Appeal: judge refuses to remit the case for rehearing as it has little prospect of success


The High Court last month threw out an attempt to resurrect disciplinary action against two solicitors who received more than £20,000 in undisclosed payments from a local search company.



The Administrative Court ended the Law Society's action against Mark Hedley Adcock and Neil Kenneth Mocroft despite deciding that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) had been wrong in its construction of practice rule 10 - receipt of commissions from third parties - when throwing out the case against them.



Lord Justice Waller refused to remit it for rehearing because it had little prospect of success. He also deprecated the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) allegation of dishonesty against the pair.



The Property Search Group paid Mr Adcock and Mr Mocroft - then partners at Adcocks (Mr Mocroft has since moved on) - £20 every time it received £186.38 in local search fees, which was not disclosed to clients. Over four a half years, the firm earned £20,638 that way, although when advised by the Law Society, it changed its client care letters to disclose the payments.



The SRA claimed that the earlier practice was 'tantamount to false accounting and dishonesty'. The SDT dismissed the case summarily on the basis that it could not succeed.



Lord Justice Waller observed that 'if the respondents are to have any answer to the allegations that they were making a secret profit, it can only be supplied by rule 10'. But he went on to decide that, as a matter of construction, rule 10 did not apply because the payment was not a commission.



In refusing to remit the case on several grounds, the judge said it was 'inconceivable that any tribunal could find the respondents in any way dishonest', which was also a factor in him revisiting the SDT's costs order to the benefit of the solicitors. Though he found the SRA had been unclear over such payments for some time, he endorsed the tribunal's view that the solicitors' conduct was 'not beyond criticism'.



Speaking for Mr Mocroft as well, Mr Adcock said: 'The High Court has confirmed that the proceedings taken against us where ill-conceived. In particular the court confirmed that we were not guilty of any professional misdemeanour at all.'



He added: 'The case highlights a number of areas which should concern the profession in the way the SRA handles complaints of professional impropriety. The allegations bore no proportion to the cost of them and the anxiety we, our families and staff have had to endure.'



However, Mr Adcock said the findings on rule 10 were not that helpful - 'if not a commission, what was the payment?' he asked.



An SRA spokesman said: 'We believe we were right to pursue this matter, especially in the light of the finding that the retention of £20,000 was not justified by rule 10. However, we understand the court's comments about the allegation of dishonesty and appreciate that prolonged uncertainty about disciplinary proceedings might have been unfair on the solicitors.'



Neil Rose