A failure to prove dishonesty was central to why the High Court for the first time overturned a Law Society decision to intervene in a solicitor's practice, it emerged last week.

In detailed reasons handed down to explain his ruling last month (see [2005] Gazette, 16 June, 1), Mr Justice Park said the adjudication panel - which decides whether the Law Society should intervene in firms - did not explain why it suspected sole practitioner Anal Sheikh of dishonesty. She was also accused of accounts rules breaches.


By deciding to intervene in her north London firm Ashley & Co in February, the three-strong panel also went further than staff recommendations, which were for stringent conditions to be placed on Ms Sheikh's practising certificate.


The judge found it standard practice that panels do not record reasons for decisions, which usually does not matter as they are obvious. According to the ruling, nobody at the Law Society except for the panel members - none of whom gave evidence - appeared to know why it suspected dishonesty in this case and this meant Ms Sheikh's challenge to the decision was drawn out.


In a 136-page ruling, he criticised Chancery Lane's pursuit of numerous allegations, large and small, against Ms Sheikh to justify the intervention. 'She made a very good impression,' he said. 'She did not remotely strike me as the dishonest, grasping incompetent implied by the Law Society's multiple attacks on her.'


He added: 'On the basis of the evidence and arguments before me, I do not think that there is reason to suspect Ms Sheikh of dishonesty.'


The judge said that while there had been staffing and administrative problems at Ashley & Co, including breaches of the accounts rules, about which the Law Society could legitimately feel concern, 'in my view they were not remotely as bad or unacceptable as has been contended'.


In the event of breaches of the accounts rules that are not dishonest, Judge Park said 'an intervention ought, I suggest, to be unusual. I would expect the Law Society to look to other regulatory or disciplinary powers'.


He expressed general sympathy for firms in complying with the accounts rules, saying his impression was that 'very few' did not 'slip up in one respect or other... from time to time'.


A Law Society spokesman said: 'The Society is giving careful consideration to the judgment of Mr Justice Park and will decide in due course whether it is necessary to seek permission to appeal.'


It was represented by London firm Russell-Cooke. Westminster firm RadcliffesLeBrasseur advised Ms Sheikh.