Court turns down tribunal representation claim

Human Rights: right to fair trial might require SDT funding

The Court of Appeal has rejected an argument from a solicitor that he should have been entitled under the Human Rights Act (HRA) to free representation when appearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.In Pine v the Law Society, solicitor Simon Pine - represented by national law firm Irwin Mitchell - argued that the fact he was not represented in a disciplinary tribunal hearing, and was not able to appear himself, was contrary to his right to a fair trial under article 6 of the HRA.While his claim was dismissed by the Appeal Court, one of the three judges - the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Andrew Morritt - gave obiter dicta, suggesting that the argument could theoretically stand for impoverished clients.Sir Andrew said: 'There may be circumstances in which the fact that a party is both unrepresented and absent for the hearing will amount to a denial of effective access to the court, and therefore, a breach of article 6.'Mr Pine argued that he should have received representation from the Legal Services Commission (LSC) or from the Law Society.An LSC spokeswoman said: 'In theory, exceptional funding could cover any tribunal now, including the SDT.

However it would be unusual.

Under current guidance you would have to prove it was practically impossible for the client to proceed unrepresented.' She added that this would be difficult to show if the client were a solicitor.John Plane, the Law Society's director of regulation, said the Society will consider the issue in the light of the decision.Jeremy Fleming