No. 10404-2009 SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL SOLICITORS ACT 1974 IN THE MATTER OF PETER JOHN LAWSON, solicitor (Respondent) Appearances Mr A G Gibson (in the chair) Mr C Murray Mrs N Chavda Date of Hearing: 29th July 2010 APPLICATION TO DETERMINE AN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION The Applicant, Mr Peter John Lawson of Mill Farm, Little Poulton, Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire FY6 7ET. Mr George Marriott of Russell Jones & Walker appeared on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Background 1. Peter John Lawson, a suspended solicitor of Mill Farm, Little Poulton, Lancashire, made application to the Tribunal dated 5 th March 2010 that a date be fixed for the ending of the indefinite period of suspension. 2. On 15 th March 2007 the Tribunal found the following allegations to have been substantiated against Mr Lawson. The allegations were that he had been guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor in that he: 1) acted contrary to Solicitors Practice Rule 1 in that his actions impaired his independence, his duty to act in the best interest of his clients, his good repute or that of the solicitors profession his proper standard of work; 2) acted in conflict of interest situations;
2 3) acted for seller and buyer contrary to Rule 6(2) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; 4) acted for lender and borrower contrary to Rule 6(3) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; 5) failed to supervise adequately or at all his clerk contrary to Rule 13 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990; 6) took advantage of his clients for himself and/or others and failed to act towards them fairly; 7) accepted gifts from clients without ensuring that the client was independently advised (including gifts to his family); 8) failed to disclose all relevant information to his client. 3. The Findings of the Tribunal were as follows: "The Tribunal, at the end of a two day hearing having heard The Law Society case and having heard both what Mr Lawson said in evidence and the way he gave his evidence was sure that Mr Lawson was honest in what he said and had been honest in what he had done. Mr Lawson had not denied the facts found by The Law Society's Forensic Investigation Unit ("FIU"). He had disputed only the interpretation of those facts and the manner in which information provided by him and Mrs Swarbrick [Mr Lawson's unadmitted clerk the Second Respondent in the disciplinary proceedings in respect of whom an Order was made pursuant to s. 43 of the solicitors Act 1974] had been used by the FIU inspector in his Report. The Tribunal accepted Mr Lawson's explanations. Even so, the allegations were on the facts, as set out above, all proved save that in respect of the first allegation the Tribunal found that while Mr Lawson's independence was impaired by what he had done, his integrity was not so impaired." 4. In its decision and its reasons the Tribunal went on to say: "While the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Lawson had acted with integrity in what he had done, nevertheless his conduct was wholly wrong. He had acted outside the Solicitors Practice Rules time and time again. This was particularly so in relation to the Rules on conflict of interest. It was apparent from what Mr Lawson said to the Tribunal that he had had little knowledge of the relevant Rules and furthermore even at the conclusion of the hearing could not see what he had done wrong. These were not, as Mr Lawson suggested, "technical" breaches. Mr Lawson had closed his mind to the requirements of modern practice and it seemed to the Tribunal that his mind remained closed. It was the case, in relation to the property disposals from estates/trusts under his and Mrs Swarbrick's control, that Mr Lawson could not be wholly sure that the manner of disposal had caused no disadvantage to those estates/trusts. Furthermore, Mr Lawson s practice of holding title deeds as security was nowadays of no value given the nature of land registration. Mr Lawson said,
3 in his defence that he had an "idiosyncratic and old fashioned approach to a solicitor s practice". This was right and regrettably, dangerously so. The Solicitors Practice Rules are in place to protect the public from unscrupulous practitioners. Mr Lawson, the Tribunal has found, was not an unscrupulous practitioner. No client had lost by reason of what he had done and no client had complained about what he had done. Indeed clients for example, Mrs I and Mr G - confirmed their satisfaction with the manner in which Mr Lawson had conducted matters for them. Nevertheless the Rules also serve the purpose of protecting the reputation of solicitors as a whole. The Rules must be complied with. Mr Lawson in what he had done, albeit honestly, had repeatedly left himself wide open to the suspicion of dishonesty. This was why he was before the Tribunal. These were serious matters both for him in particular and the profession as a whole. Mr Lawson had a previous disciplinary hearing before the SDT in that there was a finding against him in 1990. It was a long time ago and the issue was entirely different. The Tribunal considered that in all the circumstances the appropriate Order against Mr Lawson is that he be suspended indefinitely from practice. In order to return to practice, he must satisfy a later division of this Tribunal that he both understands and will comply with the Rules of professional conduct." 5. On 1 st June 2007 Mr Lawson made application to the Tribunal that the indefinite period for suspension imposed on him on 15 th March 2007 be brought to an end. On that occasion the Tribunal found that:... the way in which Mr Lawson presented his application to it demonstrated that he still did not consider that his behaviour had been seriously wrong. In support of this, he pointed out that he had not been found to be lacking in integrity and the Tribunal had left the door open for him to have the period of suspension brought to an end. Whilst the earlier division of the Tribunal did give an indication, it did not indicate that an application to determine an indefinite period of suspension should be dealt with only nine months after the imposition of the sanction, or that attendance upon a one day course and reading of publications would fulfil the indicated requirement. The fact that Mr Lawson appeared that to be the case was the clearest possible indication that he simply had failed to understand the seriousness of his position and in turn that underlined his failure to understand the fundamental principles upon which the Practice Rules were based. The Tribunal found that Mr Lawson had not discharged the burden which fell upon him as Applicant and dismissed the application The Submissions of the Applicant 6. Mr Lawson relied upon the contents of his application dated 5 th March 2010 and his further submissions dated 22 nd July 2010.
