Written by In my previous articles about lay applications to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), I regretfully fell short of my usual standard of accuracy. I portrayed the SDT as a straightforward solution to holding solicitors accountable, which was misleading. Whilst the SDT can indeed be an important mechanism for pursuing accountability, it is not a “magic bullet.” The process is more involved than I suggested, and there are specific steps readers need to understand before they can use the SDT effectively. I have now deleted those articles due to confusion and inaccuracies. I want to apologise for any confusion caused and now take this opportunity to provide a clearer, more accurate explanation of the process.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) is not a shortcut to justice. To reach the point of making a lay application to the SDT, there is a necessary journey through other regulatory avenues, specifically the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and their procedures. It is essential to understand that an SDT application cannot bypass the SRA; instead, it is a potential step to be taken after exhausting other regulatory mechanisms.
The Correct Path to Holding Solicitors Accountable
The first step in any complaint about a solicitor is to raise the matter directly with the SRA. I understand the frustration many have with the SRA; the organisation is often criticised for its slow response times and reluctance to take significant action. Nevertheless, you must engage with the SRA process, as it is a prerequisite for pursuing a complaint with the SDT.
After submitting your initial complaint to the SRA, you may then be required to go through the SRA’s two-stage Complaint Handling Procedure (CHP). Unfortunately, in most cases, the outcome of these investigations does not satisfy complainants. This is often followed by an independent review from the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), which is funded by the SRA and, based on past findings, tends to align with the SRA’s conclusions.
Only once you have completed these steps can you approach the SDT with a lay application. It is helpful, though not strictly necessary, to obtain a formal “letter of exhaustion” from the SRA that acknowledges you have completed their process. If the SRA refuses to provide this letter, your correspondence with them should be sufficient evidence that you have exhausted their CHP, provided you have documented your dealings carefully.
Engaging with the SDT
The SDT can be contacted even while you are in the middle of the SRA process. They may be able to hold information on file that could assist later, should you proceed with a lay application. This can provide some helpful context if your case does eventually reach the SDT stage.
The SDT handles allegations of professional misconduct against solicitors, their employees, and their firms. However, it is important to know what the SDT cannot do:
- The SDT has no investigative powers; they do not collect evidence on your behalf.
- They do not consider cases of negligence or award compensation.
- The burden of proving misconduct falls entirely on you, the applicant, using the “balance of probabilities” standard.
Your application will need to be made on the correct form, which is available on the SDT’s website. You will also need to provide a thorough statement and supporting documentary evidence. Once submitted, your application is first reviewed by a single solicitor member of the SDT to determine whether there is a “case to answer.” If they believe there is, it proceeds to a three-member panel, who will decide if the case should be certified and a hearing arranged.
Costs and Risks
I want to correct a critical point from my earlier article. I stated that costs cannot be awarded against individuals who make lay applications to the SDT, but this is not entirely accurate. Costs can, indeed, be awarded against any party involved in an SDT process, depending on the outcome of the case. It is true that the SDT tries to ensure that meritorious applications are properly vetted before moving forward, reducing the likelihood of unwarranted costs being awarded against lay applicants. Nevertheless, the risk still exists, and anyone making a lay application should be aware of this.
To minimise this risk, it is crucial that your application adheres strictly to the SDT’s guidelines for lay applications. A well-prepared, evidence-backed case that is within the Tribunal’s remit will reduce the chances of an adverse cost order. If your application is certified as having merit, this will not only help your case but could also serve as a defence should costs be awarded against you. The SDT process provides a level of predictability that many other legal avenues do not, but the onus is on you to ensure that your submission is as watertight as possible.
Practical Realities and Possible Settlements
It is worth noting that, while the SDT cannot order compensation, the mere fact of an SDT hearing can pressure solicitors or law firms into considering settlements. Many firms prefer to avoid the SDT’s formal disciplinary procedures due to the associated costs and reputational risks. This makes it more likely that they will engage in settlement discussions once a lay application is accepted for consideration by the SDT.
However, none of this should be taken as an assurance that your case will succeed. The burden of proof lies entirely with the applicant, and the quality of the evidence you provide is critical. At Legal Lens, while we are not a legal practice, we do have a wealth of practical experience that can assist in guiding you through these processes. We are also considering developing a tool to help evaluate potential applications and provide a structured framework for those seeking to use the lay application process effectively. It is important to remember, however, that our assistance does not influence the final decision, and we cannot be held liable for the outcome of any application.
Conclusion
The SDT can be an effective tool for holding solicitors accountable, but it is not a shortcut or an easy route. It requires thorough preparation, engagement with the SRA’s processes, and a solid understanding of the risks involved. I hope this article clarifies the misunderstandings in my previous writing, and I sincerely apologise for any confusion caused. At Legal Lens, we remain committed to helping individuals navigate the complexities of legal accountability, and we will continue to provide information that is as accurate and reliable as possible.
If you have questions about the SDT process or need help understanding your next steps, feel free to reach out. As always, professional legal advice is recommended to fully assess your situation and explore the best possible course of action.
#LegalAccountability #SolicitorsDisciplinaryTribunal #LayApplications #SolicitorMisconduct #LegalRights #SDT
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are considering making a lay application to the SDT or have concerns about a solicitor’s conduct, please consult with a qualified legal professional or contact the Solicitors Regulation Authority for guidance.