The High Court has directed the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to inquire into whether two solicitors complied with statutory fee-letter requirements in a client’s pension and medical negligence matters. The court dismissed the client’s appeal in all other respects.
In a judgment delivered on 18 December 2020, Mr Justice O’Connor said there might be a prima facie case for an inquiry into compliance with section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. The inquiry is to consider alleged non-compliance between 25 May and 18 December 2018. The judge made no finding on the disputed facts and said delay in providing a section 68 letter does not, by itself, establish a breach: the legislation requires it to be given “as soon as practicable” after instructions are taken.
The appellant had complained to the SDT about the solicitors’ handling of her Irish contributory State Pension appeal and a separate medical negligence matter. In August 2019, the tribunal told her that her allegations did not disclose conduct that could be construed as misconduct, had been adequately rebutted or lacked evidential support. It did not hold an inquiry.
The High Court considered the appeal afresh, on the material before the tribunal and the parties’ arguments. At the appeal hearing, counsel for the solicitors did not object to sending the section 68 issue to an inquiry, while maintaining a firm denial of misconduct. The judge said that issue involved a dispute of fact about alleged non-compliance.
The appellant also alleged fraud, deceit and conspiracy, and complained about the solicitors’ handling of the medical negligence matter. The judge said those serious allegations were unsupported by evidence and found no prima facie case of misconduct in relation to the medical negligence matter itself. He refused to consider a separate allegation that a page had been removed from a meeting note because it had not been raised before the tribunal.
The order directs the SDT to examine the focused section 68 complaint concerning both matters and asks it to do so in early course. The court also allowed the appellant to obtain a transcript of the appeal hearing, subject to paying the provider’s costs and giving a copy to the solicitors’ lawyers.
The court deferred its decision on appeal costs. It directed the appellant to file submissions by 11 January 2021 on why she should not pay the solicitors’ costs, excluding the section 68 issue; the solicitors could reply by 1 February. The judge said the appeal had failed in all respects except that issue, with the costs decision to follow separately.