Wrath of the court


A firm of solicitors acted for Mr Y, an immigrant who sought asylum in the UK. His application was initially refused and notice was given of an intention to appeal. Mr Y did not qualify for public funding and indicated that he had adequate funds of his own. A different firm of solicitors, in whom he had lost confidence, had earlier represented him.


The solicitors asked for costs on account. Mr Y made a payment and the firm started work on his behalf. This included preparation for an appeal hearing. In accordance with usual procedure, the solicitors completed a form for the court indicating the number of witnesses to be called and seeking the services of a translator.


They told Mr Y that their fees for the hearing would be £500 and he promised to let them have that additional sum 'by the end of the week'. On the strength of his assurances, and in the light of his earlier payment on account, the form was completed, including a section that indicated that all financial aspects were in place and that they were 'ready to proceed'.


In the event, Mr Y defaulted on his promise and with no funds on account, the solicitors were unable to proceed with the appeal on Mr Y's behalf. They notified the court on the morning of the hearing and reported their embarrassment with the situation. The immigration adjudicator was most displeased, having set aside half a day for the hearing, the solicitors having estimated the hearing would take that amount of time. He reported the matter to the former Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.


The senior partner of the firm concerned made a personal appearance before the immigration adjudicator on a later date to apologise for the situation that had arisen. In fact, the solicitors had not seen their former client again - Mr Y had failed to respond to any requests for instructions or other communication. Nobody knew where he was.


An investigation took place on the basis that the conducting solicitor had acted in breach of rule 1(e) and (f) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990, in that his standard of work had been compromised as had his duty to the court. The conducting solicitor was newly qualified and had been clearly taken in by a client who had made promises that transpired later to be empty and that he had, apparently, no intention of keeping.


However, the solicitor had signed documentation for the court indicating readiness for trial and a misconduct finding was inevitable. No sanction was applied, on the basis that the solicitor would not forget the experience and would ensure that no repetition would occur.


This column is written by a Law Society adjudicator. It is for illustration only and should not be treated as a precedent