Registered Foreign Lawyer in Contempt
The Law Society sought to commit to prison a Registered Foreign Lawyer for contempt of court for breaching terms of court orders requiring him to deliver up client files and/or to provide a proper explanation as to any inability to do so following intervention into his practice by the Solicitors Regulation Authority: The Law Society Of England And Wales v Pawlak [2021] EWHC 3076 (Ch): His Honour Judge Cawson QC
After the United Kingdom exited the European Union, and following the transitional period, D was no longer able to occupy a regulated position with the practice and became a registered foreign lawyer.
He no longer met the eligibility requirements to practise as a recognised sole practitioner within the rules.
D maintained that he ceased carrying out any legal activities and closed the practice from 1 January 2021.
The claimant submitted that he continued to provide legal services after that date and, the decision to intervene having been made, he failed to cooperate with the intervention process.
The court was amply satisfied that the claimant had demonstrated that there was at least a case for D to answer to the effect that he did not cease trading and close his files with effect from 1 January 2021 and continued to deal with clients thereafter, and evidence given in witness statements he made about a theft in which all paper files, computers and laptops were stolen.
D had not appeared for the contempt hearing and there was a significant number of matters raised which called for an explanation which would have provided fertile ground for cross-examination of D had he sought to dealt with it in order to test his credibility.
He may be in Poland, but there was nothing to prevent D from making a further witness statement or witness statements, and/or attending to give oral evidence at the hearing.
There was nothing to prevent D from travelling from Poland to Manchester, but even if he had had some difficulty in doing so, and if such had been requested, it would have been open to the court to consider whether he might have given evidence by video link, but there was no application for him to do so.
The judge did not consider that, drawing such inferences as he was entitled to draw, the D’s version of events was reasonably possible. It followed that the court found to the requisite criminal standard of proof that D acted in contempt of court in breach paragraph 1 of its May Order by failing to deliver up paper and electronic files of the practice as provided for.
Sentencing and determination of ancillary issues was adjourned to a date, ideally, in week commencing 29 November 2021 for reasons identified in JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko[1] that it may be appropriate to adjourn sentencing after a finding of contempt where the committal proceedings had taken place in the absence of the respondent so as to, among other things, enable the respondent to consider presenting mitigation, seek to purge his contempt and/or belatedly seek to comply with the order that had been breached.
It was appropriate that D had an opportunity to consider carefully the terms of the judgment and its implications before sentence was determined.
Cases Cited in Judgment
Absence of the Defendant
XL Insurance Company SE v IPORS Underwriting Ltd [2021] EWHC 1407 (Comm)
Principles in Determining Contempt Application
Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson [2018] EWHC 1004 (QB)
Daltel Europe Ltd v Makki [2006] 1 WLR 2704
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm)
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co v Sage [2017] EWCA Civ 973, [2017] 1 WLR 4599.
Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch)
Atkinson v Varma [2020] EWCA Civ 1602, [2021] Ch 180
Super Max Offshore Holdings v Malhotra [2020] EWHC 1023 (Comm)
Daltel v Makki [2005] EWHC 749 (Ch)
Averill v U.K. [2001] 31 EHRR 36
Therium (UK) Holdings Ltd v Brooke [2016] EWHC 2421 (Comm)
Inplayer Ltd v Thorogood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511
VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov [2015] EWHC (QB) 3327
Imam-Sadeque v Bluebay Asset Management (Services) Ltd [2012] EWHC 3511 (QB
Khawaja v Popat [2016] EWCA Civ 362
Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] 1 WLR 3863
Adjournment after Contempt Finding in Absence of Respondent
JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] EWHC 1613 (Ch)
[1] [2011] EWHC 1613 (Ch)