you young and unless very serious and you have learned from it, the slate should be wiped clean. In this case however I agree with the above. By the time someone has qualified as a solicitor they have done their learning and growing up and hold a position of trust and responsibility. Therefore although I am all for allowing people to make mistakes I think solicitors should be struck off for good for dishonesty in all cases.
The next question is what sort of behaviour constitutes dishonesty? The interpretation of what is dishonest has certainly changed from when I was younger. In many circles and professions (directors of listed companies on the junior stock market being one example) there are differing interpretations. Thieving and fraud is generally accepted as dishonest. But how about perjury, making misleading statments, lying and submitting bogus PPI or court claims. I would suggest the latter are considered almost acceptable behaviour nowadays, save of course when these offences are committed in dealings with the regulator, as per the above.
I think it is about time that all types of dishonest behaviour are treated as such and punished accordingly.
Struck off or not....
Whether or not a barrister or solicitor has been struck off,
it certainly doesn't stop them continuing to practice as
Advocates.
Worse - As Advocates, say in the Employment Tribunal
field, they are not regulated by either the Law Society,
The SDR, or even the Courts in which they regularly appear.
I signed a pro bono Agreement with one such 'Lawyer'
in business on his own in London.He advertised his
Expert Employment Lawyer services on the net and had
an impressive website (still does!)
Only when his subsequent unlawful conduct throughout
the case was I informed by the Respondents lawyer that my
Lawyer had famously been struck off for Gross Misconduct
in 2005.
Since his sudden disappearance before the ET trial last year,
after losing Disclosures, lying to the Court, having ignored
2 Court Orders to present himself and Disclosures at Court -
I have sought to obtain my documentation. His response ?
To sue me in the County Court for his 'costs'.
The huge amount of evidence that has come to light about
this man since shows his deliberate and systematic
dishonesty, fraud and malpractice would, we're he not
calling himself a Lawyer Advocate, see him closed down and
imprisoned.As it is, he consistently fails to appear in the
County Court, changes his website regularly, and remains
in business to ensnare other hapless clients.
Sadly, he is well known to the ET's, and there seems to
be no Regulatory body to tackle him.The next step
will be to inform the Police and bring the evidence before
them. His dishonesty so far has cost me my ET Case (struck
out due to his non-appearance with Disclosures.) And
all my savings in my amateur pursuit of him and his
malpractice.
You deserve no sympathy
You deserve no sympathy whatsoever.
You went into the market without researching it-and got a bad deal. It never ceases to amaze how people are all for a free market-until they end up on the bad end of it.
Tough-you should have used a solicitor.
I think you are too harsh,
I think you are too harsh, Anon.
The whole point in having a regulated system of regulated lawyers is to prevent people who don't know any better from instructing these idiots.
It's all very well saying "you should have chosen a solicitor", but when you have officialdom such as Adam Sampson Legal Ombudsman persuading the public that every solicitor is a lying con-merchant out to overcharge a vulnerable, distressed, client; when you have the new ABSs such as Co-Op deliberately advertising their services by misleading the public into thinking that solicitors will overcomplicate their case and rip them off; when the legal profession is under constant attack by the Government and indeed even its own Law Society - well it's no wonder that people think they are doing something clever by instructing a cheaper non-lawyer advocate.
After all, isn't that PRECISELY what the Legal Services Consumer Panel tells people to do?
The fact is that nobody cares in the slightest about the growing army of pretend legal advisers out there (many of whom unlawfully conduct litigation and unlawfully prepare reserved instruments for court proceedings, as the Legal Service Act 2007 calls it), and there is nobody to actually enforce this law.
You are right-it was too
You are right-it was too harsh.
However, your entirely valid point about a properly regulated legal profession will not be taken up by our rulers until there are so many victims of the current mess that "something will have to be done".
Yes, it is unfortunate-but the more this sort of thing happens, the sooner a proper system will be re-instated. There will be many victims-and I actually have sympathy for them-but regrettably it is the only way change will occur.
Sols Dishonesty
Fitzmichael is right. He is supported by Court of Appeal decisions. There is a very high fence to climb to show exceptional reasons not to strike off. I was in one recently. Sad, basically self-misguided but he crossed the rope.
Dishonesty
We live in such a black and white world, you are dishonest or you are honest. Do you really think life is as simple as that. A certain celeb's memory has been tarnished as some of his alleged bad behavior has come to light post his death. So was he a good man or a bad man, everyone will have their own opinion, mine is that he was a flawed man. Yes deeper flaws than most but then he did more good than most too! He raised millions of pounds for charity. Let us not forget his many great deeds for charity. As for dishonest solicitors. it is very easy to be honest when matters are going well and you are earning money. Perhaps if we want to reduce the dishonesty of solicitors who find hard times, we should have a more sympathetic ear to those in problems so perhaps they will not feel the need to cover up important issues.
A quick test, are solicitors all law abiding people, you would hope so would you not, look at your speedometer when driving, bet at least once a day you break the speed limit. If you are good and keep below the 10% plus 1 guideline you will keep a clean licence. But the point here is you have still broken the law, 70 in a 30 limit is of course reckless and needs real punishment, perhaps even a lifetime ban. The law therefore applies at least to some extent a graduated commonsense approach. So lets apply the same commonsense approach to solicitors too.