Brett v The Solicitors Regulation Authority
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE WILKIE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Alastair Brett, a solicitor, appealed against a decision by the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal that suspended him for 6 months and imposed costs of £30,000 for breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007. The breaches included failing to act with integrity and misleading the court in a case involving unauthorized email access by a journalist. The appeal court ruled that Brett recklessly, but not knowingly, misled the court and upheld the finding that he acted without integrity. The costs award was also upheld. Legal principles included the duty of integrity, non-deception of the court, and the overarching duty to the court and justice system.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE WILKIE:
Introduction
Alastair Brett, a solicitor of the Supreme Court admitted on 15 th October 1975, appeals, pursuant to Section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 , against a decision of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), dated 6 th December 2013. It followed a hearing held on 5 th December 2013. The SDT decided that Mr Brett should be suspended from practice as a solicitor for 6 months, commencing 16 th December 2013, and that he pay the costs of those proceedings summarily assessed at £30,000.
The findings of the SDT, giving rise to that order, were that he was guilty of two breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007. Those breaches were: of Rule 1.02, that he failed to act with integrity; and, of Rule 11.01, that he knowingly allowed the Court to be misled in the conduct of litigation. The SDT’s reasons are contained in a judgment dated 17 th January 2014, filed with the Law Society on 22 nd January 2014.
Mr Brett appears before us as a Litigant-in-Person. He was represented before the SDT by counsel and solicitors. Timothy Dutton QC appeared before the SDT for the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA), which prosecuted the allegations of breach, and he has appeared before us in that capacity.
Mr Brett was, until recently, Legal Manager at Times Newspapers Ltd (TNL) a position which he held for over 30 years. He was, in effect, their in-house solicitor.
The matters giving rise to the allegations of breach of the code of conduct concerned litigation in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Case No HQ09X02293. The claimant sought an injunction against TNL preventing it from publishing a story revealing him as the author of a blog under the name of “Nightjack”. There were two hearings. The first, on the 28 th May 2009, was before Mr Justice Teare and resulted in temporary relief being obtained in the form of undertakings pending a substantive hearing. The substantive hearing was before Mr Justice Eady on the 4 th June 2009. That gave rise to a judgment dismissing the claim for an injunction. On the 12 th June 2009 the judgment was sent in draft form to the parties for the correction of any errors or omissions; it was handed down on 16 th June 2009.
The legal framework
Section 46 of the Solicitors’ Act 1974 establishes the SDT. One of the tasks of the SRA, the body charged with supervising the professional practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors and clerks, is to present, in an appropriate case,