SDT: Decision quashed
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has been ordered to pay a woman £27,000 in costs after its decision to ban her from working for law firms was quashed.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said the regulator was guilty of a “serious procedural irregularity” after one of its adjudicators concluded that Isobel Standing had been dishonest without giving her the chance to give oral evidence.
The decision did not give any detail about Ms Standing’s background, except that she was at the start of her legal career.
In March this year, the SRA issued an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 – which is used against non-solicitors – banning her from working in the profession without its permission.
The adjudicator found that, between 2 and 13 October 2023, Ms Standing submitted multiple time-recording entries “which were inaccurate and/or misleading and provided explanations when questioned which were inaccurate and/or misleading”.
She also submitted inaccurate overtime claims over a five-day period, the adjudicator decided, finding that her conduct on both counts had been dishonest.
She appealed the order to the SDT, whose jurisdiction in such circumstances is limited to confirming, varying or quashing it.
Her counsel, Greg Treverton-Jones KC, argued that it was unfair to decide what Ms Standing’s subjective belief of her actions had been and, without a finding on that, there could not be finding of dishonesty.
The proper course was to refer her case to the SDT so she could give oral evidence, he said.
The SRA did not oppose the application. It initially asked the tribunal to remit it back to an adjudicator for reconsideration before realising that this was not possible.
The SDT quashed the order. “The tribunal found that this was a case in which fairness required the adjudicator to have offered Ms Standing an oral hearing,” it said.
“There were material facts in dispute that could not fairly be resolved on the available documentation, and Ms Standing had provided explanations which required an oral hearing to assess credibility.”
Ms Standing sought £54,255 in costs. The SRA argued that, as its adjudicators were independent, it was the decision of an independent tribunal, rather than the SRA, and so the appropriate outcome was no order as to costs.
The SDT rejected this. The SRA Glossary’s own definition of an adjudicator as “a legally qualified person engaged by the SRA for the purpose of making regulatory decisions” did not support such a contention, even if they were functionally separate.
“The tribunal determined that, at the very least, adjudicators were making decisions on behalf of the SRA as an agent of the SRA. That an adjudicator decision was that of the SRA was further supported by the fact that such decisions were recorded on SRA headed paper.
“Further, and in any event, it was plain that a s.43 order could only be imposed by the SRA or the tribunal. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the independence of the adjudicator, the decision to impose a s.43 order was, and could only statutorily be, the decision of the SRA.”
However, it halved the costs Ms Standing sought to £27,000 after finding that the time claimed by her solicitors was excessive, especially once they were aware the application would not be contested.
It continued: “The tribunal determined the issues in this case, notwithstanding the importance to Ms Standing, were not such that leading counsel was required.
“Whilst Ms Standing was entitled to instruct counsel of her own choosing, that did not mean that the SRA should be liable for paying the fees charged by leading counsel.”
Leave a Comment