The Ministry of Justice wants to report a solicitor to the SRA for allegedly improper conduct – but cannot do so because of an anonymity order, it has emerged.

The solicitor was granted anonymity on the basis of his right to privacy after he sued the MoJ for not complying with a 'subject access' request. He won the case and was awarded damages, but his conduct during later costs hearings was in breach of SRA rules, the MoJ has alleged.

Paul Joseph, representing the MoJ at the High Court on Wednesday, said: 'We have evidence before this court of a most serious disciplinary offence which my client wishes to draw to the attention of the SRA. We cannot do that because of the presence of an anonymity order. We cannot ask the SRA to discipline a solicitor whose identity could not be revealed.

'Trivial breaches would not justify us reporting. We are talking about really serious breaches of that code of conduct.'

The solicitor - referred to in court as AB - was the managing partner of his own law firm, the court heard.

Joseph said AB had sworn at him and his instructing solicitor at a court hearing on May 2019. 'The claimant swore and walked out of court.' Joseph said. 'He came back in and walked out again. The learned judge decided she would abandon the hearing.'

Costs were awarded against AB, who chose to start sending documents in sealed envelopes to the various judges involved in the litigation without serving them on the defence, the court heard. One of the judges, Master James, had revealed he had received an envelope in August 2019, Joseph said.

'She received these documents in sealed envelopes from the claimant and responded to say "you are in breach of CPR part 39 because you have not served this information on the defence"', Joseph told the court.

Ministry of Justice exterior, London

Source: Alamy

Mr Justice Murray was 'subjected to the same treatment', Joseph claimed. AB 'tried it on again' with Mr Justice Eyre, the court heard. 

Joseph said: 'We have had this charade, if I may be rude enough to say, from this defendant for years. Every judge has said, "up with this we will not put".'

He said AB’s conduct had been 'calculated', claiming he had billed the MoJ for 336 hours of his time spent drawing up a bill of costs and had charged £750 an hour for work done in 2011. Joseph added: 'You would struggle to get £750 an hour for a KC now in 2023. No reasonable solicitor could possibly have sent that bill. These things are serious breaches of the code of conduct.'

Joseph said the claims had been 'manifestly excessive'.

He said AB’s conduct was 'persistently improper and relentlessly unreasonable' over the years the case had been going on.

David Boyle, representing AB, said the solicitor had a health condition which had made him act in the way that he did. He said if the anonymity was lifted then AB would be forced to disclose his health condition to explain his behaviour and this could be ’indirect discrimination’ on the basis of a disability.

Boyle also argued lifting the anonymity would interfere with AB’s private and family life by revealing the existence of a 'malicious, untrue, offensive and inappropriate' document created by the MoJ. 

The MoJ had undertaken to destroy the document and it had not been referred to in previous hearings.

Judgment was reserved.