header-logo header-logo

27 June 2014
Issue: 7612 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Solicitor

Mendes v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 1996 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 163 (Jun)

Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 set out the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority’s statutory grounds for the exercise of the powers of intervention into a solicitor’s practice, one of which was where there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of a solicitor in connection with that solicitor’s practice. A solicitor might challenge an intervention by following the procedure set out in paras 6(4), 9(8) and 9(9) of Sch 1 of the 1974 Act. Where a solicitor made a challenge to an intervention the essential enquiry for the court was to decide: (i) if there were statutory grounds for the intervention; and (ii) whether the intervention notice should be ordered to be withdrawn (see Sheikh v Law Society [2007] 3 All ER 183). 

The facts of the particular case demonstrated that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant being able to show good grounds for challenging the intervention. The SRA had established beyond any doubt that there were grounds for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll