The development was welcomed by the jurisdiction’s professional regulator, which had brought the matter to court after the solicitors’ disciplinary body had handed down a three-year suspension to a lawyer who had made dishonest and misleading statements.

Unlicensed practice

The High Court overturned a 2009 decision from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal regarding Millard Spence. The lawyer had launched his own practice two years earlier, but several months after opening his professional indemnity insurance expired.
According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Mr Spence’s practising certificate was cancelled and regulator intervened in his practice in July 2008. SRA investigators then found that lawyer had made several misleading and dishonest statements in relation to the fact that he continued to practise without a certificate.

Erred in law

Proceedings were brought before the tribunal, which found him guilty, but instead of striking off the lawyer, handed him the practice suspension on the grounds that his offence was not at the serious end of dishonesty. But the SRA appealed to the High Court, which agreed with the regulator that the tribunal had erred in law.
Commenting on the ruling, SRA executive director David Middleton said: It was important; to bring the appeal against; the SDT’s decision in this case to maintain the principle that a finding of dishonesty will almost invariably indicate that a solicitor is a risk to the public and therefore that strike-off is the appropriate order to be made.’