Regulation
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) -independent regulatory body of the Law Society of England and Wales – Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs
“1.4 You do not mislead or attempt to mislead your clients, the court or others, either by your own acts or omissions or allowing or being complicit in the acts or omissions of others (including your client).”
Solicitor who lied to client “to buy herself time” is struck off – Legal Futures
—
Satnam Singh Talwar Solicitor who acted for both the claimant and the defendant in a civil case has been suspended from practice for six months. | Law Gazette
” The retainers with Client A and Client B were terminated by the firm on 12 October and 9 October 2022 respectively, but Talwar failed to self-report to the SRA, the SDT found. ‘His failure to self-report spoke volumes as to the respondent’s cavalier attitude to the rules of professional conduct though it was to be noted that his admissions now demonstrated an element of insight and contrition’, the judgement concluded.”
ref: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/solicitor-acted-for-claimant-and- defendant/5123498.article
==
Dec 2025
The High Court of Ireland has acceded to the Irish Medical Council application to cancel the registration of Dr. Thomas Kwan, currently serving a lengthy prison sentence in England [for attempting to murder by poison his mothers’ then partner who is said to have been given a life interest in her property which would have deferred the crystallisation of any inheritance by Kwan of his share of the property]. Kwan is also no longer permitted to practice medicine in England.
ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98djy3md0no
“The panel said Kwan’s actions “breached a fundamental tenet of the profession”, which is that doctors “should act with integrity and within the law”. It also said he had shown an “absence of remorse” and had brought the profession into disrepute. Alex Mullen, counsel for the GMC, said the public would have been “confused, shocked and dismayed” if Kwan had not been struck off, and it would also have “damaged” the confidence in and of other medical professionals. “
Interesting analysis https://www.embroker.com/blog/difficult-legal-clients/
IN the news recently is Jos Verstappen the father of F1 Red Bull driver Max Verstappen who has described himself as someone who “just cannot cope with injustice and dishonesty. When stuff like that happens, I go mental.“
ref: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13156055/ALISON-BOSHOFF-Red-Bull-star-loathe-Geris-husband-jos-verstappen.html
Ombudsman Annual Report 2022 cites the Legal Services Regulatory Authority as the most complained about regulator in Ireland – In 2022 39% of all regulations complaints in Ireland related to the LSRA (122 of 313 complaints). It is noted despite offering a “Complaints Phone Service” for 2.5 hours a day for 3 days during the week it is in fact the policy of the LSRA not to speak to anyone so in effect this is a messaging service where you can leave a message only.
Caroline Fanning Solicitors has acted in the High Court for parties where LSRA complaints/decisions have been the subject of Judicial Review and the fact the LSRA do not speak to anyone has been a source of grievance particularly where there is no appeal available to parties in respect of a decision of the LSRA not to admit a complaint.
https://www.ombudsman.ie/publications/annual-reports/Ombudsman-Annual-Report-2022-Final-for-Web.pdf
“We received 313 complaints in 2022 about bodies in the regulatory sector. This represents a 10% increase on 2021. We upheld or partly upheld 17% of complaints investigated in this sector and provided some form of assistance in a further 15% of cases. 68% of cases were not upheld. The highest number of complaints was about the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA- 122). Complaints mainly concerned the LSRA’s handling of complaints about legal practitioners. We received 92 complaints about the Road Safety Authority (RSA) and 38 about the National Transport Authority (NTA). Among the RSA issues complained about were difficulties applying for, or renewing, driving licences and arranging driving tests. Among the NTA issues were complaint handling and dealing with clamping appeals.”
===============================
In Connolly v Legal Services Regulation Authority (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 252 (19 October 2023) the Court of Appeal held:
“97. As is evident from the applicant’s submissions both to the High Court and this Court, the whole tenor of the applicant’s case is that the weight of evidence was in his favour and not that of the Legal Practitioner and that the LSRA erred in not so finding. The issue of the weight of evidence is not a matter for the court on judicial review, rather it is a matter for the decision-maker. Thus, insofar as the applicant wishes to argue that the weight of evidence was in his favour, then the more appropriate mechanism for him to pursue was to have applied on notice to the High Court pursuant to s.63(1) of the 2015 Act and argue that the Determinations should be rescinded or varied by reason of serious and significant error or a series of such errors on the part of the LSRA. He did not do so. Rather, he has instead applied for leave to seek judicial review. Albeit, as I have said, the threshold for leave is a low one, the applicant has not surmounted that threshold. “
================
A legal practitioner cannot see refuge in “Legal professional privilege” in dealing with any complaints as the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 section 18 empowers the LSRA to lift this veil of privilege.
