Solicitors Regulation Authority: Case Study

This case was in between John Michael Malins and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The appellant in this case is a solicitor specialised in construction law. On 1st of May 2013 he was part of Bond Pearce LLP, on that day Bond Pearce LLP merged with Dickinson D which then became Bond Dickinson. After the merge, the appellant decided to become a partner in a new firm. The solicitor did appeal against a decision that was made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The tribunal found the solicitor guilty of dishonesty and of acting without integrity in breach of 2 and 6 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles 2011 and Striking him off the roll. The appellant created a form N251 which is a notice of funding on 2 May 2014 which he backdated to 19 March 2013 which was in breach of principle 2 and 6 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. He also created a covering letter for a Notice of funding on 2 May 2014 with a date of 19 March 2013 which yet again breached principle 2 and 6 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority principles 2011. The function of this case was for an …show more content…
This would explain why the SRA principles do not additionally require a solicitor to act with honesty. This is because it is the same thing as integrity. Want of integrity and dishonesty are not only the same thing but must be proved to the same standard, in my judgement.’ The Solicitors regulation authority should not have to distinguish the differences between dishonesty and the want of integrity because they are the same thing and since in both legal and lay definitions they are the same thing so it is unfair for them to distinguish