• Application 11671-2017
• Hearing 20 October 2017
• Reasons 15 November 2017
The SDT ordered that the applicant’s application for the determination of the indefinite suspension imposed on 27 November 2009 should be refused.
The SDT was concerned that permitting the applicant to practise as a solicitor would pose a risk to the public. That was particularly so because he had not undergone any training in relation to the multiple new areas in which he proposed to work, each of which was substantial and several of which involved working with vulnerable clients.
The applicant had had little training since 2009 with regard to the regulatory regime and the professional ethics of solicitors, only attending one course on the accounts rules. While the SDT would not necessarily expect someone to have completed all possible training before returning to work, some evidence of their ability to respond to retraining would be necessary.
In addition to the current lack of training on specific legal areas to date, the applicant had not provided clear information about how he would be trained in future, and how he would be supervised.
The SDT was not satisfied, either on the balance of probabilities or even more clearly on the criminal standard, that the applicant had discharged the burden on him of showing that determining the suspension would not adversely affect the reputation of the profession or put the public at risk.
The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £2,796.