|
THE SOLICITORS
DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
constituted under
the Solicitors Act 1974
TRIBUNAL
Mr. A. H. Isaacs
(President)
Solicitor Members
Lay Members
Mr. A. G. Gibson,
Lady Bonham Carter
Mr. R. B. Bamford,
Mr. K.J. Griffin
Mr. A. Gaynor-Smith,
Mr. D.E. Marlow
Mr. J. R. C.
Clitheroe Dame Simone Prendergast
Mr. D. W. Faull
(retired during 2001) Mr. M. C. Baughan
Mr. D. J. Leverton,
Mr. G. Fisher
Mrs E. Stanley,
Mr. D. Gilbertson
Mr. J. C.
Chesterton, Ms. A. Arya
Mr. J. N.
Barnecutt Mr. M. G. Taylor
Mr. A. G. Ground,
Mrs C. Pickering
Mr. R. J. C.
Potter Lady Maxwell-Hyslop
Mr. A. N. Spooner
Mr. A. H. B.
Holmes
Mr. W. M. Hartley,
Mr. L. N. Gilford
Ms. T Cullen
Mr. J. P. Davies
Mr. S. N. Jones
CLERK
Mrs S.C. Elson
Solicitor
DEPUTY CLERK
Mrs. S. Whitfield
Solicitor
ADDRESS
Third Floor, Gate
House, 1 Farringdon Street, London, EC4M 7NS.
DX: 395 Chancery
Lane Tel: 020 7329 4808 Fax: 020 7329 4833
E-mail: enquiries@solicitorsdt.com
Web Site:
www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk
2
President’s
Introduction
It is usual for
this report to conclude with thanks to the members of the Tribunal and
to the Clerk and
her staff. This last year has been particularly demanding and I
wanted at the
outset to record my thanks on behalf of the profession for the
dedication and
hard work of individual solicitor and lay members of the Tribunal and
of our Clerk, and
her staff. Their cheerfulness in the face of inevitable frustrations
and pressures of
the job deserve acknowledgement. Solicitor members give of their
time pro bono and
I thank them and their firms who generously allow them to give
their services to
the Tribunal.
It will be noted
that the number of sitting days has, over the last two years increased
by almost 30 per
cent. Last year’s report noted that the number of applications to
the Tribunal had
fallen by some 25 per cent compared to the year 2000 and
applications are
still some 18 per cent below that level. However the cases are
longer and of
greater complexity. The trend towards longer cases i.e. 1 day or more,
can be seen in the
table on page 9.
The Tribunal’s
wish to be and be seen to be more independent of the Law Society
has continued to
be discussed but has not, as yet, been satisfactorily resolved. A
recent meeting
with the Master of the Rolls resulted in a proposal to set up a working
party to consider
the question in which the Master of the Rolls’s representative and
those of the
Tribunal and the Law Society will participate. The Tribunal remains of
the view that the
direct allocation of a small annual sum from each practising solicitor
(estimated at
about £6 per annum) would be preferable to the present system
whereby the Law
Society funds the Tribunal and as a consequence considers it has
a responsibility
for the functioning of the Tribunal. I remain convinced that, so long
as the Tribunal is
seen as a responsibility of the Law Society and is directly financed
by it, the
Tribunal will not enjoy full confidence in its independence even though
its
judicial
independence is unquestioned.
During the year
under review one solicitor member of the Tribunal retired and two lay
members are
shortly to retire. All these, David Faull, Dame Simone Prendergast and
Ken Griffin have
been held in high esteem by their colleagues on the Tribunal and all
deserve grateful
thanks for bringing to the Tribunal wise judgement and an
unswerving
dedication to the maintenance of high standards within the profession.
The retirement of
some Tribunal members and the increase in the workload has
meant that we now
need to recruit a few new members – both solicitor and lay.
Arrangements are
being made for advertisement for new members and details can
be found on the
Tribunal’s own web site.
As with other
judicial bodies, the Tribunal is sometimes faced with difficult decisions
in relation to
adjournments and cases which may exceed time estimates. A new
Practice Note on
the question of adjournments has now been issued by the Tribunal.
With Law Society
approval of additional secretarial assistance, the Tribunal has
slightly improved
upon the period of time within which the detailed reasons are
produced but the
length and complexity of some cases has made the task more
difficult. The
Tribunal has a deserved reputation for high standards of efficiency and
courtesy and I
have no doubt this will be maintained in the coming year.
3
Constitution
The Solicitors'
Disciplinary Tribunal ("the SDT") was created by the Solicitors Act
1974 as a
statutory Tribunal. Previously the conduct of members of the
solicitors’
profession had been controlled by the Disciplinary Committee of the
Law Society. The
SDT is constituted with Solicitor members none of whom are
connected with the
Council of the Law Society and lay members drawn from a
wide variety of
backgrounds. All Tribunal members are appointed by the Master
of the Rolls. The
Tribunal’s procedure is governed by the Solicitors (Disciplinary
Proceedings) Rules
1994 (S. I. No. 288).
Applications
The number of
applications to the Tribunal increased by about 10 per cent in the
year to 30 April
2002 and the trend towards longer and more complex cases has
increased. The
combination of those factors has called for more sitting days by
members of the
Tribunal. Their willingness to respond and the use of two court
rooms has enabled
the Tribunal to keep pace with its workload although this has
imposed additional
burdens particularly on the Clerk and her staff.
The number of
cases outstanding at the year end, which had remained fairly
constant over a
number of years, showed a significant reduction at the year end 30
April 2002. The
number of applications to the Tribunal is not directly related to the
speed with which
cases can be dealt with as numbers do not distinguish between
those cases which
will be concluded quickly and those requiring a lengthy hearing.
Explanation and
Details of some aspects of the Tribunal’s work
Speed of Process
and Duration of cases
1 So far as the
Tribunal is concerned, a case starts with the lodgement of an
application and a
Rule 4 Statement delivered by the applicant to the Tribunal.
The matter is then
considered to determine whether a prima facie case is
made out.
Thereafter the statement is served on the respondent by the
Tribunal when the
respondent is given under the Rules at least six weeks'
notice of a pre
listing day when the parties are requested to indicate whether
or not the
allegations are admitted and the anticipated length of hearing. A
hearing date is
fixed at the pre listing day.
2. A survey of
cases heard substantively during the period under review shows
that in 41.5 per
cent of those cases the average length of time was about six
months from the
inception of the case until the conclusion of the substantive
hearing. 46.5 per
cent were concluded between six months and one year, 12
per cent were
outstanding for more than a year.
4
Cases may be
delayed because the applicant or respondent (or both) are
not ready to
proceed especially where the allegations are not admitted.
Other reasons
include:-
(a) Inability to
serve the proceedings, e.g. owing to the disappearance of
the respondent;
(b) The mental or
physical illness of the respondent;
(c) Unavailability
of witnesses;
(d) Where there
are concurrent criminal proceedings, or (less frequently)
civil proceedings;
(e) Where new
allegations are added to those in the original application.
This happens not
infrequently.
(f) Where crucial
documents need to be traced and produced.
In the last year
the Tribunal succeeded in avoiding the adjournment of any
case part heard
although this sometimes involved early starts and late
sittings. One case
was adjourned until July 2002 after the Respondent
obtained a court
order.
3. The statutory
rules of procedure provide for certain time limits; for example
the period of 42
days is required between service of the proceedings and the
hearing. Time
limits apply for the service of notices under the Civil Evidence
Act and in
connection with other procedural matters. Many cases have been
disposed of in
less than five months from the start of proceedings. The
Tribunal expedites
cases if the parties seek an early hearing and waive the
timetable laid
down by the Rules.
4. The hearing
date for a case estimated by the parties to be lengthy (extending
over more than one
day) will depend on the availability of the parties, counsel,
witnesses and
Tribunal members and whether or not other cases have been
listed requiring
courtroom accommodation and the services of a clerk. The
Tribunal has seen
an increase in the length and complexity of cases to which
the Human Rights
legislation has given some impetus.
5. 47 cases took
one day or more to reach the conclusion of the substantive
hearing. Of these,
35 cases took one day, 8 cases took two days, 2 cases
took three days
and 2 cases took four days. In addition 1 interlocutory
hearing took up a
whole day. These more lengthy cases took up 66 working
days compared to
54 in the previous year.
6. The Tribunal
would not wish to grant adjournments except in exceptional
circumstances.
However late applications for adjournment are not infrequently
made - sometimes
by agreement between the applicant and the respondent.
The Tribunal has
issued a Practice Note on the subject of adjournments.
5
Fines and Costs
Orders
Fines are payable
to H.M. Treasury and totalled in the year under review £429,400.
Costs orders are
sometimes subject to a detailed assessment. In cases where fixed
costs were
ordered, the aggregate of fixed costs awarded to the applicant (including
in some cases the
costs of the Law Society's investigation accountant) amounted to
£621,600.72.
Solicitors struck off the Roll
77 Solicitors were struck off the
Roll in the year under review. Examples of conduct
leading to a striking off were
where:-
• Solicitors were found
dishonestly to have misappropriated client money
• Solicitors had a criminal
conviction
• Solicitors grossly misled
clients
• Solicitors knowingly employed a
struck off or suspended solicitor without
the consent of the Law Society
(s.41 Solicitors Act 1974). This offence
carries a mandatory penalty of
suspension or strike off.
Examples of cases
appear in the boxes below.
The principal
claim against a solicitor was that he sought and obtained costs on a
private basis in
respect of a legally aided client. This gave rise to a number of
accounts rules and
other breaches of rules of conduct. The solicitor had acted for a
client who was
seriously injured in a motor cycle accident. The client obtained very
substantial
damages and (according to the solicitor) wanted to pay to the solicitor a
large sum (10 per
cent of the damages recovered) in addition to the costs
recoverable on a
legally aided basis. The solicitor appreciated that he could not
properly charge
for work covered by legal aid and purported to render bills for
additional non
legally aided work and to appropriate commission earned. The client
denied agreeing to
these arrangements. Although the misconduct related to a single
client, and the
conduct of the claim on behalf of the client seemed to have been
exemplary, the
solicitor was not justified in his belief that his services entitled him
to
any greater reward
that was recoverable under legal aid. The Tribunal concluded
that the conduct
of the solicitor was not that of an honest and competent member of
the Profession.
The solicitor was struck off the Roll.
Remuneration in
legally aided cases is fixed by legislation. No additional
charge is
permissible.
6
A solicitor was
also a non executive director of his brother’s business. In that
capacity he signed
on three occasions a return which he knew to be false and on
conviction he was
fined with a sentence of imprisonment if the fine was not paid.
There was no
complaint about the conduct of the solicitor in his practice but he
Tribunal
considered that the maintenance of the profession’s reputation for honesty
and integrity
could not be upheld if the profession tolerated a member who was
knowingly prepared
to sign false returns. The solicitor was struck off.
Conviction for
offences unconnected with a solicitor’s professional practice,
which damage the
profession’s reputation for honesty trustworthiness and
probity will give
rise to disciplinary sanctions.
Suspension from
practice
17 Solicitors were
suspended indefinitely.
10 Solicitors were
suspended for one year or more
12 Solicitors were
suspended for less than one year
These are cases
where the solicitor's offences were serious but not considered
sufficient to
justify permanent removal of a right to practise. Included in such cases
are those where
the respondent suffers from a serious illness.
A solicitor acted
for a property development company and received moneys lent to
the Company. Later
the company went into receivership. The Firm of which the
solicitor was
senior partner, also acted for the Company (and its Receivers) and
purchasers from
the Company in the same conveyancing transactions in breach of
Practice Rule 6.
The conduct of matters relating to the Company was in the hands
of an unqualified
secretary who was, as the solicitor acknowledged, not properly
supervised. When
lenders to the Company could not recover their loans, they
sought to recover
from the solicitors on the basis that they were clients. As such
their interests
had not been safeguarded. They had not had independent advice and
payments through
the firm had resulted in breaches of accounts rules. The
negligence of the
solicitor resulted in substantial claims being made against the Firm
and its
professional indemnity insurers. The solicitor had retired from practice
by the
time of the
Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal ordered that he be suspended from
practice for an
indefinite period which meant that he could not resume practice
without the
Tribunal’s consent.
The solicitor had
failed to appreciate what duties he owed to his clients and
had failed to
supervise his unqualified clerk. His actions were described as
foolish rather
than dishonest.
7
Fine
75 solicitors were
subject to orders imposing fines upon them. Fines ranged from
£400 to £24,000
and totalled £429,400.
A fine of £5,000
was imposed where a solicitor failed to provide his client with
information as to
what the client should do if the client was dissatisfied with the legal
services provided
(Practice Rule 15). The solicitor had undertaken work in a field
where he was not
sufficiently experienced. The work was inadequate and there had
been long delays.
The solicitor had been ordered by the Law Society to pay
compensation to
the client. The solicitor had retired from practice at the time of the
Tribunal hearing.
A solicitor must
have (or acquire) or supervise someone who has sufficient
expertise in the
work carried out for the client. A client is entitled to expect
that work will be
carried out diligently and without unnecessary delay and that
he will be kept
properly informed of progress.
Fines are imposed
in a wide variety of cases of which the above is but an
example.
Mandatory penalty for employment
of struck off or suspended solicitors
Under S41 of The Solicitors Act
1974 a solicitor may not knowingly employ a
struck off or suspended solicitor
without obtaining the Law Society's consent.
As noted last year, many
solicitors appear to be unaware of the fact that
knowingly employing a struck off
or suspended solicitor without the consent
of the Law Society is an offence
under s.41 of the Solicitors Act for which
there is a mandatory penalty of
suspension or strike off.
Restoration to the Roll
The Tribunal
considered 12 applications for restoration to the Roll. 3 were
granted and 9 were
refused.
A solicitor
"tidied up" his client account by rendering an internal composite bill.
All
credit balances
below £100 were transferred to office account. In 2001 the Tribunal
found the actions
of the solicitor to have been dishonest and he was struck off. In
February 2002 he
sought restoration to the Roll which was refused.
8
The application
was in the nature of an appeal against the Tribunal’s earlier
finding. The
Tribunal also noted that where there has been a finding of
dishonesty,
restoration is very unlikely. An application for restoration is
unlikely to
succeed if made within 6 years of strike off.
The cost of
running the Tribunal
The Law Society
has stated that the cost of running the Tribunal in the year ending
31 st December 2001 was
£605,000 (£526,000 in 2000) including salaries of the
Clerk and her
staff, expenses of solicitor members and administrative expenses
(£275,000),
premises and central services overhead charges (£330,000).
The Lay members of
the Tribunal receive an honorarium and expenses that are
met by the Lord
Chancellor’s Department. In the year ending 31 st December 2000
the aggregate cost
to the Lord Chancellor’s Department was £37,000
(£32,000 in 2000).
Year Expenditure
£’000
Charge per
Practising
solicitor
£
1999 419 5.23
2000 526 6.35
2001 605 7.56
(The charge per
practising solicitor is an approximate indication based on there
being an average
of 80,000 practising solicitors.)
9
PART III
(i) Hearings
During the year
under review the Tribunal sat on 129 Days (114 in the
previous year) for
the hearing of applications.
ii)
During the
period under review the following applications were received.
APPLICATIONS
RECEIVED To
30/4/02
To
30/4/01
Number of
applications involving practising solicitors -
Relating to 259
(225) solicitors and 1 (3) registered foreign
lawyer*
206 174
Number of
applications in respect of solicitors’ clerks -
Relating to 4 (23)
clerks*
4 23
Number of
applications for restoration to the Roll
11 5
Number of
applications to revoke an order under s.43
2 0
Number of
applications seeking determination of an indefinite
period of
suspension
4 5
Number of
applications made in respect of former solicitors
0 0
*(It should be
noted that one application may be in respect of two or more solicitors
or clerks. –
previous year’s figures appear in brackets)
An order made
pursuant to s.43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 prevents a solicitor from
employing the
clerk to whom the order relates without the consent of the Law
Society.
The total number
of applications received during the year under review (compared
with those
received in previous years) were as follows:
Year ending 30 th April No. of
applications No. of sitting days
2000 276 101
2001 207 114
2002 227 129
If two divisions
of the Tribunal sit on the same day this is counted in the above table
as two sitting
days.
Of the
applications made in the year ending 30 th
April 2002, 14 were made by
members of the
public. No prima facie case was established in respect of 9 of
them, 2 were
referred to the OSS; 1 awaits a decision as to whether or not a prima
facie case is
established, 2 were withdrawn by the applicant and 1 has been listed
10
for a hearing.
Applications for Restoration to the Roll, for determination of an
indefinite
suspension or the revocation of a S.43 Order accounted for 17 matters.
The balance were
applications made by the OSS. Two applications were withdrawn.
SUMMARY OF ORDERS
Orders made by the
Tribunal during the period under review are listed below. It
should be noted
that a distinction must be made between applications received and
Orders made. A
number of Orders made relate to applications made prior to the
year under review.
Figures in brackets relate to the year 2000/01.
A. 77 solicitors
were ordered to be struck off the Roll (62)
B. 39 solicitors
were ordered to be suspended from practice (29)
C. 75 solicitors
were subject to orders imposing fines upon them (78 in the
previous year).
Fines ranged from £400 to £24,000 and totalled £429,400
(£286,750).
D. 4 solicitors
were reprimanded (29).
E. There were 3
cases in which no order was made (1).
F. There were no
cases in which an order for costs only was made (4).
G. There were 5
cases in which the Tribunal found none of the allegations to
have been
substantiated (0).
