Rajeswary Ramasamy v Solicitors Regulation Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Males |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 117 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 31 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3759/2017 |
[2018] EWHC 117 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Lindblom
and
Mr Justice Males
Case No: CO/3759/2017
Ian Stern QC (instructed by Russell-Cooke, Solicitors) for the Appellant
Andrew Tabachnik QC (instructed by Capsticks, Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 24 January 2018
Judgment Approved
Introduction
This is the judgment of the court.
The appellant, Mrs Rajeswary Ramasamy, appeals pursuant to section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that she be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and pay the costs of the proceedings before the Tribunal in the sum of £70,123.30. The Tribunal's judgment is dated 21 July 2017 and followed a hearing which took place between 5 and 9 June 2017.
The appellant was admitted to the Roll on 15 January 2007. From 13 October 2008 she was a sole practitioner trading under the name of Thames Chambers Solicitors (“the firm”) from offices located in Whitechapel High Street in London. The proceedings against her concerned the involvement in the firm of a former solicitor, Rajesh Singh Pathania, referred to variously in the Tribunal's decision as “RSP” or “Mr S”, who had been struck off on 22 September 2010.
RSP (as we shall call him) was a substantial client of the firm who also introduced a number of other clients. The Solicitors Regulation Authority contended that his involvement in the firm went beyond that of a client and that he was providing legal services from the firm's premises and under its auspices, with the appellant's knowledge, including one occasion when he represented a client of the firm in a court hearing and the firm submitted a bill for his services. The appellant accepted that she was aware that RSP was a struck off solicitor from around March 2011 and that he spent a great deal of time at her office, including speaking to clients there, but denied that his involvement went beyond that of a client or that she had any knowledge of this. She knew of the prohibitions on the employment or remuneration of a struck off solicitor and that such persons must not conduct litigation for clients.
The Tribunal was satisfied to the criminal standard of proof that despite being warned about RSP, the appellant allowed a situation to develop in which she had no control over his activities at the firm, that these activities included the provision of legal services by RSP, and that the facilities afforded to him by the appellant represented a benefit which amounted to remunerating him contrary to the applicable rules governing the position of struck off solicitors. It found also that in one respect her conduct was dishonest, namely submitting a bill for attendance at a court hearing. The Tribunal did not accept other allegations of dishonesty, but characterised the appellant's conduct as “reckless and foolish”. It concluded that in such circumstances and despite the appellant's personal mitigation, striking off was inevitable.
The issues on appeal
The appellant challenges the findings made against her, including in particular the allegation of dishonesty. Mr Ian Stern QC submits on her behalf that the Tribunal's conclusions were insufficiently reasoned, that the findings made do not justify the conclusions reached, and that in any event the sanction of striking off was disproportionate. Mr Andrew Tabachnik QC for the SRA submits that the Tribunal's reasoning is clear, that it was entitled to reach the conclusions which it did reach, and that in the circumstances the Tribunal's decision that the appellant should be struck off was unimpeachable.
Legal framework
The appellant has a right of appeal from the decision of the Tribunal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974. An appeal will be allowed if the decision of the Tribunal was wrong or if it was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings: CPR 52.21. In considering those matters, this court will bear in mind that the Tribunal is a specialist tribunal which had the advantage of hearing and seeing all the evidence and will not lightly interfere with the tribunal's findings: e.g. Williams v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin) at [55].
The proceedings before the Tribunal were concerned with alleged breaches of specific rules concerning struck off solicitors and also with infringements of more general regulatory requirements and professional principles.
Section 41 of the Solicitors Act provides:
“No solicitor shall, except in accordance with a written permission granted under this section, employ or remunerate in connection with his practice as a solicitor any person who to his knowledge is disqualified from practising as a solicitor by reason of the fact that: (a) his name has been struck off the roll …”
Section 20 of the Solicitors Act provides that no unqualified person is to act as a solicitor. It is an offence to do so.
Sections 12 to 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 provide that the conduct of litigation is a “reserved legal activity” which can only be carried on by an authorised (or exempt) person. Again, contravention of these provisions is an offence.
Rule 8.6 of the SRA's Authorisation Rules for Legal Services Bodies and Licensable Bodies 2011 (“the Authorisation Rules”), which were made pursuant to the 2007 Act and which came into force on 31 March 2012, provides:
“(a) An authorised body must ensure that: (i) any manager or owner of the authorised body; … has been approved by the SRA under Part 4. …
(c) An authorised body (or manager or employee of such a body) must not employ or remunerate a person … (ii) whose name has been struck off the roll … without the SRA's written permission.”
The SRA which is responsible for the regulation of solicitors publishes a Handbook setting out the standards and requirements which solicitors are expected to achieve and observe, for the benefit of the clients they serve and in the general public interest. It includes the “SRA Principles”, ten mandatory principles which underpin all aspects of practice as a solicitor and which define the fundamental ethical and professional standards expected of solicitors. It includes also the SRA Code of Conduct which sets out the “Outcomes”, also mandatory, which solicitors are required to achieve when providing legal services.
The Principles include the following:
“You must
(1) …
(2) act with integrity;
(3) …
(4) act in the best interests of each client;
(5) provide a proper standard of service to each client;
(6) behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services;
(7) comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner;
(8) run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles;
(9) …
(10) protect client money and assets.”
It is well established that dishonesty and want of integrity are different (if overlapping) regulatory concepts: e.g. Williams v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin) at [50] and [130].
The Outcomes include the following:
“You must achieve these outcomes: …
1.2 you provide services to your clients in a manner which protects their interests in their matter, subject to the proper administration of justice; …
5.2 you are not complicit in another person deceiving or misleading the court; …
7.2 you have effective systems and controls in place to achieve and comply with all the Principles, rules and outcomes and other requirements of the Handbook, where applicable; …
7.5 you comply with legislation applicable to your business, including anti-money laundering and data protection legislation; …
7.8 you have a system for supervising clients' matters, to include the regular checking of the quality of work by suitably qualified and experienced people; …
10.2 you provide the SRA with information to enable the SRA to decide upon any application you make, such as for a practising certificate, registration, recognition or a licence and whether any conditions should apply; and
10.3 you notify the SRA promptly of any material changes to relevant information about you including serious financial difficulty, action taken against you by another regulator and serious failure to achieve the Principles, rules, outcomes and other requirements of the Handbook.”
It is apparent that the question whether there has been compliance with the Principles or achievement of the Outcomes may in some circumstances involve an exercise of judgment. That is a judgment which an expert and specialist tribunal is likely to be particularly well qualified to make, to which the court will give appropriate weight.
So far as the sanction for regulatory breaches is concerned, the SRA has published a Guidance Note which (where relevant for present purposes) reflects decisions by this court and on appeal. In summary, the Tribunal is required to assess the seriousness of the misconduct in question, to have regard to the purpose for which sanctions are imposed (including not only punishment and deterrence but also, fundamentally, the need to maintain the reputation of the solicitors' profession), and to choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose, having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct. Cases of dishonesty will almost invariably lead to striking off, save in exceptional circumstances. For a fuller account of the relevant authorities, see Shaw v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC...
To continue reading
Request your trial