Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal Consults on the Standard of Proof

SDT to reduce burden of proof?The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal applies the criminal standard in disciplinary proceedings and between now and the 8 October is now consulting on whether this is fit for purpose. It will receive views and decide whether it should keep the criminal standard or change to the civil one.

SRA is very keen to see this change take place.

When the SRA prosecutes an application before the SDT it has to prove allegations to the criminal standard and this has long been the case. It has for quite some time been pressing hard to change this to the lower civil standard.

For over 20 years I prosecuted for the SRA and presented hundreds of applications many of which included dishonesty and very serious misconduct. I currently advise solicitors and in addressing this important issue I bring a practical perspective to the debate based on experience before the SDT.

The SRA was a notable stakeholder contributor to the Insurance Fraud Taskforce, which reported in early 2016 And which SRA still refers to. The report makes clear that other stakeholders expressed concern the SRA was not doing enough to tackle dishonest solicitors. In its defence the SRA submitted its ability to enforce standards of professional conduct, in the public interest, was hampered by the use of the criminal standard. It argued, by implication, that the criminal standard made prosecutions and therefore enforcement problematical. The answer, said the SRA, is to lower the bar.

My own experience tells me that the problem, if it truly exists, will be tiny but is unlikely to be a product of the standard of proof. The real answer will be found in good quality forensic investigation work followed by a properly formulated and presented prosecution. The SDT will find allegations of misconduct not proved when there is either a deficiency in the prosecution, or where it prefers to accept the evidence or submissions of a solicitor given in his or her defence. Where clear forensic evidence is obtained and presented, there is no problem with the existing standard of proof.

The SRA argues that the SDT is now in a minority of regulatory tribunals that applies the criminal standard, and so it should follow the others. This is very simplistic.

The SDT is a significant regulatory tribunal and is widely respected as a fact-finding court. Compared with the SDT many other regulatory tribunals are quite small and so the comparison argument is not a good one. When it does find dishonesty proved SDT almost without exception strikes from the Roll. By comparison, other Tribunals do not do this and so it is right that before an inevitable strike off the Tribunal should be sure of dishonesty to a high standard.

My concern is that a lowering of the standard of proof will lead to a lowering of the standards of evidence gathering and prosecutions.

The SRA also argues that it is the public interest that the standard is lower. Clients and the public will apparently sleep better knowing that enforcement action against errant solicitors will be easier. But how many really know and understand the difference?

I actually take the view that most fair-minded people would want evidence of misconduct to be compelling before someone’s career is terminated. The SRA does not always get it right and I think it forgets that sometimes.

I am aware of very few lawyers doing this work who support a lowering of the standard of proof. Many highlight the terminal effect a finding of dishonesty has on a solicitor’s career and that it is right a regulator should be able to clearly prove dishonesty. I agree with this approach, and in over 20 years as a prosecutor and defender in that jurisdiction, I cannot say that the higher standard has hampered a prosecution.

It really should not be beyond the SRA with its resources to obtain appropriate and compelling evidence and present prosecutions accordingly. 


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
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
The SRA and other regulators frequently bring disciplinary proceedings based on "a lack of integrity." But what is integrity?
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™