Complaints about the work of solicitors handling immigration appeals have finally reached the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which has fined a solicitor £10,000 for acting recklessly by signing judicial review claim forms with inaccurate grounds of appeal and failing to supervise an employee who drafted the applications.
A solicitor who made multiple complaints against two barristers who acted for the claimant in litigation in which he was a defendant, has failed in an application to judicially review the Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) decision to dismiss the complaints.
The High Court has referred an immigration practice to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority after reviewing five “hopeless” judicial reviews, each of which had already been deemed to be an abuse of process.
It would be wrong for judges to “intervene or to comment while a matter is being hotly debated in parliament”, Lord Justice Beatson has said. He said that judges may have to respond in private in “exceptional circumstances”.
The Court of Appeal has criticised in the strongest language the behaviour of an official at the Bar Standards Board responsible for “subverting the rules” on disclosure in a case that led to a barrister being disbarred.
The High Court has ruled that a law firm cannot escape responsibility for handling complaints relating to a sole practice with which it merged. It said that as Kerman & Co had enjoyed the benefit and goodwill of the deal, it also had to accept the burden.
Regulators should consider introducing a third-party review system of administrative decisions as a way to ward off the threat of expensive judicial reviews (JRs), a report by City law firm Devonshires has recommended.
The House of Lords constitution committee has launched an inquiry into the office of Lord Chancellor, in the wake of its warning last week that plans by the current occupant, Chris Grayling, to limit judicial review risk “undermining the rule of law”.
Barristers who successfully defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings can claim their costs at a rate higher than that of a normal litigant in person, the High Court has ruled in a largely unsuccessful judicial review brought by the Bar Standards Board.
The introduction of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) is likely to be delayed yet again after four barristers won permission to appeal against the dismissal of their judicial review application by the High Court in January.