header-logo header-logo

Solicitor

28 April 2017
Issue: 7743 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 82 (Apr)

The Administrative Court allowed the appellant solicitor’s appeal against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT), finding him guilty of dishonesty and acting without integrity. The SDT had found the appellant guilty of serious dishonesty on two charges in which dishonesty had been explicitly eschewed and had never been properly spelt out against him in violation of the basic rule that you had to know you were facing a case of dishonesty. 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll