Local Issues
Report of the Professional Matters Sub-Committee April 2017
We are concerned that Law Society Council members are inhibited in what they can report to their constituency members and local law societies. Currently there is a proliferation of so-called pink papers which Council members are required to keep confidential. In our view the Law Society Council should be pressed to adopt a policy of allowing open debate as the general rule. Pink papers should only be resorted to where the need to maintain confidentiality was properly explained and justified. Normally it would be obvious when sensitive issues that need to be kept confidential are being discussed. Even where there is such a need, it will not always be more than a short term need. We are also concerned at the decision in the case of Dreamvar (UK) Ltd v Mishcon de Reya & Others. In that case Mishcon (despite being found to have acted honestly and nonnegligently) was held to be liable to its client for breach of trust for paying money intended for completion of its client’s purchase of a London property to a fraudster tenant who had duped its
client into believing he was the owner. Apparently an attempt to sue the vendor’s solicitor for breach of warranty of authority failed (although those solicitors should have been in a better position to establish their client’s identity than was Mishcon). Deputy High Court Judge David Railton QC said Mishcon had insurance to cover the loss suffered in full, and was in a better position than the client to face the consequences. It seems that there will be an appeal, and that the Law Society may intervene. We will also be watching the Legal Ombudsman Service’s proposals to extend its remit to considering complaints against non-solicitor entities providing legal services without apparently requiring those other entities to pay for this. As mentioned in my last report, the Competition and Markets Authority also proposes extending the ombudsman scheme to non-regulated entities. It would be quite wrong for solicitors to have to pay for a service to clients of non-solicitor entities. We have also noted a recent decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which made it apparent that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had made late allegations of dishonesty which in the end were not pursued at the hearing. This had greatly added to the costs, and escalated a not very serious matter out of all proportion. We have both anecdotal evidence and direct evidence from members involved in this field that the SRA quite often alleges dishonesty in addition to less serious allegations but in the end does not pursue the dishonesty allegations because it does not have the necessary evidence to do so. This suggests that the SRA does not apply the strict rules as to alleging dishonesty that apply in civil proceedings. In our view it should be bound to apply similar rules. aylmer.julian@btinternet.com.
Julian Aylmer
6
The Report