High Court rejects SDT 'racism' appeal

The High Court has rejected an appeal by a sole practitioner against his suspension for a year by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). John McLee Robinson argued that both the SDT and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had discriminated against him on racial grounds.

Robinson, principal of McLee & Co in Marble Arch, was represented by Peter Herbert (pictured), chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers and a leading critic of the SRA’s record on discrimination.

The sole practitioner admitted four breaches of the code of conduct – failing to adequately supervise staff, failing to act in the best interests of a client, providing a misleading statement and failing to provide information.

The court heard that, among other things, Robinson employed a barrister who had been suspended from practising and gave false answers to questions on an indemnity insurance application.

Giving judgment in Robinson v the SRA [2012] EWHC 2690 (Admin), Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said the thrust of Herbert’s argument was that the SRA and SDT had “discriminated against the appellant by reason of his ethnic origins and had arrived at a decision which was manifestly unfair”.

Haddon-Cave J said Herbert argued that the SDT was not “properly representative” because BAME communities were under-represented, there was no evidence that tribunal representatives had appropriate equality and diversity training, there was no appraisal system as existed in other tribunals, and no system of ‘indicative sanctions guidance’.

Herbert argued that there was evidence that racism had affected the “access, career progress and training of BAME entrants to the legal profession” since 1979 and this continued today, as evidenced by the Ouseley report in 2008 and the Pearn Kandola report in 2009.

It was further claimed that the penalty given to McLee Robinson was “unduly harsh” and “fell more heavily upon the appellant because BAME solicitors would find it more difficult to re-establish their practices after a suspension for misconduct”.

Herbert’s final argument was that the language used by the tribunal was “exaggerated and discriminatory”.

Haddon-Cave J said there was “nothing discriminatory” about the language used by the tribunal.

“The tribunal’s reasons are not redolent of unfair bias against the appellant on the grounds of race in any way,” he said.

Haddon-Cave J rejected the suggestion that use of phrases such as ‘very serious’, ‘substantial risk’, ‘extremely important document’ and ‘cavalier manner’ were “somehow discriminatory or gratuitous hyperbole designed to paint the appellant in as unfairly poor light as possible”.

The judge said none of the other disciplinary cases cited by Herbert involved “allegations of the number and seriousness” of this case.

Haddon-Cave J concluded that there was nothing he could find “which begins to suggest that any wider issues regarding alleged discrimination in the legal profession have somehow seeped into, or otherwise materially affected, the tribunal’s reasoning or decision in the instant case”.

He added: “No scintilla of discrimination of any kind is detectible, save against bad practice by a solicitor contrary to his professional code of conduct”.

Haddon-Cave J dismissed the appeal against the tribunal’s decision and upheld the £20,000 costs order made against Robinson.