High Court: SDT wrong to reject solicitor’s medical evidence but right to strike him off


RCJ

Edis J: Tribunal must not disregard “overall justice of the case”

The High Court has upheld a decision by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to strike off solicitor Timothy Schools, but said that evidence about the state of his health should not have been rejected.

Mr Schools is best known for his involvement in the failed Axiom Legal Financing Fund, though this was not part of the disciplinary hearing, which related to his work for ATM Solicitors in Preston.

He was struck off after the tribunal upheld 10 allegations against him. These included failing to act with integrity, acting where there was a conflict of interests, and acting in a manner which led to his independence and that of ATM Solicitors being compromised.

The solicitor suffered from deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which spread from his right to his left leg a few days before the tribunal decided not to postpone his disciplinary hearing.

Mr Justice Edis said that, given the situation, it was “unreasonable” for the tribunal to expect any more medical evidence than was provided.

He said the SDT was required by its own policy to examine cases on their merits and “a failure to bear that in mind is likely to lead to inflexible applications of the policy without regard to the justice of the case”.

Edis J went on: “I well understand why the SDT was frustrated by the history of the case, when the appellant had been making unmeritorious applications to adjourn the case on psychiatric grounds and had failed to comply with directions relying on the same grounds.

“However, that is exactly the kind of situation where a tribunal must carefully guard against rushing to a judgment which disregards the overall justice of the case. I consider that the decision, however, was right although the basis for it was wrong.”

The court heard in Schools v SRA [2015] EWHC 872 (Admin) that as well as being struck off, Mr Schools was also subject to civil proceedings brought by “the receivers of funds which had made loans to the appellant’s law firm and others to fund litigation”.

As a result, Edis J said lawyers acting for Mr Schools had done work, by June 2014, “which they valued at around £450,000” and which had not been paid for.

Mr Schools argued that the SDT should adjourn the disciplinary hearing, both because he could not afford representation and because his health meant that he could not attend.

Edis J said the “best course” would have been for the SDT to have left the case in the list and directed Mr Schools to produce better medical evidence.

However, the judge said the DVT suffered by Mr Scholes “did not stand alone” and he had a “track record of attempts” to avoid the hearing taking place.

“It appears to me that the evidence did justify the SDT taking the view that the appellant decided that he would only attend on his own terms, that is when he could instruct his lawyers to represent him.”

Edis J said there was no suggestion that the SDT’s policies were unlawful, either on medical evidence or lack of funds for lawyers. The judge said this was not a case of a temporary lack of funds and it was not certain that funds “would ever become available”.

He said Mr Schools could have put in a witness statement if he had chosen to, and his decision not to “supports the finding of the SDT that he had decided voluntarily to desist from defending himself in the discipline proceedings”.

Mr Justice Edis concluded that the tribunal “exercised its discretion properly on the material available to it in refusing to adjourn the hearing”. He dismissed the appeal.

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.

Blog


GEO – the impact of AI on digital marketing for law firms

GEO represents the biggest change in online business generation that I can remember. You cannot afford to stick with the same old engine optimisation techniques.


What the law can learn from fintech’s onboarding revolution

Client onboarding has always been slow. It’s not just about the paperwork and manual workflows; it’s also about those long AML checks and verifications.


Civil enforcement – progress at last with CJC report

‘When do I get my money?’ is a question that litigators acting for successful parties are used to fielding. The value of judgments is of course in the recovery made.


Loading animation