The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has thrown out the regulator’s attempt to pin a lack of integrity charge on a solicitor convicted of failing to provide a breath sample to police.
James Rafferty, employed by Baker McKenzie, was convicted of refusing to provide a sample after he was stopped by police in May 2023. He was sentenced to a 17-month driving ban and a fine of £3,846.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority opted not to deal with the case in-house and instead brought an allegation that Rafferty had acted with a lack of integrity due to his conduct after being searched and purported lack of insight.
But during a hearing in October before the tribunal, Rafferty’s representative Gregory Treverton-Jones KC accused the SRA of aggressively trying to ‘throw the book’ at his client, despite there being no aggravating features. He said the referral to the tribunal had been a product of the SRA’s ‘defective approach’ to in-house sanctioning and revealed that the regulator had indicated that a fine of more than £50,000 was appropriate in the circumstances.
Treverton-Jones also pointed to an absence of consistency in the SRA’s decision-making, citing several other cases arising from similar circumstances where there was no allegation of lack of integrity. One of these other cases dealt with in-house had involved a solicitor found to be two and a half times over the alcohol legal limit and found asleep at the wheel. The treatment of Rafferty’s case in comparison was ‘simply unfair’, it was submitted.
Read more
The SRA suggested that Rafferty had showed a lack of integrity by refusing to cooperate with and obstructing the police who had stopped him. The regulator said its communications with the solicitor showed that he did not completely accept the police’s observations about the circumstances of his offence.
The SDT rejected the allegation that Rafferty acted without integrity, noting it was hardly unusual for an offender to disagree with some aspects of the case against them, and that he had entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity and cooperated with the SRA throughout. ‘Neither courts nor professional tribunals must set unrealistically high standards; the duty of integrity does not require professional people to be paragons of virtue,’ added the tribunal.
Rafferty, a solicitor for 14 years who previously had an impeccable regulatory record, produced references in support of his hardworking qualities, professional excellence and devotion to his role. He was fined £2,500 by the tribunal, having previously made an offer to pay £10,000, rejected by the SRA.
The regulator applied for its £6,000 costs, while Rafferty sought to recoup almost £11,000 in costs from the SRA. The tribunal made no order for costs, effectively leaving each party to pay their own.
