• Application 11649-2017

• Hearing 24, 25 October 2017

• Reasons 13 December 2017

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

The respondent had facilitated the abuse of litigation by bringing judicial review claims on behalf of clients which he knew were not properly arguable, where he knew or should have known that the true purpose of the claim was to thwart or delay lawful removal or procure release from lawful detention, thereby breaching principles 1, 2, and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011, and failing to achieve outcome 5.6 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2011.

He had misled clients 1, 6 and 7 that their claims for judicial review had some prospects of success when he knew that the claims were not properly arguable, in breach of principles 2, 4, 5 and 6.

He had breached his professional obligation to the Upper Tribunal not to make submissions that he did not consider were properly arguable, thereby breaching principles 1, 2 and 6 and failing to achieve outcome 5.6.

He had failed adequately to supervise unadmitted fee-earners in his firm, thereby breaching principles 6 and 8 and failing to achieve outcomes 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8.

While there had been no complaints from clients, the fact remained that clients trusted solicitors to provide accurate advice and that trust had been breached in the present case by misleading advice having been supplied on more than one occasion.

The respondent’s actions had had a significant impact on the judicial system and on the public purse. The harm caused to the reputation of the profession by such conduct was severe.

His misconduct was at the highest level which had manifested itself on multiple occasions over an extensive period. He had displayed no insight. The only appropriate sanction was a strike-off.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £37,500.