 has lost his appeal against a High Court decision to strike him off</p></p><p>Anthony Dennison, who was a partner at Rowe Cohen, the Manchester law firm that vetted personal injury claims for TAG – which collapsed in 2003 owing £100 million – had initially been fined £23,500 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)</p></p><p>Most of the fine was for dishonestly concealing his part-ownership of Legal Report Services (LRS), a company that supplied medical reports for clients for whom Rowe Cohen acted under the TAG scheme – a deal he arranged</p></p><p>The SDT declined to strike him off or suspend him, on the grounds that several years had passed since the events at issue, Mr Dennison had already made payments of £400,000 to his former partners, and no member of the public would be at risk if he continued in practice</p></p><p>Unusually, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) appealed, arguing that striking off was appropriate and last year <a
href= "RCJ portrait")
legalfutures
co
uk/regulation/solicitors/tag-solicitor-to-fight-high-court-ruling-striking-him-off” target=”_blank”>the High Court agreed
The court stayed the effect of the order pending the appeal; Mr Dennison co-founded Manchester firm Dennison Greer in 2007
Before the Court of Appeal, Mr Dennison argued that the High Court had failed to give sufficient weight to the views of the SDT, and that his case fell within the very small class of cases involving dishonesty which should not lead to a strike-off
However, giving the judgment, Lord Justice Moore-Bick said he was “unable to accept that [Mr Dennison’s] dishonesty was so trivial” as to fall into that class of cases
He
continued: “As to the factors which led the tribunal to conclude that striking off or suspension was not required in this case, none of them in my view carries a great deal of weight
The passage of time, although a factor to be taken into account, does little to detract from the gravity of the conduct, especially when the duration of the dishonesty and its subsequent concealment is taken into account
The matter is made worse by Mr Dennison’s receipt, albeit by a circuitous route, of advice from the Law Society that his interests in LRS had to be disclosed
“The payment by Mr Dennison to his former partners was made by way of settlement of what he presumably recognised were at least arguably sound claims against him
It does nothing to preserve the reputation of the profession
“The fact that the tribunal was satisfied that no member of the public would be put at risk if he continued to practise likewise does little to ensure confidence in the profession, since it would tend to reinforce the perception that the profession was willing to tolerate seriously dishonest practitioners
“The Divisional Court was conscious of the respect due to the decision of a professional tribunal of this kind, particularly one composed of such experienced members, but having considered the arguments in detail it concluded that none of them justified the tribunal’s decision, which it found to be clearly inappropriate
For the reasons I have given, which are essentially the same as those set out in the judgment of Lloyd Jones J, I think its conclusion was entirely justified
I would therefore dismiss the appeal
”
SRA executive director David Middleton said: “It was important to bring the appeal against the SDT’s decision in this case to maintain the principle that a finding of dishonesty will almost invariably indicate that a solicitor is a risk to the public and therefore that strike off is the appropriate order to be made
We do not believe that substantial fining powers are a substitute for strike off when the risk to the public is substantial
”
Mr Dennison said he had no comment on the ruling
