Decisions filed recently with the Law Society (which may be subject to appeal)
Hearing 23 May 2022
Reasons 1 June 2022
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal granted the applicant’s application for the variation of conditions it had imposed on 5 July 2018 as follows: (i) that he might not be a sole manager or sole owner of any authorised body; and (ii) that he might not practise on his own account under regulation 10.2(a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations.
The applicant held a current practising certificate subject to conditions imposed by the respondent and also subject to restrictions placed on his practice by the SDT.
The respondent had amended and varied the restrictions it had placed on his practising certificate such that the only conditions presently imposed by the respondent were that he was not the sole manager or owner of an authorised body and that he could not practise on his own account under regulation 10.2(a) or (b) of the SRA Authorisation of Individuals Regulations.
The applicant applied to vary the SDT’s restrictions such that they mirrored those of the respondent.
The applicant had been employed by his current employer since 2017. During that time, there had been no regulatory concerns regarding his conduct. There was also no suggestion that he had failed to comply with the restrictions imposed on his practice by the SDT.
The applicant had demonstrated insight into his misconduct. It was clear that the firm had policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the restrictions, preventing a repeat of any similar misconduct.
The applicant had been undertaking work for the firm since October 2017, since when there had been no regulatory concerns regarding his conduct, nor had there been any suggestion that he had failed to comply with the restrictions imposed on his practice by the SDT. The application was supported by the respondent.
The application had been properly considered in that the applicant was only applying for the variation/removal of the conditions that were no longer considered to be necessary or appropriate. The applicant was taking a sensible approach to his rehabilitation and was undertaking the necessary action to remediate his misconduct. Accordingly, the SDT granted the application to vary the conditions.
The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £725.