Sheikh : judges call on Law Society to give solicitors better reasons for its actions


The unprecedented decision to overturn a Law Society intervention into a solicitor's practice was flawed, the Court of Appeal ruled last week.



The appeal judges said there was 'force' in Law Society submissions that, having decided from her time in the witness box that sole practitioner Anal Sheikh was not dishonest, Mr Justice Park had been too ready to overlook matters which gave rise to suspicions of dishonesty. It made no ruling on whether those suspicions were borne out.



In June 2005, the High Court judge overturned the intervention into Ms Sheikh's north London practice, primarily because of the Society's failure to prove dishonesty.



'It was unnecessary - and, I would say, inappropriate - in the present case for the judge to make a finding of honesty or dishonesty,' said Lord Justice Chadwick. The question was whether the suspicion of dishonesty raised by the material on which the Society relied had been dispelled by the evidence. 'In my view he was wrong to conclude - on the basis of Ms Sheikh's demeanour as a witness - that he should answer this question in the affirmative.'



Ms Sheikh was also accused of accounts rules breaches and the court made it clear that the Society may intervene for that reason even if dishonesty is not suspected.



However, the Court of Appeal was critical of the very general reasons for intervention given to solicitors. 'Disclosure of reasons in those terms is calculated to make it difficult for the solicitor to know and address the real concerns which had led to the exercise of intervention powers,' said Lord Justice Chadwick, calling on the Society to consider the need for 'much more specificity'.



This issue was highlighted by Gillian Benning, a partner at London firm RadcliffesLeBrasseur which represented Ms Sheikh. 'The Court of Appeal recognised that the Law Society's approach to the intervention, and interventions generally, is unsatisfactory and unfair,' she said.



The appeal was pursued on the basis that the Law Society would not seek an order for costs against Ms Sheikh, so as to mitigate the effect of the appeal on her and in view of the points of principle concerned - such as confirmation that a judge can take into account the wider circumstances, such as the solicitor's complaints history, in making a risk-based judgement as to whether the solicitor can be reinstated in practice.



Although the Society also agreed not to seek to re-intervene into her practice, Ms Sheikh will now go before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. 'The judgment enables the Regulation Board to pursue serious allegations which might otherwise have been problematic in view of Park J's findings,' the board said. Ms Benning said her client would go on contesting the allegations.



The board also said it will review its processes. Chief executive Antony Townsend said intervention is 'a power that must be, and clearly has been, exercised carefully and fairly... We will study this judgment to see what further improvements we can make'.



Neil Rose