Salam v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

This statutory appeal arises under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The Appellant, formerly an immigration solicitor and sole practitioner at a law firm in Cheshire ("the Firm"), was found guilty by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ("SDT") of dishonest conduct involving an undercover journalist posing as a potential client ("Client A"). In 2017, the Appellant was recorded advising the journalist on obtaining fraudulent accountancy evidence to support a spousal visa application, including introducing the journalist to an accountant to facilitate this fraud. These recordings were broadcast by a major broadcaster and subsequently provided to the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA").

Disciplinary proceedings commenced in July 2018, with the SDT certifying a case to answer in July 2020. The Appellant engaged in numerous attempts to delay or obstruct the proceedings, resulting in multiple adjournments. The substantive disciplinary hearing took place over several days in late 2022 and early 2023, during which evidence was presented primarily by the broadcaster's senior journalist and an SRA forensic investigation manager. The Appellant declined to give oral evidence or be cross-examined. The SDT found the Appellant guilty of dishonesty, breaching multiple professional principles, and imposed the sanction of striking him off the Roll of Solicitors. The Appellant appealed this decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the SDT erred in finding the Appellant guilty of dishonest conduct based on the recordings and other evidence.
2. Whether the recordings were authentic and admissible evidence.
3. Whether the Appellant was denied a fair hearing due to procedural irregularities or bias.
4. Whether the sanction of striking off was appropriate and proportionate.
5. Whether the Appellant’s various defences, including claims of research, play-acting, conspiracy, and challenge to authenticity, were valid.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the recordings were tampered with and not authentic, asserting that no expert forensic evidence was allowed to prove this.
• He argued that his conduct was part of "research" or "play-acting" rather than genuine dishonest advice.
• The Appellant alleged a conspiracy involving the broadcaster and government to undermine him.
• He claimed procedural unfairness, including lack of opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses and refusal to recuse the SDT chairman.
• The Appellant submitted that the sanction of striking off was disproportionate given his long unblemished career and that no actual harm was caused.

Respondent's Arguments

• The SRA maintained the authenticity and reliability of the recordings, supported by the broadcaster's senior journalist's evidence.
• It argued the Appellant’s defences were inconsistent, implausible, and rejected by the SDT.
• The SRA contended that the Appellant’s procedural complaints were without merit and that the SDT conducted a fair hearing.
• The Respondent asserted that the sanction was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to uphold public confidence in the profession.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ali v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2021] EWHC 2709 (Admin)	Legal principles governing appeals under s.49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, including standard of review and approach to findings of fact.	The court applied the principles that appellate interference with specialist tribunal findings is limited to cases of error of law, fact, or procedural unfairness, and that findings of fact are to be respected unless plainly wrong.
Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 454	Standard of review on appeal against findings of fact: appeal court should not interfere unless the decision is plainly wrong or no reasonable judge could have reached it.	The court reaffirmed the high threshold for overturning factual findings and applied it to uphold the SDT’s fact-finding.
SRA v Sharma [2010] EWHC 2022 (Admin)	Guidance on sanctions for dishonesty, establishing striking off as the usual and appropriate sanction absent exceptional circumstances.	The court endorsed the SDT’s approach that dishonesty almost invariably leads to striking off, and that exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated to justify a lesser sanction.
Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512	Considerations in disciplinary sanctions focusing on public confidence and integrity of the profession over personal mitigation.	Applied in assessing the seriousness of the misconduct and the appropriateness of striking off despite personal circumstances.
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67	Test for dishonesty: subjective knowledge of facts combined with an objective standard of ordinary decent people.	The court applied this test to uphold the SDT’s finding that the Appellant’s conduct was dishonest.
Naqvi v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 1394 (Admin)	Approach to evidence and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings involving undercover recordings.	The court endorsed the SDT’s evaluation of evidence and procedural fairness in the absence of the undercover client’s testimony.
Bawa-Garba v The General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1879	Standard of appellate review of evaluative decisions on sanction by specialist tribunals.	The court applied the principle that appellate courts should only interfere with sanction decisions if there is an error of principle or the decision is outside the bounds of reasonable judgment.
Farquharson v Bar Standards Board [2022] EWHC 1128 (Admin)	Standard for interference with sanctions in professional disciplinary cases.	The court confirmed that sanctions will only be overturned if clearly inappropriate.
Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin)	Framework for assessing seriousness of misconduct and appropriate sanctions.	The court applied this structured approach to sanctioning in upholding the SDT’s decision.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the procedural history, the evidence before the SDT, and the grounds of appeal. It emphasized the high threshold for appellate interference with findings of fact and evaluations by specialist tribunals. The SDT’s acceptance of the recordings as authentic was upheld, supported by the broadcaster’s senior journalist’s evidence and the absence of any credible evidence of tampering. The Appellant’s defences of research, play-acting, conspiracy, and challenges to authenticity were rejected as implausible and inconsistent.

The court noted that the Appellant’s failure to specify which parts of the recordings were allegedly tampered with and his refusal to give evidence weighed against his claims. The SDT’s rejection of the Appellant’s defences was rational and justified. The court also found that procedural fairness was maintained, with no evidence of bias or unfair hearing, and that the Appellant’s complaints about the conduct of the chairman and the hearing format did not meet the high threshold for appellate intervention.

Regarding sanction, the court applied established legal principles that dishonesty by a solicitor typically results in striking off unless exceptional circumstances exist. The SDT’s determination that no exceptional circumstances applied was reasonable. The seriousness of the Appellant’s conduct—actively encouraging fraudulent behaviour for financial gain and undermining public trust—supported the sanction imposed.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED. The court upheld the SDT’s findings of dishonest conduct and the sanction of striking the Appellant off the Roll of Solicitors.

The direct consequence is that the Appellant remains struck off and barred from practising as a solicitor. No new precedent was established; rather, the decision reaffirms existing principles regarding the standard of appellate review of disciplinary tribunals, the approach to evidence authenticity, and the usual sanction for solicitor dishonesty.