Key Facts
- •Santers Solicitors Ltd and Martyn Santer (Claimants) applied for an intervention notice served by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to be declared invalid or withdrawn.
- •Mr. Santer, a solicitor with 40 years of experience, sold his practice to someone posing as Asad Sahi (actually Yawar Ali Shah, a disbarred barrister with a history of fraud).
- •The SRA intervened based on suspicion of dishonesty on the part of Mr. Santer, the company, and Asad Sahi.
- •The intervention vested all money and documents in the SRA, suspended Mr. Santer's practicing certificate, and had Gordons LLP manage the practice's files.
- •Asad Sahi engaged in fraudulent activities including falsifying documents and making false mortgage applications.
- •Mr. Santer argued he was a victim of the fraud, not complicit in it.
Legal Principles
The court's decision on an intervention notice is a two-stage process: (1) were there grounds to suspect dishonesty, and (2) should the intervention continue, balancing public interest and the solicitor's interests.
Dooley v The Law Society (No 1)
The SRA must prove grounds for suspicion on the balance of probabilities; dishonesty needs not be proven, only reasonable suspicion.
Various cases including Buckley v The Law Society (No 2), Sritharan v The Law Society, Yogarajah v The Law Society
Rules of natural justice do not apply to the initial issuing of an intervention notice based on suspicion of dishonesty.
Giles v Law Society
When considering dishonesty, the tribunal must ascertain the individual's actual state of knowledge or belief (subjective) and whether it was dishonest by ordinary decent people's standards.
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd
On an application to withdraw an intervention notice, the court considers whether the notice should be withdrawn in light of all evidence before it, weighing the risks of reinstatement against the damage caused by the intervention.
Buckley v Law Society (No 3), Giles v Law Society, Sheikh v The Law Society
Outcomes
The intervention notice was withdrawn.
While there were initial grounds to suspect Mr. Santer's dishonesty, the evidence presented significantly lessened these concerns. The damage caused by the intervention outweighed the remaining risk to the public, particularly since Asad Sahi was no longer involved with the practice.