High Court asks SRA to consider firm’s fitness to practise after contempt ruling

Print This Post

9 August 2013


High Court: SRA asked to investigate urgently

The incoming Lord Chief Justice has asked the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to consider a law firm’s continuing fitness to practise having found its senior partner in contempt of court.

The highly unusual request by Sir John Thomas, president of the Queen’s Bench Division ahead of his elevation to Lord Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Cranston followed a hearing on Monday that related to emergency, out-of-hours applications to High Court judges for injunctions to stop deportations.

At the hearing, the court sought explanations from Benny Thomas, described as principal solicitor and senior partner of east London-based Consilium Chambers, over the firm’s “failure to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules in the submission on the claim; and/or their reasons for lodging claims that amount to a clear abuse of process; and/or their reasons for misstating their client’s position on papers and to decide whether [he] should be committed for his contempt of court”.

Having taken evidence from Mr Thomas and a caseworker at the firm, the court decided that Mr Thomas was guilty of contempt but determined not to take further action in light of the decision to refer him to the SRA.

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 14)

It invited the SRA to conduct an “urgent investigation into the firm” and to consider in particular “the firm’s continuing fitness to practise [and] the court’s findings from today’s hearing in relation to the untruthfulness of evidence given by Mr B Thomas to this court and decide what action to take”.

The Judicial Office said that while a transcript of the case is not yet available, the court was “keen for this information to be disseminated”.

According to the Law Society’s ‘Find a solicitor’ website, Consilium Chambers has two partners, with two further solicitors listed as consultants.



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Do not fear robot lawyers – fear robot clients

Pulat Yunusov

Tech is famous for its shorter and shorter hype cycles. Robot lawyers were all over the twitters only a few months ago and now people actually yell at you for even mentioning the thing. Of course, robot lawyers should not even have surfaced in the first place because no one is remotely close to building them. Lawyers should not fear for their livelihoods. But there is something that is much more important than robot lawyers. It’s robot clients. Or at least the proliferation of machines, automated transactions, and standardized processes where lawyers once controlled the terrain.

September 20th, 2016