Call on 0844 2722322

Direct Access and Referral Barrister.
at St Pauls Chambers, Leeds & Gough Square Chambers, London

The SDT takes action in Assigned Risk Pool [ARP] cases

The SDT takes action in Assigned Risk Pool [ARP] cases

The Solicitors Regulation Authority have taken a number of cases to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [SDT] and published recent guidance that makes it clear that a failure to pay the ARP premium is a serious disciplinary matter - see the recent press release on the SRA website 2nd May.

Jeremy Barnett has been instructed in a nuber of cases involving  various allegations against solicitors by the SRA. These include full hearings below before the SDT or the SRA panel , and also other cases  where representations have been drafted in respect of new conditions.

Case                                              Allegations                            Instructed by

Re  SW, EW, MK and TC            ARP issues                           BCP Law, Ian Coupland

Re SL & MG                                  ARP Waiver                           Direct Access

Re J,                                  SAR, Independence rules  LHS solicitors, Ian Lewis.

Re RS                                            Breach of undertakings      LHS Solicitors, Ian Lewis

Recent decisions of the SDT

Practitioners may find it difficult to obtain transcrips of the recent decisions due to the difficulties using the search function on the SDT website.

The main decisions are available by clicking on the links below.

It can be seen that a firm line is being taken in all cases, with the only exceptions being allowed are in cases where agreement has been made to reach a settlement agreement with Captia who administer the scheme on behalf of the SRA.

Aurangzeb Khan  16.2.12

Harjit Singh Kang 16.2.12

LLara and Fayemiwo   16.2.12

Harper 16.2.12

Birchall and Ryan  21.2.12  (fine)

Page Jones   21.2.12

Scott -Emuakpor   21.2.12   [fine]

Akodu  23.3.12

Osibodu and Atolagbe  1.2.12

 

Other Recent SRA decisions.

The Court of Appeal has recently decided the case of SRA v Dennison where the Tribunal found that there was no risk to the public, but that did not ensure public confidence in the profession, since it would tend to reinforce the perception that the profession was willing to tolerate seriously dishonest practitioners. 

See also the High Court decision in SRA v Rahman, handed down the day after Dennison, where Holman J reviewed the small residual category of cases where striking off is 'disproportionate' in all the circumstances ( set out by Laws LJ in SRA v Sharma [2010] ).  He confirmed that the recent decision did not 'in any way' soften the now established approach of the courts in this class of case.

For any advice and assistance for issues like these please do call Jeremy on 0844 2722322 or submit a comment below. Jeremy will come back to you at the earliest convenience.

Comment on this article

security code

Please enter the code seen in the image

Copyright © 2019. All rights reserved. Design & Development by ATB Creative