A former consultant who was prevented from working in the profession more than a decade ago has failed in his latest bid to return.
Huseyin Arslan had asked the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to review the regulator's decision to turn down his application to revoke his section 43 order. Arslan argued that the indefinite nature of the order breached his human rights and had placed an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on his personal, family and professional life. He also claimed procedural flaws in the SRA’s conduct undermined the decision to extend his order.
But the tribunal said Arslan continued to fail to recognise his mistakes and showed a lack of insight. ‘A section 43 order has a regulatory function, not a punitive function and that is why the order is of indefinite duration,’ said the tribunal. ‘The purpose of the order is to safeguard the public and the reputation of the profession.’
Arslan, formerly employed by national firm Duncan Lewis Solicitors, had originally been made subject to the order in January 2015 after the Solicitors Regulation Authority found that he provided false and misleading information during an investigation.
In 2016, the SDT upheld his review and revoked the order, only for the High Court to reverse that decision following an application for judicial review by the SRA.
Arslan waited almost five years before making contact with the SRA about possible revocation. The SRA wrongly told him to apply to the tribunal, which did not have jurisdiction.
The incorrect advice continued after Arslan then applied to the SRA to overturn the order. An adjudicator refused him entry back into the profession, but told him that he could appeal the decision in the High Court.
Arslan duly filed his appeal in the High Court, only for the SRA to apply to strike it out on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction. Finally Arslan applied to the tribunal in April 2024 for the SRA’s refusal decision to be revoked.
Arslan maintained that the adjudicator’s approach was fundamentally flawed and unjust. He characterised the SRA’s approach as marked by a ‘superficial review, evident bias and a disregard for the principles of proportionality and fairness’.
The SRA said its adjudicator had been right to determine that Arslan’s attitudinal issues, lack of insight and remorse were not properly remedied.
The tribunal identified no procedural defects by the SRA adjudicator when upholding the order. It backed the view that Arslan’s evidence of professional competence, experience and training in the past 10 years had not mitigated the lack of insight, remorse and rehabilitation. Arslan’s application was dismissed and he was further ordered to pay the SRA’s £4,071 costs.
