Key Facts
- •Michael Lorne, a Jamaican attorney admitted in 1979, failed to account to his client, Olive Blake, for her share of property sale proceeds.
- •Lorne was struck off the Roll of Attorneys by the General Legal Council's disciplinary committee.
- •The Court of Appeal reduced the sanction to a five-year suspension and additional CLPD courses.
- •The General Legal Council appealed to the Privy Council.
- •Lorne's actions involved serious professional misconduct but no dishonesty.
Legal Principles
Appellate courts are generally reluctant to interfere with sanctions imposed by specialist disciplinary tribunals, but can do so if the sanction is clearly inappropriate or an error of law occurred.
Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512; The Law Society v Brendan John Salsbury [2008] EWCA Civ 1285
Appeals from disciplinary committees are rehearings, not reviews. The appellate court can substitute its own decision if appropriate, exercising caution in the absence of an error of law or principle.
Ghosh v General Medical Council [2001] UKPC 29; Legal Profession Act, sections 16 and 17
Disciplinary tribunals may strike off an attorney for serious misconduct even without a finding of dishonesty. Egregious conduct or chaotic mismanagement of client affairs can justify this.
Hopeton Karl Clarke v The General Legal Council [2021] JMCA Civ 13; Mohammad Iqbal v Solicitors Regulations Authority [2012] EWHC 3251 (Admin)
Appellate courts must show appropriate respect for disciplinary tribunals’ judgments on seriousness of misconduct and needed measures to maintain standards and protect the public, but not excessive deference. Evaluation of the facts by the tribunal is key.
Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council [2016] UKSC 64; Ghosh v General Medical Council [2001] UKPC 29
Outcomes
Privy Council dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal correctly identified an error of law in the disciplinary committee's reasoning (inferring a finding of dishonesty where none existed). This justified the Court of Appeal's substitution of a lesser sanction. While Lorne's conduct was egregious, the committee failed to adequately justify striking him off versus a lesser sanction.