An associate who had section 43 restrictions placed on his employment in the legal profession has had the order quashed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The tribunal found 'serious procedural failing' by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in the case.
Ryan Herrmann was an unadmitted person employed at Wembley-based firm Morgans Solicitors. In 2021 he acted in Children Act proceedings for a client of the firm. Another firm, acting for the respondent, reported Herrmann, alleging he had held himself out as a solicitor in proceedings.
Following an investigation, the SRA imposed a section 43 order on Herrmann, finding it was ‘undesirable for him to be involved in legal practice without the SRA’s prior written consent’. The adjudicator found Herrmann had signed a court application form on behalf of a client in which he stated he was a solicitor and partner at Morgans Solicitors when he was neither, and that he engaged in negotiations and the drafting of a court order in which he referred to himself as a solicitor.
Herrmann applied to the SDT for a review. The tribunal accepted Herrmann had signed the form in his own name ‘but he did so only in the absence of being able to amend a pro forma template form’. It continued: 'The tribunal found, as did the adjudicator, that in the circumstances presented to him, Mr Herrmann had had no other option than to tick as the applicant’s solicitor: he was not the applicant [the only other option on the form].'
The tribunal however, disagreed with the adjudicator’s suggestion that he should have signed on behalf of the firm. It added: ‘The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the adjudicator had erred in the conclusions she had drawn from the very limited evidence before her.’
Referring to the drafting of the court order, the tribunal said it was clear ‘the adjudicator had laboured under a misunderstanding as to the essential facts’.
Quashing the section 43 order, the tribunal ordered the SRA pay Herrmann’s costs of £5,000, finding ‘it was unlikely that the proceedings would have progressed any further than the complaint stage had the details of the evidence been competently checked by the SRA’.
It added: ‘Whilst there was no bad faith on the part of the SRA, its failure had been a serious procedural failing. Therefore, the SRA should bear the burden of a costs order.’
This article is now closed for comment.
29 Readers' comments