” 18. (1) Nothing in this Act shall compel a person, other than a person to whom subsection (2) applies, to disclose any information or documentation that the person would be entitled to refuse to produce on the grounds of legal professional privilege.
(2) Notwithstanding the relationship between, or rights and privileges of, a legal practitioner and his or her client, a legal practitioner shall, if so requested by a person authorised in that behalf by the Authority, provide the person with any information (in such form as that person may specify) or documentation which is required by the Authority for the purpose of enabling the Authority to discharge its functions under this Act.
(2) Information or documentation provided by a legal practitioner in accordance with subsection (2) may only be used for the purpose of enabling the Authority to discharge its functions under this Act in relation to legal practitioners .”
===================
Rule 5 of the Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland 2020 provides as follows: –
5.15 A barrister when conducting proceedings in Court is responsible for the conduct and presentation of his case, and must exercise the independent judgment called for during the case. A barrister must not act as a mere spokesperson for the client or the instructing solicitor.
5.16. Barristers must not deceive or knowingly mislead the court. A Barrister must take appropriate steps to correct any misleading statement made by the Barrister to the court as soon as possible after the Barrister becomes aware that the statement was misleading.
5.17. Barristers when conducting a case must not assert their personal opinion of the facts or the law unless expressly invited to do so by the court or required to do so by law.
5.18. Barristers when conducting a case must not make statements or ask questions which are merely scandalous or are intended only for the purpose of vilifying, insulting or annoying a witness or some other person.
5.19. In a civil case Barristers must, at the appropriate time in the proceedings, inform the court of any relevant decision on a point of law and, in particular, of any binding authority or of any applicable legislation of which they are aware and which the Barrister believes to be in point whether it be for or against their contention.
5.20. Barristers must in every case use their best endeavours to avoid unnecessary expense and waste of the Court’s time. They should, (subject to Rule 5.21), when asked, inform the Court of the probable length of the case and also subsequently inform the Court of any developments which significantly affect the information already provided.
England and Wales SRA Codes of Conduct
The standards in our Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs (also reflected in our Code of Conduct for Firms) help those conducting litigation to understand the standards which apply specifically in that area of work.
For example, paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors emphasises the importance for all those conducting litigation to maintain trust and act fairly.
Paragraph 1.2 states that you must not ‘abuse your position by taking unfair advantage of clients or others’. Paragraph 1.4 states that you must not mislead, or attempt to mislead your clients, the court or others, either by your own acts or omissions or by allowing or being complicit in the acts or omissions of others (including your client)’.
Paragraph 2 highlights further specific duties to the court. These include:
- not seeking to influence the substance of evidence (paragraph 2.2)
- only making assertions or putting forward statements, representations or submissions to the court or others which are properly arguable (paragraph 2.4)
- drawing the court’s attention to procedural irregularities which are likely to have a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings (paragraph 2.7).
The Legal Services Act 2007 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that seeks to liberalise and regulate the market for legal services in England and Wales, to encourage more competition and to provide a new route for consumer complaints. Legal Services Act 2007, Section 1 set out its Regulatory Objectives:
s1. (1)
In this Act a reference to “the regulatory objectives” is a reference to the objectives of—
(a) protecting and promoting the public interest;
(b) supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law;
(c) improving access to justice;
(d) protecting and promoting the interests of consumers;
(e) promoting competition in the provision of services within subsection (2);
(f) encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession;
(g) increasing public understanding of the citizen’s legal rights and duties;
(h) promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles;
[F1(i) promoting the prevention and detection of economic crime.]
s1. (3)The “professional principles” are—
(a)that authorised persons should act with independence and integrity,
(b)that authorised persons should maintain proper standards of work,
(c)that authorised persons should act in the best interests of their clients,
(d)that persons who exercise before any court a right of audience, or conduct litigation in relation to proceedings in any court, by virtue of being authorised persons should comply with their duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice, and
(e)that the affairs of clients should be kept confidential.
Mr Chouhan told the regulator in an email in February 2021: “I wish to confirm that since my suspension as a solicitor I have not undertaken any legal work that would cause me to be in breach of the suspension nor have I corresponded with any clients.”
He admitted that this information was false, he “knew it was false” and he had acted dishonestly. He also admitted accounts rule breaches and the failure to keep client money separate from money belonging to himself or the firm.
The solicitor said, in non-agreed mitigation: “I am remorseful for my conduct which was very much out of character and I am ashamed as I was a good solicitor and only wanted the best for my clients.”
He was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £1,500.
ref: https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/