City solicitors struck off after private prosecution win High Court appeal


High Court: SDT did not provide proper reasons

Two City solicitors struck off following a rare private prosecution before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) have won a High Court battle that gives them a second chance to fight the allegations against them.

The case of Andrew Shaw and Craig Turnbull will now be reheard by a fresh tribunal after the strike-offs were overturned, although findings were made against them.

Mr Shaw was a partner and Mr Turnbull a solicitor at Stewarts Law, who were taken to the SDT by a businessman who had been on the receiving end of litigation brought by a client of the firm and then made a variety of accusations over the way they had conducted it.

Mr Justice Jay allowed the appeal by Mr Shaw and Mr Turnbull, and overturned their strike-offs. Describing it as an “extremely complex” case, he dismissed most of their criticisms of the SDT ruling, but said that in relation to many of the findings made against the pair, the SDT had failed to set out properly its reasons and reasoning process.

However, he upheld a finding of dishonesty in relation to an affidavit and of a “less serious” breach of the code of conduct relating to the misuse of confidential information.

The judge was unable to say with sufficient certainty that the pair would have been struck off on the basis of those remaining findings alone, as there have been examples of solicitors not being sanctioned in that way despite findings of dishonesty.

As a result, he remitted the case to a freshly constituted SDT to re-determine the issue of sanction in relation to the findings that were upheld, and conduct a rehearing of the other allegations where the appeal succeeded.

He stated that it will be a de novo hearing – at which the solicitors may adduce any evidence they wish, save that they “cannot seek to adduce evidence whose purpose is to undermine the previous SDT’s findings of fact on the anterior question of dishonesty”.

Jay J added: “I should not be interpreted as expressing any view as to the appellants’ prospects of success in avoiding the sanction of striking off at the further hearing.”

See the full ruling here.

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

10 December 2019

Is your website lost in the desert?

Having a website is like advertising on a billboard in the middle of the desert – it’s pretty useless unless people are driving past to see it. It’s exactly the same with cyberspace.

Read More

Loading animation