SDT: Continued lack of insight
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has rejected the latest attempt by an immigration caseworker to overturn an order imposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that prevents him from working in the profession without its permission.
The tribunal said the SRA adjudicator had considered all the evidence put forward by Huseyin Arslan of “professional competence, experience and training” and found it “did not mitigate the lack of insight, remorse and rehabilitation and attitudinal issues”.
The SDT referred to the “lengthy procedural history” of Mr Arslan’s case, which was highly unusual not just for the time taken since the order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 was imposed in 2015 but for the mistakes made by the SRA during the course of the proceedings.
An adjudicator imposed the order after Mr Arslan was found to have lacked integrity in providing false and misleading information to the regulator when it investigated and cleared him of a serious complaint while working as a consultant for Duncan Lewis.
In 2016, the order was first overturned by the SDT and then reinstated by the High Court.
The SRA wrongly advised Mr Arslan in August 2021 to apply to the SDT to get the order revoked but the tribunal held it lacked the power to do this and that it could only review whether the order should have been made in the first place. It dismissed the application.
An SRA adjudicator then rejected a fresh application for revocation in November 2022 and the SRA wrongly told Mr Arslan he had the right to appeal to the High Court, which he did. The High Court struck out the appeal for want of jurisdiction in April 2024.
Mr Arslan responded by applying again to the SDT for review, arguing that the indefinite restriction of the order was disproportionate and infringed his article 6 and 8 rights (fair trial and private life).
He also pointed to events since the order was imposed, including him being called to the Bar and, as a Turkish attorney, being granted an exemption from the SQE 2 – evidence, he said, of professional competence and qualifications that obviated the need for it.
The SRA argued that the finding of lack of integrity, arising from submitting misleading information, and Mr Arslan’s failure to co-operate demonstrated “a level of contempt for the SRA and the regulatory process and were indicative of attitudinal and character issues”.
The SDT applied the guidance set down in the 2021 High Court ruling, namely that it should not interfere with the order “unless it was satisfied that it was wrong or that the decision was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity”.
The tribunal said the order’s purpose was clear in safeguarding the public and there were “no procedural defects” by the SRA adjudicator.
“The tribunal noted that SRA adjudicator had weighed all of the applicant’s evidence of professional competence, experience and training completed since the imposition of the s.43 order and determined that it did not mitigate the lack of insight, remorse and rehabilitation and attitudinal issues that were identified.”
The SDT quoted correspondence from Mr Arslan in September 2022, when he told the SRA: “You need to move on. I do not have any criminal conviction and genuinely believe that I have not done anything wrong.”
The tribunal noted his “continued… lack of insight”.
Mr Arslan “should be aware that a section 43 order has a regulatory function, not a punitive function”, which is why it was of indefinite duration.
“The purpose of the order is to safeguard the public and the reputation of the profession by ensuring that a person is only employed where a satisfactory level of supervision has been organised, and for as long as that person requires such a level of supervision before being permitted to work effectively under his own steam.”
The order did not prevent Mr Arslan from obtaining work if he disclosed to an employer that he was subject to the order and obtained permission from the SRA.
Mr Arslan was ordered to pay £4,072 in costs.
Leave a Comment