A tribunal has revoked the regulator’s decision to rebuke a solicitor after finding it was a disproportionate punishment for a minor infringement.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that the SRA’s adjudicator made a mistake when opting to sanction practitioner Liam Connolly.
The Gazette understands the Solicitors Regulation Authority spent £16,225 trying to uphold the rebuke, despite its own investigations officer recommending that it should be overturned.
In its ruling, the tribunal said the SRA adjudicator ‘gave insufficient consideration to the mitigating factors’ which would have enabled them to reach a ‘more nuanced and balanced decision on the question of seriousness and ultimately the proportionality of the sanction’. It added: ‘The adjudicator did not appear to have taken the appellant’s admission into consideration as a mitigating factor and this had been an error.’
The tribunal heard that Connolly, an equity partner and manager at Reading firm Rowberry Morris Thames Valley, had responded to a letter before action from a former client with a ‘without prejudice’ offer of settlement. This offer had included a settlement of any regulatory actions, such as a complaint to the SRA or legal ombudsman.
Connolly later clarified to the former client that he was not trying to prevent her from speaking to the SRA, and offered to remove this element to avoid confusion. He reiterated this to the SRA after the client’s husband made a report to the regulator.
It was alleged by the SRA that Connolly, a solicitor since 2009, had inferred that the client could not raise a complaint and still accept the offer. The adjudicator found that he had tried to prevent her from reporting concerns and that this was not a mistake or inadvertent breach.
The adjudicator was shown considerable mitigation: it was an isolated incident with no lasting harm, Connolly showed regret and remorse and the risk of repetition was extremely low. But the SRA argued his conduct was serious and his intent and motivation was an aggravating factor.
Connolly, represented by Ed Levey KC, appealed the decision at the SDT, submitting that the adjudicator’s decision was materially flawed and could be set aside and replaced with a letter of advice or warning. The conduct was not serious enough to constitute professional misconduct and it was impossible to see why the adjudicator thought this was worth a rebuke.
The tribunal said the adjudicator erred in treating the ‘aggravating factors’ so seriously, given that he had never hidden his personal responsibility. It was a ‘stretch’ to find that intent and motivation were factors given there was no suggestion of any lack of integrity or dishonesty. The rebuke was revoked and the tribunal made no order for costs.
