A managing partner who committed ‘very serious’ misconduct should have his anonymity lifted, a High Court judge has ruled following an intervention by the Gazette. The ‘prominent solicitor’ - who is currently referred to only as AB/X - was granted anonymity on the basis of his right to privacy after he sued the Ministry of Justice for not complying with a ‘subject access’ request. 

He won the case and was awarded damages, but his conduct during later costs hearings was in breach of SRA rules, the MoJ has alleged.

On 23 April 2021, Costs Judge James ruled that AB/X had been ‘shouting and swearing’ at counsel for the MoJ and the solicitor from the Government Legal Department, before twice walking out and coming back in.

The claimant’s behaviour caused the hearing - at which he appeared as solicitor advocate in his own case - to be abandoned, the judge said.

He had persistently accused Judge James of bias despite decisions at the next tier that such allegations were ‘totally without merit’, the High Court heard.

AB/X had also charged hourly rates ‘many times the reasonable and proper amount’, including an hourly rate for himself in 2014 of £779.48. He had purported to charge success fees upon a conditional fee agreement concluded between himself and his own law firm in respect of the claim. 

Mrs Justice May DBE, in a judgment yesterday, said: ‘A particularly bad example given by the costs judge is that of charging hourly rates for a legally unqualified fee earner well in excess of those for a Grade A solicitor with over eight years post-qualification experience. The costs judge described the level of fees charged in drafting checking and signing the claimant’s bill as “an overcharge to the public purse so egregious that in its own right it is both unreasonable and improper”.’

The total figure for costs claimed of £936,875 was assessed downwards to approximately £55,000. The costs judge found that ‘the decision to present the claimant’s bill in its original state was both unreasonable and improper’, such that no reasonable solicitor and officer of the court could properly have signed the certificate on the claimant’s bill, the court heard.

Following Judge James’s ruling, the MoJ applied to lift AB/X’s anonymity in order to report him to the SRA for the breaches of the code of conduct. However it could not do so because of the reporting restriction. The Gazette also challenged the anonymity at a hearing on 12 July, emphasising ‘the important and trusted role of a solicitor and the impact which they can have on people’s lives’. 

‘There is a clear public interest’, it was argued ‘in the public being aware of any misconduct by such a person’.

Referring to the Gazette’s application with approval, Mrs Justice May said: ‘Solicitors advise and deal with members of the public concerning important, often life-changing matters.  ‘Any investigation by the SRA/SDT must be at least significantly hampered by continued anonymity.’

The judge also noted that Mr Justice Eyre had previously made an extended civil restraint order against AB/X. This order is also anonymised 'which is bound to hamper the proper administration of the ECRO itself', she said. ‘This is not a case where the private interests of the claimant and/or members of his family should exceptionally outweigh the principle of open justice and the public interest in reporting cases.’

The judge invited counsel for the MoJ and AB/X to draw up an order lifting anonymity, but there is a stay on identifying AB/X in case he seeks permission to appeal.

 

This article is now closed for comment.