Court to decide whether Law Society's power over firms breaches human rights

INTERVENTION: procedure may be unnecessary and interfere with right to possess property

The High Court has cleared the way for a Human Rights Act challenge to the Law Society's power to intervene in solicitors' practices.

Mr Justice Peter Smith last month allowed solicitor David Holder's appeal against the decision to dismiss his challenge to the intervention.

Master Price had ruled that it had no prospect of success.

The Society closed down the north London practice in June 2001 for alleged breaches of the accounts rules.

In the past year, the Society has intervened in around 90 firms.

Mr Holder - whose practising certificate is currently suspended - denies any dishonesty and says that any deficiencies in his accounts were remedied before the intervention.

It is understood that Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal charges are on hold.

Lawyers for Mr Holder - who set up Baskin & Co in August 2000 - argued that the human right to possession of property could apply to interventions.

The judge found that, in some cases, immediate intervention in a solicitor's practice was necessary to protect the public.

However, in other cases, there might be an alternative approach, such as appointing a receiver to manage the practice.

He said he was not convinced that an intervention 'is always necessary'.

That meant that if the procedure was unnecessary, 'and it resulted in the interference to the right to possession of property, the procedure itself will infringe the [solicitor's] human rights'.

Appointing a receiver, he said, would allow for continuity in service, the opportunity to preserve goodwill and the value of work in progress, and could be a fairer system which did not infringe human rights.

The Law Society is likely to appeal, which would put a full hearing on hold.

Mr Holder's solicitor, Jack Rabinowicz of London firm Teacher Stern Selby, said that where solicitors have run off with client money, then an intervention was justified.

But he added that where a solicitor stays to face the allegations, the effect of the intervention drains a practice of all value.

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'We intervene and close firms only after thorough investigation, in order to protect the public from risk.

We will consider the points raised in the judgment very carefully - it is the Law Society's role to regulate effectively, and to deal efficiently, with alleged malpractice.'

The Law Society was advised by Holborn firm Wright Son & Pepper.

Neil Rose