Rizwana Yussouf v The Solicitors Regulation Authority

Mr John HowellQC:

This is an appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Panel of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“ SRA”) refusing Ms Rizwana Yussouf a “certificate of satisfaction” and to admit her as a solicitor.

INTRODUCTION

The Appellant, Ms Yussouf, is now in her mid-fifties. She has long wanted to become a solicitor and has had to face considerable difficulties in achieving that objective. In August 2004 she was granted student enrolment by the Law Society. She then took a post-graduate law conversion course and thereafter studied for, and passed, the Legal Practice Course. She began a full-time training contract on September 6 ^th 2010 with CM Atif & Co that ended, after an extension, in March 2012. She subsequently obtained employment with a local authority as a legal assistant.

On April 29 ^th 2014 she submitted her first application to the SRA for admission as a solicitor and for a practising certificate. In her application form, in response to the question whether she had “had a County Court Judgment (CCJ) issued against” her, Ms Yussouf's answer was: “No”. In fact, as she then knew, she had had such a judgment issued against her by the Woolwich County Court in the sum of £4,891 on October 30 ^th 2009 (“ the 2009 Judgment”). In the event Ms Yussouf ultimately withdrew her first application on January 12 ^th 2015.

Ms Yussouf submitted a second application for admission as a solicitor and for a practising certificate on March 8 ^th 2016. It was dismissed by an Adjudicator, who also cancelled her existing student enrolment, on February 27 ^th 2017. He found that she had acted dishonestly when making her first application by failing to disclose the 2009 judgment and also that, during the consideration of that application, she had provided misleading information to the SRA in relation to its existence, and to her knowledge, of it. The Adjudicator based his decision on the documents he had without affording Ms Yussouf an oral hearing.

Ms Yussouf applied for a review of that decision by the SRA's Adjudication Panel. In her lengthy grounds of appeal her current solicitors, RadcliffesLeBrasseur (“ Radcliffes”), contended that, when she had completed the first application form, Ms Yussouf had believed, genuinely but mistakenly, that a county court judgment was a judgment debt that had not been satisfied; that one that had been satisfied (as the 2009 judgment had been by that date) was extinguished; and that the 2009 judgment did not have to be disclosed as it had been discharged. They stated that she had read the questions quickly and without the care and attention to detail required but that she had not been dishonest. They further contended that Ms Yussouf had had no reason to conceal the judgment as she knew that the SRA would carry out a credit check. Radcliffes also contended that Ms Yussouf had not supplied misleading information to the SRA during its consideration of her first application for the reasons they gave. They further contended that, if the Adjudication Panel was minded to refuse her application having considered the written representations, Ms Yussouf should be given the opportunity to be heard in person.

The Adjudication Panel considered the matter afresh and issued its decision on May 30 ^th 2017. They refused the application for Ms Yussouf to be given the opportunity to be heard in person. They found that her explanation of why she did not disclose the 2009 judgment was inconsistent with her previous explanations and was not credible, and that her failure to disclose it was dishonest. The Panel also found that she had provided misleading information to the SRA during its consideration of her first application in relation to the existence, and her knowledge of, the 2009 judgment. It considered that there were no exceptional circumstances relating to their findings both that Ms Yussouf was dishonest and that she had provided misleading information and, therefore, that she did not have the necessary character and suitability to be admitted to the Roll. Accordingly they considered that she did not have the necessary character and suitability to be admitted to the Roll. They refused her application for admission and cancelled her student enrolment.

Ms Yussouf's appeal to this court is against the finding of dishonesty by the Adjudication Panel. She seeks an order quashing the Panel's decision and requiring her to be admitted as a solicitor. In summary her grounds of appeal are that (i) the Panel acted unfairly in not providing her with an oral hearing before making a finding of dishonesty against her; (ii) that the Panel had adopted the wrong test for what constituted dishonesty; (iii) that the Panel was wrong to conclude that there were such inconsistencies in her statements as to justify a finding of dishonesty against her; and (iv) that the Panel acted unfairly in making that finding by relying upon her delay in completing the online screening process in relation to her first application which they also thought, wrongly, had not been explained.

THE RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

i. the requirements for admission as a solicitor

No person may be admitted as a solicitor unless he or she has obtained a certificate from the Law Society that it is satisfied that he or she has complied with the training regulations and that it is satisfied as to his or her character and suitability to be a solicitor: see section 3 of the Solicitors Act 19741. In practice the functions of the Law Society as an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007 in this and other respects relevant to this appeal have now to be, and are, discharged by the SRA.

An application for admission must be made to the SRA in such form, accompanied by such fee and documents, as it prescribes: see regulation 5.1 of the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) Admission Regulations 2011 (“ the Admission Regulations”). If it is satisfied that the applicant has complied with certain training regulations and if it is satisfied about the applicant's character and suitability to be a solicitor, the SRA “shall issue” the certificate required by section 3(1) of the 1974 Act: see regulation 6.1 of the Admission Regulations. The issue of such a certificate prima facie entitles the applicant to be admitted as a solicitor: see regulation 7.1.

The SRA satisfies itself as an applicant's character and suitability in a number of ways including compliance with Part 1 of the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) Suitability Test 2011 (“ the Suitability Test”) 2. The Suitability Test provides inter alia that:

“2: Disclosure

2.1 All material information relating to your application must be disclosed. Failure to disclose material information will be treated as prima facie evidence of dishonest behaviour.

3: Behaviour not compatible with that expected of a prospective solicitor or authorised role holder

3.1 Unless there are exceptional circumstances we will refuse your application if you have….been responsible for behaviour….which is dishonest….

5: Financial evidence

5.1 Unless there are exceptional circumstances we will refuse your application if:

(a) there is evidence that you cannot manage your finances properly and carefully;

(b) there is evidence that you have deliberately sought to avoid responsibility for your debts; and/or

(c) there is evidence of dishonesty in relation to the management of your finances.

5.2 If you have been declared bankrupt, entered into any individual voluntary arrangements (IVA) or have had a County Court Judgment issued against you it will raise a presumption that there has been evidence that you cannot manage your finances properly and carefully.

6: Regulatory history

6.1 Unless there are exceptional circumstances we will refuse your application if you:

… …

(b) have failed to disclose information to a regulatory body when required to do so, or have provided false or misleading information;”.

ii. the SRA's decision-making processes

The SRA has delegated decisions under the Admission Regulations inter alia to Authorisation Officers, Adjudicators and Adjudication Panels.

Where a decision is to be taken by an Adjudicator, Guidance on “Decision-making, appeals and interview procedures” issued by the SRA (“ the Guidance”) provides for a case officer to present the Adjudicator with a case report (which may recommend a particular outcome) and a paginated bundle of relevant documents. Any such recommendation is not binding on the Adjudicator. The report and the bundle (including any additional documents not previously disclosed to the applicant) are to be provided to him or her for comment before any decision is made.

If the SRA has refused to issue a certificate of satisfaction, the applicant may apply in writing for a review of the decision within one month of receiving notification of it: see regulation 6.3 of the Admission Regulations. It appears that the SRA has delegated decisions on such reviews inter alia to an Adjudication Panel. The Guidance provides that a Panel will include a combination of legally qualified and lay members with at least one lay member on each panel. It is supported by a panel adviser.

The Guidance indicates that it is in the applicant's interest to ensure that the appeal grounds “are set out comprehensively as this will enable the matter to be dealt with expeditiously”. After receipt of the appeal the case officer is required to...