The outcome of two cases last week, at opposite ends of our continent, brought good news to the legal profession.
The one of most immediate interest to solicitors was decided right here, at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, in the case of SRA v Tina Theresa Shiebert. The Gazette has already covered the case, reporting the fundamental findings: that the case against Ms Shiebert was thrown out without even having to hear her defence because the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s case was so weak that proceedings should end immediately; that costs were awarded against the SRA because its prosecution lacked any proper foundation in law or fact (‘The present allegation was fundamentally misconceived and could not succeed on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence’); that Ms Shiebert had an unblemished record of 39 years, and had suffered greatly in defending herself. This is very good news for Ms Shiebert, despite her suffering, and for all future solicitors who might face unjust prosecution by the regulator.
What more is there to say about the SRA itself? Interestingly, these are the exact words I used when I last wrote about the SRA a couple of months ago in the light of the Axiom Ince and SSB Law disasters. What more is there to say? And yet now there is more to say, regrettably in the same direction. Has the tipping point passed, or will the SRA be able to counter the growing feeling that it is a failing, not to say failed, regulator?
The profession is not allowed, because of the Internal Governance Rules, to say much through its professional body about the regulator, and is certainly not allowed to assess the SRA’s performance. But the profession is still liable to pay for the SRA’s failures, not only through the compensation fund, but also, as we see from the Shiebert case, through the costs incurred through a misconceived prosecution.
And yet another possible form of our financial liability also appeared last week, in the news that Axiom Ince’s insurers are suing the SRA following their pay-outs over the case. If the lawsuit is successful, and the SRA is not fully insured against its losses, solicitors will presumably carry the financial can.
Read more by Goldsmith
As one commentator has pointed out, the Shiebert case shows an alarming lack of accountability on the part of the SRA. Because of the Internal Governance Rules, the Law Society is not able to hold the SRA to account on behalf of the profession, and the body which is supposed to do the job, the Legal Services Board, believed until a short while ago that the SRA was its star pupil, and is implicated in its deep-rooted failures.
As others have also pointed out, the SRA is doubtless readying itself to take action against those solicitors guilty of misconduct in the Post Office Horizon case. But has it taken any action against its own in-house solicitors implicated in its own failures?
What is the end to this story?
There was happier news at the other end of the continent, the second case of the week. I wrote six months ago about the bravery and values of the president of the Istanbul Bar Association, İbrahim Özden Kaboğlu, who had been recently dismissed from his position, along with the other members of the board of the bar, by a court in Turkey/Türkiye.
This was following the bar’s issue of a statement condemning the alleged targeting and deaths by drone strike of two journalists covering Syria, and asking for an effective and impartial investigation into the circumstances and respect for international humanitarian law. They were charged with ‘terrorist propaganda’ under Article 7/2 of Türkiye’s Anti-Terrorism Law.
The Law Society issued a condemnatory statement at the time, and was one of the 37 legal and human rights organisations which signed a joint statement in advance of the proceedings, calling for the case to be dropped. Many European bars sent trial observers in support of the defendants.
And, late last week, all the defendants were acquitted, to great celebrations. However, that is not the end of their tribulations: first, there could be an appeal by the prosecutor, and at the same time there are parallel civil proceedings aimed at removing the association’s leadership.
It may seem unbelievable that a bar association’s leaders were prosecuted under a terrorism charge. But in this country terrorism charges have been laid against many peaceful demonstrators for holding up signs in support of Palestine Action. And in the United States, protestors against the administration’s actions are regularly labelled as domestic terrorists. This raises the question of whether the use of the word ‘terrorism’ is growing out of all recognition to its original meaning.
The successful outcome of the case in Türkiye offers some hope in the gloom.
Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society
No comments yet