SRA v Pamma – an update on Dishonesty and Mental Health
The High Court and the SRA’s appeals in James & Ors and Pamma
Last year, my colleague in Leigh Day’s Regulatory & Disciplinary team, Emma Walker, wrote an insightful piece looking at the significance of the High Court’s decision on three conjoined appeals in SRA v Sovani James & Ors. In each of these cases, the SDT had opted not to strike-off for dishonesty a solicitor who argued that his/her mental ill-health and extremely stressful working environment constituted exceptional circumstances meaning a sanction less serious that strike-off was appropriate. The SRA was appealing those findings.
Since the hearings in that case, the SDT has given its written reasons in SRA v Pamma, another case involving dishonest conduct in the context of mental ill-health. Here, the SDT suspended the solicitor indefinitely but did not strike her off.
In this article, I look at the two cases, highlight some key distinctions between them and consider whether Pamma is just a straggler falling within the same category of cases or whether, in fact, James might be distinguished with the result that Pamma escapes strike-off. READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE