Summary
The UK High Court has overturned findings made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) in respect a former partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, clarifying that there is a limit on the extent a regulator can act on matters which occur in a solicitor's private life. The case of Ryan Beckwith v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3231 is an important ruling which draws a clear distinction between private conduct and conduct which is within a regulator's remit and which can be considered in the regulation and discipline of solicitors in the UK.
Background
The SDT made findings of misconduct against Mr Beckwith arising out of allegations which involved an incident with a junior colleague. It was alleged that Mr Beckwith had initiated and/or engaged in a sexual activity with the colleague and that the incident breached Principles 2 and 6 of the Professional Handbook / Code of Conduct in force at the time. These principles are an obligation to "act with integrity" (Principle 2), and a requirement to "behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you [as solicitor] and in the provision of legal services" (Principle 6). The SDT determined that the conduct involved affected not only Mr Beckwith's personal reputation, but the reputation of the profession and "thus was a matter that ought to bear the scrutiny of the regulator". For breaching Principles 2 and 6 Mr Beckwith was fined £35,000 and was to pay the SRA's costs of £200,000. Mr Beckwith appealed the decision of the SDT to the High Court per section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Decision
The High Court was tasked with considering whether "the conclusion reached by the Tribunal rested on an error of principle or fell outside the bounds by what the Tribunal could properly and reasonably have decided". It was held that the SDT had erred in their assessment and categorisation of the events as being in breach of Principles 2 and 6. It was noted that the Tribunal had correctly concluded that while the actions may have been inappropriate, there was no abuse of a position of seniority or authority. Accordingly, the Court held the SDT was wrong to categorise the events as a breach of the Principles. The Court highlighted that there is a qualitative distinction between conduct affecting a solicitor's own personal reputation and that which affects their reputation as a provider of legal services or that of the profession. Further, it was held that while regulation may be directed to a person's private life and that "there can be no hard and fast rule" regarding whether a person's private life can be considered or not, the conduct must be qualitatively relevant and must demonstrably engage one or other of the standards in question. In the case at hand, it was held that the Principles do not have "unfettered application across all aspects of a solicitor's private life" and may only scrutinise conduct where that aspect of the person's private life "realistically touches" on their practise of the profession, in respect of Principle 2, or standing of the profession, in respect of Principle 6. The Court held that the facts as found and assessed by the SDT did not support the findings against Mr Beckwith and the SDT conclusions were reversed and the order against Mr Beckwith was quashed.
Commentary
The case should serve as a reminder to regulators to ensure that they do not extend beyond what is necessary into the private lives of registrants when regulating professional conduct and fitness to practice and maintaining discipline within the profession. While limited to the solicitor's profession in the UK, the judgment emphasises the need for a fair balance to be struck between the right to respect to private life and the public interest in the regulation of a profession. As the court put it, "Regulators will do well to recognise that it is all too easy to be dogmatic without knowing it; popular outcry is not proof that a particular set of events gives rise to any matter falling within a regulator’s remit."
Beckwith v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3231
Get in touch
For more information, please contact Stephen McLoughlin, Ed Lyons, Mataka Flynn or your usual contact in Beauchamps.