H. The Tribunal
considered 12 applications for restoration to the Roll (3). 3 were
granted and 9 were
refused.
I. Orders were
made pursuant to Section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974 in respect
of 18 clerks (19).
J. There were 2
applications for revocation of a Section 43 order (none). 1 was
granted and 1 was
refused.
K. Orders
prohibiting restoration to the Roll without the consent of the Tribunal
were made in
respect of 4 former solicitors (2).
L. 5 applications
were made to determine a period of indefinite suspension (2).
2 were granted and
3 were refused.
M. In 4 cases a
Direction made by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was
ordered to be
treated as an Order of the High Court for the purposes of
enforcement (2).
11
N. Two
applications were withdrawn (none in the previous year). (An application
may not be
withdrawn without the consent of the Tribunal.)
O. Appeal from
decisions of the Tribunal lies to the Divisiona l Court or to the
Master of the
Rolls
The position with
regard to appeals for the year under review was as follows.
There were no
appeals by the Law Society against Tribunal decisions. In 8
cases there was an
appeal by the Respondent solicitor. None was allowed
and no cases were
remitted for a re-hearing. 2 appeals were not proceeded
with.
There were, at the
end year end, 3 pending appeals.
In four cases
interim (non substantive) decisions of the Tribunal were subject
to judicial review
proceedings. One did not proceed by agreement between
the lay applicant
and the Law Society, two were unsuccessful and one sought
a ruling regarding
the Tribunal’s power to refer a matter to the Office for the
Supervision of
Solicitors. The Court has given guidance as to the exercise of
the Tribunal’s
powers under Rule 28 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary
Proceedings) Rules
1994.
Resume of the
current position
As at 30 th April 2002 there are
132 current cases, (154 at the same time last year).
Of these 50 have
been listed for hearing before the summer vacation (67 in the
previous year), 3
have been listed for hearing after the summer vacation (5 in the
previous year), 41
are to be dealt with on a "pre-listing day" before the summer
vacation (60 in
the previous year), 38 stand adjourned pending the outcome of
further enquiry,
or related criminal or civil proceedings or on health grounds (22 in
the previous
year).
The majority of
cases to be dealt with at a pre listing day will be listed for a
substantive
hearing in the autumn. Adjourned cases are reviewed on a regular
basis.
12
ANALYSIS OF
SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOLICITORS
DURING THE YEAR
UNDER REVIEW
The allegations
have been put into seven groups. There is no uniformity in the
formulation of
allegations. The analysis has been based on the allegations as
framed
categorising matters as follows. Spread across the categories below
dishonesty and/or
a failure to exercise proper probity, integrity and trustworthiness
was found in 40%
of cases.
SOLICITORS
The allegations
were broken down into the following groups:
A CRIMINAL
CONVICTIONS
B SOLICITORS
ACCOUNTS RULES BREACHES
C CLIENTS MONEY
Improper utilisation
Misappropriating
D FAILURES
failure to pay counsel’s/agent’s fees
failure to comply
with undertaking
failure to comply
with OSS direction/resolution
failure to account
failure to provide
costs information
failure to
supervise
failure to notify
change of practice address
non response to
OSS/others
failure to comply
with Solicitors Indemnity Rules
E BREACHES
breach of duty to the court/misleading the court
breach of S.34
(Accountant's Reports)
breach of
condition on Practising Certificate
breach of Practice
Rules
breach of duty of
good faith to others/OSS
breach of
professional duty (failure to disclose)
breach of restriction on
employment of struck
off/suspended solicitor
breach of Legal
Aid Regulations
breach of
Solicitors Investment Business Rules
13
F DELAYS
delay
in delivery of papers
delay in
professional business
G OTHER e.g.
false documents
no Practising
Certificate
conflict of
interest
costs not
justified (overcharging)
A
2% B
24%
C
8%
D
19%
E
39%
G
6%
F
2%
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
14
SOLICITORS CLERKS
As with those
relating to solicitors the allegations have been broken down into
groups:-
A "Professional"
Breaches Conflict of interest
Misled clients as
to progress of litigation
Holding himself
out as a solicitor
Breach of client
confidentiality
B Criminal
Convictions
C Misuse of money
From clients and/or from employer
D Financial
Services Act Breach of the Investment Business Rules
Breaches
A
40%
B
20%
C
15%
D
25%
A
B
C
D
15
PART IV
THE MEMBERS OF THE
TRIBUNAL
The following
members were re-appointed by the Master of the Rolls at the end of
January 2002: Boyd
Holmes, Laurence Gilford, Andrew Spooner, David Gilbertson,
Gerald Fisher,
Anjali Arya and William Hartley. The following members were Reappointed
from the end of
April 2002: Adrian Gaynor-Smith, Richard Bamford and
Michael Baughan.
Brief biographical details of the members of the Tribunal appear
on page 17 of this
report.
During the year
under review members of the Tribunal attended two judicial training
sessions.
STAFF CHANGES
No staff left
during the period under review. One new part time staff member has
been recruited
during the year under review.
16
BIOGRAPHICAL
DETAILS
Solicitor Members
Anthony H. Isaacs
(President)
Member of Tribunal
since 1988. After University, was articled at a City firm, qualifying in
1960. Specialised
in company and commercial law and retired as Senior Partner in 1996.
1993 appointed as
a Nominated (i.e. independent) member of the Council of Lloyds whose
Investigations
Committee he chaired from 1996 to 2000. He also carried out a DTI
inspection.
Remains in active practice as a consultant to his former firm.
Anthony G. Gibson
Member of Tribunal
since 1980.
Admitted in 1965.
Partner in a three partner family practice in Newcastle established in
1720. President of
Newcastle Incorporated Law Society 1989-90. Practises mainly in family
law, commercial
conveyancing and trusts.
Richard B. Bamford
Member of Tribunal
since 1984.
Admitted in 1964.
Joined present Cambridgeshire private client practice in 1965; partner
1966; senior
partner 1989 (to present). 50% of time since 1987 spent on administration
and
legal aspects of
(inter alia) flood defence and land drainage for the Fens area around Ely.
Adrian Gaynor-Smith
Member of Tribunal
since 1984.
Admitted in 1963.
Private practice in Malvern from 1965 in partnership with his wife and
others. Undertakes
contentious and commercial work and commercial conveyancing. Has
undertaken part
time judicial appointments in Welfare Benefits Law, Coroners Courts,
Disciplinary
Appeals Tribunals (Certified Accountants) and Deputy District Judge.
John R. C.
Clitheroe
Member of Tribunal
since 1992.
Admitted in 1959
specialising in criminal and commercial litigation. A former senior
partner,
now a consultant
in a London firm.
Advised
solicitors, accountants and medical professions in ethical regulatory and
disciplinary
matters since
1962.
Past member of Law
Society Criminal Law Committee.
Member General
Professional Programme Committee of the International Bar Association.
17
David W. Faull OBE
(Retired 2001)
Member of Tribunal
since 1992.
Admitted in 1954.
Senior Partner (retired) of a Westminster firm.
Registrar and
Legal Advisor to the Dioceses of London, Southwark, Chelmsford and
Rochester.
Solicitor to St. Paul’s Cathedral. Founding member of Paddington Church’s
Housing
Association. Board member of three other Housing Associations. Founder
member of
Southwark & London Diocesan Housing Association.
Chairman of
Christian Children’s Fund (GB) until 1998.
David J. Leverton
Member of Tribunal
since 1992.
Admitted in 1958.
Managing Partner
of a Lincoln’s Inn firm. Senior litigation lawyer in the practice: wide
crosssection
of litigation
experience before becoming a family law specialist twenty years ago.
Wide experience of
proceedings in Court and before tribunals: one of the original members
of the standing
committee set up by the Law Society and the Court of Protection to advise
on changes in
procedure and the conduct of business in that Court.
Mrs Elodie Stanley
Member of the
Tribunal since 1994.
Admitted in 1980.
Former conveyancing partner in a large London firm.
1993-1999 - Set up
and ran her own practice in Holland Park, W11.
1999-2001 - Merged
her firm with another and became Consultant.
J. Colin
Chesterton
Member of Tribunal
since 1994.
Admitted in 1980.
Partner in a firm
in Devon.
Work includes
matrimonial, crime, licensing, pollution, bridleways and footpaths.
Franchise
representation for the firm with Community Legal Services.
Member of
Solicitors Family Law Association and the Criminal Law Panel.
Jeremy N.
Barnecutt (Solicitor Vice President 2001)
Member of Tribunal
since 1994.
Admitted in 1976.
Partner in a London firm specialising in Chancery Litigation.
Contentious and
non-contentious probate work.
Former member of
the Supreme Court Procedure Committee.
18
Alan G. Ground
Member of Tribunal
since 1996.
Admitted in 1962.
Partner in a City firm from 1969, Leader, commercial, competition, and
EU Law Groups 1983
-1994. Law Society International Committee 1983-1992, Human
Rights Working
Party 1988-1992. Director, Eurostar 1994-1997.
R. John C. Potter
Member of Tribunal
since 1997. Admitted in July 1987
Higher Rights of
Audience July 1999
A partner in a
Legal Aid franchised Manchester firm. Exclusively undertakes defence
criminal
litigation. Duty solicitor. Past President of the Manchester Law Society
and
continues to be a
Council Member of the Manchester Law Society, chairing the Crown and
Magistrates' Court
Committee. Member of the Greater Manchester Criminal Justice Strategy
Committee and
represents the Law Society on the local user committees of the
Magistrates'
Court and the
Crown Court.
Andrew N. Spooner
Member of Tribunal
since 1999.
Admitted in 1978.
Head of Litigation Department at a Birmingham firm. Specialises in
major commercial
disputes and arbitrations. Member of the Association of Midlands
Mediators. Deputy
District Judge.
A. H. Boyd Holmes
Member of Tribunal
since 1999.
Admitted in 1976.
Managing partner
of a Carlisle firm, since 1989: undertakes property & trusts work. Member
of STEP; member of
CLARITY; interest in management.
William M. Hartley
Member of Tribunal
since 1999.
Admitted in 1970.
Partner in a Manchester firm for 27 years prior to reducing commitments
this year -
specialising in non-contentious work.
Author of the
first six editions of "Matrimonial Conveyancing" and first edition of
"Declarations of
Trust". Chairman of the High Peak Division (Buxton) of the General
Commissioners for
Income Tax
Laurence N.
Gilford
Member of Tribunal
since 1999.
Admitted in 1973.
Specialising in civil/commercial Litigation. In partnership in total of
four
central
London/City firms since 1976.
Appointed Deputy
District Judge December 1991.
19
Miss Teresa Cullen
Member of Tribunal
since 1999.
Admitted in 1983.
A partner in a London firm. Specialises in litigation.
SFLA mediator;
Assessor on Family Law Panel
J. Peter Davies
Member of Tribunal
since 2001.
Admitted as a
Solicitor 1981. A partner in firms in London and Cardiff until 1998 when
he
set up niche
litigation practice in Cardiff specialising in professional negligence and
personal
injury work:
Deputy District Judge since 1992.
Stephen N. Jones
Member of Tribunal
since 2001.
Admitted in
December 1979. Partner in a Birmingham firm. Specialises in litigation,
acting
principally for
financial institutions and banks.
Deputy District
Judge since August 1992.
20
LAY MEMBERS
Lady Bonham Carter
Member of Tribunal
since 1980.
Born and raised in
USA until came to the UK as a teenager.
Served as a JP in
Greenwich and Woolwich from 1966-1990.
A member of the
Immigration Appeals Tribunal since 1970.
Kenneth J. Griffin
OBE
Member of Tribunal
since 1982. Formerly Electrical Engineer, Trade Union Leader and
Industrial Adviser
to the Department of Trade and Industry and Special Adviser to the
Secretary of State
for Industry: Deputy Chairman British Shipbuilders: Deputy Chairman
Ugland
International. 1998 to present - Board member Housing Corporation.
David E. Marlow
Member of Tribunal
since 1983. Chartered Accountant. Formerly Chief Executive of 3i.
Currently
Non-Executive Director of Brixton Plc and Trinity Mirror Plc. Involved in
investment
activity in
Central Europe. Member of the Investment Committee of Hungarian Equity
Partners.
Dame Simone
Prendergast DBE, JP, DL
Member of Tribunal
since 1986.
Recently retired
from the Magistracy after 29 years service in Inner London. A past member
of the Lord
Chancellor’s Advisory Committee. Currently Vice Chairman of Age Concern
Westminster,
Chairman East Grinstead Medical Research Trust.
Michael C. Baughan
(Lay Vice President 2001)
Member of Tribunal
since 1990.
Recently retired
from Lazards where he was a Managing Director from 1986 to 1999:
Non-Executive
Director of Independent Insurance Group plc., Northgate plc., The Peacock
Group plc. and
Scapa Group plc.
Mrs Caroline
Pickering
Member of Tribunal
since 1992. Chair of the Stonebridge Housing Action Trust, set up as a
Government
initiative to regenerate a deprived and run-down council housing estate.
Chair
of the Camelot
Foundation, a charity set up and funded by the Camelot Group to assist
disabled and
disadvantaged people. Trustee of Crisis. Formerly a Director at the
Housing
Corporation for
many years.