4 7. In his application Mr Lawson acknowledged that he would need to demonstrate to the Tribunal that he both understood and would comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. He had attended a full day s course on the Rules of Professional Conduct on 30 th May 2007 and had kept consistently up to date through the internet and legal periodicals. Although he had tried to gain employment as a clerk in a firm of solicitors it had not been possible to do so. This was as a result both of the economic climate and of his indefinite suspension. However, he would be 69 years old on his next birthday and wished to retire without the stigma of suspension remaining upon him. His sole ambition was to have his suspension lifted and he would undertake never to apply for a practising certificate. 8. Mr Lawson fully acknowledged and accepted that he had latterly and inadvertently closed his mind to the requirements of modern practice and that he had adopted an old-fashioned approach to his practice. However, he had acted honestly and with integrity throughout. 9. All of the costs relating to the previous two hearings had been paid. 10. Mr Lawson referred to the case of Salsbury v The Law Society [2009] 2AER 487 in which it had been said that the Tribunal had an undoubted discretion to deal with defaulting solicitors and protect the public. In so far as the public were concerned, they had in Mr Lawson s submission been protected since September 2006 when his insurance had been withdrawn and in March 2007 when his indefinite suspension had come into effect. The public would be protected forever if he gave an undertaking not to apply for a practising certificate. 11. His suspension had been a warning to his professional colleagues that this is what is likely to happen to you if you get out of date. In the north-west of England everybody knew that he had been suspended. He had suffered enormous humiliation as a result of his suspension, had been liable for costs and had lost at least a quarter of a million pounds. 12. He had apologised to his professional colleagues and The Law Society. In his view he had not been struck off and the Tribunal must have thought that there were shades of grey involved, which is why they had imposed an indefinite suspension in order to re-educate him. Accordingly, articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act were engaged, and his period of indefinite suspension should be determined. Submissions of the Respondent, Mr George Marriott, on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority 13. Mr Marriott relied upon his outline submission dated 14 th July 2010. He remained neutral as to the application by Mr Lawson. 14. In Mr Marriott s submission one of the main purposes of the Tribunal was to protect the public and enhance the reputation of the profession. The burden remained with Mr Lawson to show that on the balance of probabilities an order determining the indefinite suspension should be made. 15. Mr Marriott went through the history of the matter and told the Tribunal that the
5 Tribunal which had imposed the original sanction of indefinite suspension had found that Mr Lawson had acted outside the Solicitors Practice Rules time and time again. They were particularly concerned over his lack of understanding of the rule relating to conflict of interest, and that he could not see what he had done wrong. They found that he was not an unscrupulous practitioner and confirmed that no client had lost or indeed complained. They found that the matters were both serious for Mr Lawson and the profession as a whole. 16. At the hearing of Mr Lawson s previous application on the 4 th December 2007 the Tribunal had recognised that they should not consider the application unless they were satisfied that Mr Lawson had a sufficient knowledge of the then Solicitors Practice Rules 1990. The submissions made by Mr Lawson on that occasion emphasised that the greatest cost to him was that of the shame of being suspended from practice for an indeterminate period, and he asserted that he had learnt his lesson and would be able to comply with the rules of professional conduct in the future. In view of the short time between the penalty imposed and the application made, it was felt appropriate by the SRA to oppose Mr Lawson s application on that occasion. The Tribunal had found that Mr Lawson s mind remained closed to modern requirements and that he was simply doing as his father had done before him. The Tribunal found that he did not consider that his behaviour had been seriously wrong and therefore concluded that he had not discharged the burden which fell upon him as applicant, and dismissed the application. 17. In the Respondent s submission the issue for the Tribunal was to determine whether it fulfilled its public duty of maintaining the reputation of the profession and protecting the public Bolton v The Law Society [1994] WLR 512, if it allowed the application in the face of the order made in March 2007 and the refusal of the application made later that year, against Mr Lawson s undertaking never to practise in the future. 18. If the application before the Tribunal today was successful, the consequence would be that Mr Lawson would be able to describe himself as a non-practising solicitor. The question for the Tribunal, therefore, was to determine whether this was an appropriate exercise of its statutory power, given the earlier rulings. The Tribunal s decision and its reasons 19. The Tribunal would refuse the application. It had given very serious consideration to the submissions of both the Applicant and the Respondent in this case. In the Tribunal s view Mr Lawson had still not fully appreciated that what he had done was seriously wrong, and he had made the application solely for the reacquisition of his personal status. Whilst the public may be protected by the giving of Mr Lawson s undertaking, it did not consider that the reputation of the profession would be maintained or enchanced were they to accede to this application in all of the circumstances. Costs Application 20. The Respondent applied for costs fixed in the sum of 2,474.88. 21. Mr Lawson told the Tribunal that he was virtually impecunious. Proceedings before the Tribunal to date had cost him some 25,000 and an additional 1,000 for making
6 this application. He had no income and a small pension and his wife s limited earnings. His means were therefore very restricted. 22. The Tribunal having heard what the Applicant had to say about his financial situation assessed costs fixed in the sum of 1,500. Order 23. The Tribunal Ordered that the application of Peter John Lawson for the determination of the indefinite suspension be Refused and it further Ordered that he do pay the costs of the response of the Law Society to this application fixed in the sum of 1,500.00. Dated this 29 th day of September 2010 On behalf of the Tribunal A G Gibson Chairman