The High Court reviewed a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The court quoted two of the charges brought against the solicitor:
- a 92-word sentence beginning “They failed, alternatively facilitated, permitted or acquiesced in a failure …”.
- a 114-word sentence ending “… they breached all, alternatively any, of Principles 2, 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 of the Principles”.
Even if the accused solicitor could understand all this, it must have made the tribunal’s task more difficult, the court said.
Lord Justice Davis criticised the regulator for lumping together allegations, “with a plethora of ‘alternativelys’, ‘further or alternativelys’ and ‘and/ors’ and with reference to a variety of different rules, principles and outcomes, into one convoluted and rolled-up charge.”
Thanks to Simon Howard of the Architects Registration Board, and others, for telling me about this decision: SRA v Chan, [2015] EWHC 2659 (Admin), 28 September 2015
