When can a dishonest professional receive a lesser sanction of suspension?

15 November 2018 by

iraq war human rights compensation civilian Camp Bassa compensation damages conflict of laws international humanitarian lawSolicitors Regulation Authority v James, MacGregor and Naylor [2018] EWHC 3058 (Admin) — read judgment here.

In three appeals, the Divisional Court considered the circumstances in which a solicitor might avoid being struck off the Roll after findings of dishonesty in disciplinary proceedings. In short, if you are a dishonest solicitor, striking off will be hard to avoid. The impact on other regulated professions is up for grabs.



In three separate cases the Solicitors Regulation Authority (the ‘SRA’) appealed against the sanction decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the ‘SDT’). In each case the SDT made findings of dishonesty against a solicitor but then found exceptional circumstances that justified a lesser sanction of suspension rather than striking off. In fact, in all three cases the suspension imposed was itself suspended. The SRA argued that there were no exceptional circumstances and the sanctions were unduly lenient.


Ms James’ Case

Ms James was an employed solicitor specialising in clinical negligence litigation. She let work on a file lapse and then made misleading statements to the client and firm about the progress on the file. She also wrote and back-dated a number of letters to further the misleading impression she had been progressing the case, when she had not.

The SDT found she had been dishonest in relation to both the misleading statements and the back-dated letters, applying the test of dishonesty, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd [2017] UKSC 67.

When considering sanction, the SDT found that the root cause of her misconduct was a combination of the culture and pressures at her employing firm and her own mental ill-health, arising from those work pressures and difficult personal circumstances. It also considered the fact that she had worked without further incident in the three years since the dishonesty and had demonstrated insight into her conduct. For all these reasons, the SDT decided there were exceptional circumstances so that she should not be struck off.


Mrs MacGregor’s Case

Mrs MacGregor was a managing partner and compliance officer (‘CO’) in a solicitors’ firm. She became aware that another partner, Mrs A, was over-claiming expenses from the Legal Aid Agency and had embarked on a scheme to conceal these improper claims. She appreciated that, as CO, she had a duty to report this to the SRA but she did not as she feared for the health of Mrs A. For a few days she became involved in covering up the misconduct. Mrs MacGregor eventually reported the matter to the SRA.

The SDT found she had been dishonest in assisting Mrs A to cross-check invoices for the false claims. It found her only motivation had been to protect Mrs A. In considering if there were exceptional circumstances justifying a sanction less than striking off, the SDT said that Mrs MacGregor had been under a very high level of pressure both at work and at home, and found there were exceptional circumstances. She was suspended.


Mr Naylor’s Case

Mr Naylor was an associate solicitor at a firm. He sent a number of emails to a client giving the misleading impression that certain applications to the FCA had been submitted. They had not. He admitted this at a meeting with his employers and was reported to the SRA. He was seen by a psychiatrist who said, at the material time, he had been suffering from an adjustment disorder as a reaction to severe stress. This stress came from his work. The SDT found he had been dishonest but also found that his mental ill-health was an exceptional circumstance to justify suspension rather than striking off.


The SRA appealed each of these decisions on sanction.


Legal Principles

The Court undertook an extremely helpful review of the authorities on the approach to disciplinary sanctions in cases of dishonesty by solicitors. It is worth noting that most of the authorities relied on came from the solicitors’ disciplinary world, although there was some cross-over into the field of healthcare discipline. The impact this judgment will and should have on bodies such as the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service (‘MPTS’) will no doubt be up for argument in the coming months.

The SDT Guidance Note on Sanctions states, citing SRA v Sharma [2010] EWHC 2022 (Admin):

The most serious misconduct involves dishonesty, whether or not leading to criminal proceedings and criminal penalties. A finding that an allegation of dishonesty has been proved will almost invariably lead to striking off, save in exceptional circumstances.

This Court also referred to the classic judgment in Bolton v Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32 in which Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated that the almost invariable sanction for dishonesty was striking off the Roll of solicitors. The purpose of the sanction was not just punishment and deterrence but most fundamentally:

… to maintain the reputation of the solicitors’ profession as one in which every member, of whatever standing, may be trusted to the ends of the earth. To maintain this reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied re-admission” [518].

In Sharma Coulson J had summarised the principles relating to dishonesty and exceptional circumstances as follows [13]:

  1. Save in exceptional circumstances, a finding of dishonesty will lead to the solicitor being struck off;
  2. There will be a small residual category where striking off will be a disproportionate sanction in all the circumstances;
  3. In deciding this, relevant factors will include the nature, scope and extent of the dishonesty itself; whether it was momentary or over a lengthy period of time; whether it was a benefit to the solicitor; and whether it had an adverse effect on others.

In Sharma Dove J also explained that

at the heart of any assessment of exceptional circumstances, and the factor which is bound to carry the most significant weight in that assessment, is an understanding of the degree of culpability and the extent of the dishonesty which occurred … it will have a very important bearing upon the assessment of the impact on the reputation of the profession … identified [in Bolton] as the bedrock of the tribunal’s jurisdiction [19].



The Court’s approach in these appeals, seen very clearly in its application of the law to the facts, was that in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the focus must be on the nature and extent of the dishonesty and the degree of culpability.

By contrast, whilst personal mitigation might be relevant to the overall assessment of whether there are exceptional circumstances, this should be approached with caution. This is because sanctions in professional disciplinary proceedings are not primarily punitive. Rather they aim to protect the profession’s reputation. Personal mitigation is less relevant to this aim.

In each of the three cases, the Court found the SDT erred in principle and was wrong to find there were exceptional circumstances to justify suspensions. It gave three reasons:

  1. As explained above, the most significant factor in assessing an argument on exceptional circumstances is an evaluation of the nature and extent of the dishonesty. Flaux LJ stated “the exceptional circumstances must relate in some way to the dishonesty” [101]. The Court did accept that this evaluation can and will include matters of personal mitigation such as mental health and workplace stresses but that mitigation must simply be a factor in the balancing exercise. In each case it found the SDT had failed to properly engage in that balancing exercise and had placed too much weight on the personal mitigation.
  2. In the Court’s judgment mental health issues suffered by a solicitor as a consequence of work or other matters could not, without more, amount to exceptional circumstances where the SDT has found dishonesty. By definition, the Ivey test of dishonesty required findings about the actual state of mind of the solicitors. In each case, despite the mental health issues, the solicitors had known the difference between honesty and dishonesty [110].
  3. The Court relied on a finding made by Rupert Jackson LJ in Wingate and Evans v SRA [2018] EWCA Civ 366 at [164], that pressure of work or working conditions cannot ever justify dishonesty by a solicitor. The rationale in this reason is similar to the second reason.



Two points for discussion jump out.

First, although mental ill-health and significant work stresses did not amount to exceptional circumstances in these cases, the Court did not give any real guidance on what would.

Exceptional circumstances should primarily relate to the act(s) of dishonesty and the culpability. For example, a single dishonest act might be less culpable than repeated dishonesty, but does this feature properly fit the label exceptional circumstances? Would a dishonest act entirely motivated by the physical or mental well-being of another be exceptional circumstances? Possibly, but in Mrs MacGregor’s case she said she had acted for out of concern for Mrs A’s mental health.

Secondly, after a finding of dishonesty in a professional discipline hearing, sanction usually becomes a hard-fought battle of submissions. Different disciplinary tribunals will have different sanctions guidance. The parties and tribunal will need to carefully examine the relevant guidance.

The SDT’s guidance starkly stated that a dishonesty finding would almost invariably lead to striking off, except in exceptional cases. But this is not uniform language across other disciplinary tribunals. For example, the current Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) sanctions guidance (February 2018) states that dishonesty, especially where persistent or covered up, may indicate erasure is appropriate (§109). Elsewhere it states that dishonesty, if persistent and/ or covered up, is likely to result in erasure (§128). It does not say erasure almost invariably follows and has no ‘test’ of exceptional circumstances.

The Court itself recognised that

the broad discretion as to sanction afforded to the [MPTS] is not circumscribed by the limitation of “exceptional circumstances” in determining whether a lesser sanction than striking off is appropriate [102].

Nevertheless, professionals may see regulators using this case to try to persuade tribunals to take an even stricter line when it comes to the consequences of dishonesty.


Leanne Woods is a barrister at One Crown Office Row.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: