Integrity – what it means for solicitors and other professionals

The SRA and other regulators frequently bring disciplinary proceedings based on “a lack of integrity”. Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2011 provide that “you must act with integrity”. Failure to do so has serious consequences, despite the difficulty encountered hitherto in defining it. It is often used by the SRA as a fall back to a dishonesty allegation.

All is now changed. The recent decision in Malins v SRA [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) heard along with Wingate and Evans v SRA; SRA V Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366 has provided a working definition that applies to all members of a profession whether solicitors, barristers, legal executives, and accountants.


The Court of Appeal considered two appeals together as it had an opportunity in both to address the meaning of integrity.

Integrity is central to membership of a profession, but it is not the same as dishonesty. That much is now clear.

The misconduct of Malins, Wingate, and Evans is not that important, although it is right to say they behaved poorly. Both cases provided an opportunity for the Court of Appeal to address the meaning of integrity for professionals.

Integrity defined

Some simple basic propositions remain unchanged and that is to be welcomed.

Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 remains good law and is frequently cited:

"..any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal”

This principle is often applied by the ICAEW in its disciplinary prosecutions and it has wide application in professional regulation.

Newell-Austin v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 411 (Admin) reminded us that integrity amounts to “moral soundness, rectitude and steady adherence to an ethical code”.

Jackson LJ, giving the leading judgment in Malins, Wingate and Evans considered honesty to be “a basic moral quality which is expected of all members of society”, and that integrity was “a useful shorthand to express the higher standards which society expects from professional persons and which the professions expect from their own members”. He saw dishonesty as an “aggravating feature”, rather than a discrete offence.

He gave some simple examples:

  1. A sole practice giving the appearance of being a partnership and deliberately flouting the conduct rules (Emeana);
  2. Recklessly, but not dishonestly, allowing a court to be misled (Brett);
  3. Subordinating the interests of the clients to the solicitors' own financial interests (Chan);
  4. Making improper payments out of the client account (Scott);
  5. Allowing the firm to become involved in conveyancing transactions which bear the hallmarks mortgage fraud (Newell-Austin);
  6. Making false representations on behalf of the client (Williams).

A number of principles emerged:

Solicitors, barristers and other legal professionals conducting negotiations or making representations in court (for example) are expected to be “even more scrupulous about accuracy than a member of the general public in daily discourse”.

Acts which demonstrate a lack of integrity can also amount to “manifest incompetence” so as to fall foul of Principle 6 of the SRA Code (“you must behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services”).

Medical evidence is unlikely to address acts which lack integrity, although it can be used in mitigation. Further, previous good character, according to Mr Justice Holman, “can do little to mitigate the seriousness of misconduct or the sanction that must follow”. Medical evidence is frequently used in this way before the SDT. It needs to be used with great care.


The SRA has released a number of warnings on various areas of practice, most notably on the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements, and inappropriate communications. Falling foul of these is unlikely to constitute dishonesty, but the way integrity has been defined now will certainly engage such conduct.

In short, both in and out of everyday work we are expected to adhere to higher standards of behaviour because we choose to be members of a profession. That said “neither courts nor professional tribunal’s must set unrealistically high standards. The duty of integrity does not require professional people to be paragons of virtue. In every instance, professional integrity is linked to the manner in which that particular profession professes to serve the public”.

Whether or not acts perpetrated by professionals will demonstrate a lack of integrity will continue to be fertile ground for argument.


No comments so far - why not be the first?

(HTML markup not supported)
Solicitors public vs personal life. Ryan Beckwith v SRA 2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin), The SRA has said it will not appeal,
The SRA has at last issued a brief statement on this very significant issue. I suspect the virus has massively impacted on the Authority and I know many employees are working from home. It is not business as usual and of course, it is not
The article below was printed in the Law Society Gazette and prompted quite a discussion! In September 2018 I described how the SRA were dealing with solicitors convicted of drink driving, and the need for a more discerning and informed
A much simpler set of Accounts Rules will come into force in November 2019, and will for the first time give firms, managers and sole practitioners considerable flexibility on how they go about complying and dealing with client money.
The Leigh Day appeal reaffirmed some basic principles for appeals of SRA judgements
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal regularly deals with applications brought by the SRA following the conclusion of criminal proceedings against solicitors. The conviction sometimes forms the entire basis of the proceedings, but otherwise
In late 2013 Aidan Loy committed three drink driving offences for which he was sentenced in December 2013 and February 2014. The second two offences were dealt with together, and as they were all committed in a very short period of time with
The recently published judgment in Forz Khan v Bar Standards Board provides insight into the professional consequences of careless talk and use of LinkedIn. It comes hot on the heels of an SDT judgment in Deborah Daniels who was prosecuted by
LawCare released striking statistics at the beginning of 2018 which show the number of lawyers calling for help is increasing. Lawyers' mental and emotional health has been slowly creeping up the agenda and even the SRA is recognising
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is now consulting on whether to reduce the standard of proof in disciplinary cases from a criminal to a civil one.
Solicitors have been warned to watch their language and it is highly likely that other regulators will adopt a similar approach.
Solicitors and firms are required to report to the SRA promptly, serious misconduct but what constitutes serious misconduct
In September 2017 Majid Mahmood was fined £25,000 and was the subject of a deferred period of suspension as a result of wholly inappropriate posts on his Facebook Page
On the 21 September 2017 the SRA published a warning notice to solicitors, firms and anyone else it regulates who provide tax planning services
There is a procedure in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which allows the parties to apply for disciplinary proceedings to be concluded by a Statement of Agreed Facts and Outcome.
Michael Cremin was a man who presented himself to the outside world as a Lawyer and Advocate. He had a professional profile on the web site of Cotswold Barristers Chambers, along with his photograph. Cremin was neither.
This has long been a guiding principle. Solicitors are guardians and trustees of client money and are expected to exercise proper stewardship over it. Everything that we do with client money has to in accordance with the SRA Accounts Rules
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has confirmed that it will consult on where to set the standard of proof when determining allegations of misconduct against solicitors. The Bar Standards Board is also looking at a new civil standard of
In proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal it has for very many years been a requirement that a solicitor should clearly know the case that he or she has to meet. In other words, there is an obligation on the SRA to properly
The need to deal carefully, thoroughly and openly with the SRA during investigations cannot be overstated. There is an explicit professional obligation to cooperate with the Authority and to provide it with whatever information it might need
Web site powered by CommsBox™