Court of Appeal
Published December 1, 2006
Sheikh v Law Society
Before Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Judgment November 23, 2006A solicitor’s established history of complaints was a relevant consideration in deciding the question whether intervention in the practice by the Law Society was to be set aside.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment allowing an appeal by the Law Society from Mr Justice Park ([2006] 4 All ER 717) who ordered the withdrawal of notices of intervention served on a solicitor, Ms Anal Sheikh, practising as Ashley & Co, St John’s Wood.

Mr Timothy Dutton, QC and Mr Andrew Peebles for the Law Society; Mr Gregory Treverton- Jones, QC, for Ms Sheikh.

LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK said that section 35 of, and paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 provided powers of intervention where the Law Society’s compliance board either suspected a solicitor’s dishonesty or was satisfied of failure to comply with the accounts rules.

Paragraphs 6(4) and 9(8) of Schedule 1 made provisions for an intervened-upon solicitor to bring the matter before the court.

The solicitor, a sole practitioner, had applied for withdrawal of notices issued by the Law Society who was of the view that they were necessary for protection of the public.

The judge, after an eight-day hearing, held that there was no evidence that client money was missing and no reason to suspect the solicitor of dishonesty.

There were, he held, some breaches of the accounts rules but not such as to merit the drastic step of intervention. He ordered the notices be withdrawn. The society appealed.

The single issue was whether the notices now should be withdrawn, it being for the court to weigh the risks of reinstatement against the catastrophic consequences to a solicitor of intervention continuing: see Buckley v Law Society (No 2) ([1984] 1 WLR 1101, 1105).

The appellate court had to respect the advantages to the trial judge of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and only in exceptional circumstances should it reverse his findings: see Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley ([2002] 2 AC 164, 177).

But the question for the judge was whether the suspicion of dishonesty raised by the material relied on by the society had been dispelled by the solicitor’s oral evidence so that he could safely order the withdrawal of the notices notwithstanding the society’s view that they were needed for the public’s protection.

The judge had failed to address the solicitor’s evidence correctly. It showed that she had been willing to deceive and to act dishonestly. Further, he erred in concluding that an established history of complaints should carry little or no weight.

As to the accounts rules, the judge accepted the solicitor’s breaches but held them to be insufficiently serious to merit intervention.

Doubtless the exercise of intervention powers might be a disproportionate response to a failure to comply with the rules. But if the society took the view that compliance with the rules could not be achieved by powers short of intervention, the court should be slow to substitute its own view on a question which was peculiarly with the expertise of the society, as the regulatory authority.

There was force in the society’s criticisms of the judge’s approach to intervention. A solicitor’s past history was plainly relevant to a consideration of whether it was realistic to think that future compliance could be enforced.

Having regard to all the matters before it, the society’s lack of confidence in the solicitor’s conduct and her future compliance, was justified. The risks of her reinstatement were not acceptable.

There could be cases where a solicitor wishing to challenge intervention was in genuine doubt as to the matters which the society regarded as sufficiently serious to justify the intervention.

The court, on an early application for directions under the Schedule 1 procedure, should then assist by requiring the society to state the grounds on which the application would be resisted, thus enabling the solicitor to address the society’s concerns in a focused response.

Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed.

Solicitors: Russell-Cooke; Radcliffes Le Brasseur.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones