Websites: Prolonged non-compliance with rules
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has fined a solicitor and the law firm he owns £4,500 for failing to comply with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) transparency rules.
Transparency rule non-compliance is generally dealt with by the SRA issuing fixed penalties and this is a rare example of it being escalated to more serious sanctions.
The SDT said websites belonging to two-person East London firm Archstone Solicitors, owned by Habibur Choudhury, failed to comply with the rules for two years after the solicitor was first fined for non-compliance by a SRA adjudicator.
The tribunal found that the “principal harm” caused by his misconduct was to the reputation of the profession, particularly because of the solicitor’s “apparent indifference towards the regulator”, despite being the firm’s COLP.
While there had been no complaints from members of the public or clients, and no evidence of harm to any individual, it was Mr Choudhury’s “cavalier approach to engagement, that had brought the matter before the tribunal in circumstances where things could have been resolved very much sooner”.
Indeed, the SDT said the SRA’s investigating officer’s original recommendation was for the SRA to impose another fine, but this was revised to a tribunal referral because of Mr Choudhury’s continuing failure to provide the financial information necessary to determine the fine.
The tribunal heard that in October 2022 an adjudicator at the SRA fined Mr Choudhury, who qualified in 2006, £1,600 because the Archstone website failed to display the costs information, complaints information and digital badge required by the transparency rules.
The law firm had also “not promptly removed” a former website when asked to do so.
The adjudicator imposed conditions on the firm’s authorisation requiring it to demonstrate compliance with the rules within 30 days. It was also told to take down its former website.
“Over a period of approximately two years thereafter, the firm failed to bring either of its two websites into compliance, notwithstanding repeated contact from the SRA” and Mr Choudhury’s assurances that the firm’s existing website would be made compliant.
He said there was nothing he could do about the earlier one as he did not control it.
The tribunal said the solicitor’s engagement with the SRA was “sporadic throughout the period, with extended intervals of complete non-response”.
Mr Choudhury admitted failing to comply with the rules and to co-operate with the SRA but said his actions were not deliberate.
In mitigation, he explained that “as a small firm operating on a very limited budget in the post-Covid period”, it had been unable to access its old website.
He attributed the failure to update the new website to a combination of his part-time working, family commitments and limited technical expertise, which left him reliant on third-party developers.
The firm’s turnover was around £160,000 and he said he had taken no income while working to recover the firm after the pandemic.
The SDT said the misconduct had not been “deliberate or calculated”.
The tribunal “accepted that the wider circumstances of the pandemic had been outside the first respondent’s control and had caused difficulty for many in the profession.
“However, the novelty of the rules, while relevant, was no excuse for the failure to comply over so extended a period.”
The SRA applied for costs of £52,700. While the tribunal accepted the SRA’s own costs of £7,200, it had “greater difficulty” with the further sum of £45,500 claimed for the work of law firm Blake Morgan.
This would result in an “effective hourly rate” of £790, including VAT, which was “excessive”.
Mr Choudhury and Archstone, on a joint and several basis, were fined £4,500 and ordered to pay costs of £15,000.