21
Lady Maxwell-Hyslop
Member of Tribunal
since 1997.
On the staff of
the Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons, 1966-68
Extensive
experience as school governor (with responsibility for special needs) of
an 11-18
comprehensive
school; three years as Chairman.
Served on board of
governors (Vice Chairman) of special school attached to psychiatric
clinic.
Gerald Fisher
Member of Tribunal
since 1999
35 years
experience in personnel work in industry, finally as Group Personnel
Director of a
FTSE 100 Company.
Currently a member
of Employment Tribunals, the Central Arbitration Committee and a
Council Member of
Aston University.
Wide experience in
employment and disciplinary matters in industry and commerce.
David Gilbertson
QPM
Member of the
Tribunal since 1999. Retired as a Deputy Assistant
Commissioner in
the Metropolitan Police in 2001 after 30 years service, the last three of
which were served
as HM Assistant Inspector of Constabulary at the Home Office with
responsibility for
a wide range of national policy matters. He is now a partner in an
international
consultancy which specialises in change management for large
organisations.
Awarded the Queens
Police Medal in 1999, he was previously responsible for all police
operations in
north and west London. During a varied career, he has been a visiting
lecturer
at the City
University, New York, and was seconded to the New York City Police and the
National Peace
Secretariat in South Africa.
He is a member of
the Tom Paine Society which is committed to the principles
of democracy and
freedom.
Ms Anjali Arya
Member of Tribunal
since 1999.
An independent
management consultant specialising in organisational audits and reviews
and supporting
managers through change, both personal and organisational. Other areas
of expertise
include managing diversity and performance management. She has
considerable
experience working with senior managers, front line staff and trades
unions to
formulate and
implement appropriate HR policies and solutions. Formerly a head of
personnel and
involved in strategic and operational human resource development.
Michael Taylor,
CBE
Member of Tribunal
since 2001.
Managing Director
of his own consultancy company in Dorset. Formerly employed by the
Ministry of
Defence, mainly in telecommunications, and a graduate of the Royal College
of
Defence Studies,
London. Awarded an MBE in the 1982 Falklands Campaign and a CBE
in the 1998 New
Years Honours List. An Independent Member of the Dorset Police
Authority, a Lay
Member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and a Regional Chairman of
the NHS Complaints
Review Panel. Fellow of the Institute of Directors.
22
STAFF
Susan Elson
Solicitor admitted
in 1970. Clerk to the Tribunal for seventeen years.
Accredited
Mediator, Part time Immigration Adjudicator; part time Parking & Traffic
Adjudicator; a
member of the panel of Legal Assessors to the Disciplinary Committee of
the
Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons; member of Disciplinary Board of Royal Institution of
Chartered
Surveyors. Experience of legal work in private practice and in industry.
Sheila Whitfield
Solicitor admitted
in 1982. Joined the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 1998 as part time
Deputy Clerk to
provide cover for the full time Clerk and to enable the use of double
courts.
MA Cantab (Modern
Languages)
Worked in private
practice in a City firm and subsequently in local government, specialising
in the law
relating to Mental Health and Incapacity.
Sits as a part
time Chairman of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Valerie Ralph
Assistant Clerk
since March 1994. Main responsibilities include listing of cases, members
rota and answering
general correspondence.
Previously worked
for South West Essex Magistrates Services, originally as a Court
Assistant and then
as a Trainee Court Clerk.
Diploma in
Magisterial Law: Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives. (October
2002)
Elizabeth Aldred
PA to the Clerk
and Tribunal Secretary since August 1995. Duties include day to day
administration of
the Tribunal as well as preparation for AGM and Training Days.
BA (Hons) in Law
and Business Studies and MSc in Criminal Justice Studies.
Christine
Bannister
Part time Audio
Secretary since July 1994. Main responsibility is typing the Tribunal’s
Findings.
Christine Donnelly
Full time Audio
Secretary since March 2001. Main responsibility is typing the Tribunal’s
Findings.
Previously worked
for a number of City legal practices in varied areas of law over the past
twenty years.
Janine Ralph
Administrative
Assistant since October 2000. Duties include responsibility for archives
and
general office
administration.
Previously worked
in Travel, having passed COTAC exams, and also for the Automobile
Association.
Samantha Pinto
Part time audio
secretary since November 2001. Main responsibility is typing the
Tribunal’s
Findings.
Recently completed
a legal secretarial course and obtained various OCR qualifications.
|