Jenny Hallam: Restored to the Roll after 20 Years

Background

Ms Hallam was struck off the Roll of Solicitors in 2002, with the Tribunal finding that she had:

1. Behaved improperly in a conflict of interest situation; and
2. Failed to pay clients’ funds into a client account contrary to Rule 3 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1991. 

At the time of the original proceedings, Ms Hallam was enduring unrelenting domestic abuse at the hands of her former partner. The abuse was the reason for the downfall of her professional career, having been caught in a cycle of extreme domestic violence and coercive and controlling behaviour. In order to escape her former partner, Ms Hallam left the family home and had to keep moving with her children. As a result of this she was unaware of the Tribunal proceedings and played no part in them. 

After being struck off, Ms Hallam was at rock bottom. She began working in any role possible to make ends meet. Eventually she was able to start a career in university teaching law, which she has been doing for a number of years. Through such a role, she has kept abreast of current legal developments, despite not having worked in a regulated firm for some time. 

The Application

Ms Hallam submitted her application for restoration to the Roll herself, although was unrepresented at the time. The SRA’s starting position was that it objected to her application in full.

Ms Hallam quickly realised that it was in her interests to seek representation, at which point Vicky Lankester and Alecsandra Manning-Rees were instructed. They prepared a document in response to the SRA’s objections setting out the reasons for Ms Hallam’s application. The effect was that, subject to resolution of some issues, the SRA were persuaded not to object to Ms Hallam’s substantive application. Through a series of correspondence, and an articulation of Ms Hallam’s reflections, an agreed position was reached regarding Ms Hallam’s restoration that was put forward before the Tribunal. 

Privacy and Anonymisation Applications

In advance of the substantive hearing, applications were made for the advertisement and cause list to be anonymised and for the proceedings to be in private, given the level of abuse Ms Hallam had previously suffered from her former partner and the lengths he had gone to harm her and her family. 

A preliminary hearing was held in order to determine these applications, the outcome of which very much placed a shadow over the proceedings which were to come. 

Rules 34 and 35 of The Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 provide a discretion to a Tribunal to hold hearings in private and anonymise proceedings where it is considered that to hold a hearing in public or publish details of any party would cause that party exceptional hardship or exceptional prejudice. In our view, the fact of Ms Hallam’s history of extreme domestic violence at the hands of her ex-partner and the real risk she faced if he were to discover these proceedings were sufficient to enable the Tribunal to exercise such discretion. However, the Tribunal took a much stricter approach. 

The SRA’s view was that open justice was a fundamental principle and any derogation from it must be strictly necessary and the minimum required by the interests of the administration of justice or to avoid a violation of ECHR rights. This generally required that legal proceedings take place in public and be freely reportable (the open justice principle). 

Whilst it was fully appreciated that there is an expectation and a necessity for hearings to generally be held in public in order to uphold the important principle that justice is not only done, but seen to be done, Ms Hallam was concerned that her name being publicly advertised in accordance with the SRA rules would attract attention from her ex-partner from whom she is still extremely fearful. It was strongly argued on her behalf that the publication of her application and hearing may cause her career details to become more widely known and may lead to her safety being in issue. This was in no way an attempt to hide her application from the general public, but an application sought to prioritise the safety and wellbeing of Ms Hallam and her family. 

Despite these arguments, the Tribunal considered that Ms Hallam would not be caused exceptional hardship or prejudice should the advertisement and cause list not be anonymised and the proceedings to take place in public. This was the most frustrating part of the proceedings. 

In considering applications of this kind, the Tribunal has to strike a balance between the Article 8 rights of the individual and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The Tribunal referenced R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] 1 WLR 444, which stated, at paragraph 1: “Central to the Court’s evaluation will be the purpose of the open justice principle, the potential value of the information in question in advancing that purpose and, conversely, any risk of harm which its disclosure may cause to the maintenance of an effective judicial process or to the legitimate interest of others (see A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2015] AC 588 at [41]).”

HHJ Bellamy also set out the approach the Court should take in Re K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity) [2013] EWHC 2684 at paragraph 62:

1. Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 has precedence over the other;
2. Where the values under the two Articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the      individual case is necessary;
3. The justification for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account;
4. The proportionality test must be applied to each. This is ‘the ultimate balancing test’. 

The default position in all hearings is for the names of parties to be published and for hearings to be held in public. 

The Tribunal in this case considered, after balancing the various arguments by the parties, that Ms Hallam would not be caused exceptional hardship or prejudice if the hearing were to be in public and the advertisement and cause list were not anonymised. It did however agree that it may be necessary for some parts of the hearing to be heard in private to protect Ms Hallam’s privacy and family life. 

Ms Hallam therefore had to consider very carefully whether or not she would continue with her substantive application for restoration. With the encouragement of her children, she decided to persevere with her application despite the implications it may have. As is now obvious from the media attention in the case, Ms Hallam’s circumstances are well publicised, and this is exactly the outcome Ms Hallam was trying to prevent. Given the media attention, her hand has been forced into acknowledging and speaking out on these issues. Therefore, the initial decision was extremely disappointing for Ms Hallam and the concerns about her safety persist.

Had Ms Hallam been appearing before a healthcare regulatory tribunal, it is much more likely, in our view, that the applications would have been granted. In our experience, healthcare regulatory tribunals are much quicker to grant applications for privacy and anonymity where there is a clear risk to a party’s private life. The test in The Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 is however clear, that exceptional hardship or prejudice must be caused to the party for anonymisation or privacy to be granted, and nothing less will suffice. Indeed, there appears to have been only one SDT case in which privacy was granted (SRA v Burton and Drury, 11453-2015). In that case, the whole of the case against the respondents concerned advice they had given to a client in the context of a police investigation. The client had not waived privilege and so the Tribunal concluded and directed that the only way in which the client’s interests could be protected was by conducting the hearing in private. 

It is clear, therefore, that an application on behalf of a solicitor for anonymity or privacy in SDT hearings will almost always fail. 

The Substantive Hearing

At the substantive hearing, the parties presented their agreed position to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, unusually, accepted the written submissions and confirmed it did not need to hear oral submissions from either party. It did, despite the previous ruling on privacy, accept that a lot of the information contained within the submissions, was private and should be kept out of the public domain. 

The Tribunal commended Ms Hallam on building her career and making a safe and stable life for her family following her strike off. It was clear, through the character refences provided, that her professionalism and integrity were not in question. As a result of the submissions put forward by her representatives, the Tribunal was satisfied that a member of the public, with full knowledge of the circumstances of Ms Hallam’s case, would not be concerned to learn that she had been readmitted to the Roll of Solicitors. Indeed, this has been proved to be the case following the numerous positive media reports since the outcome has been published. 

The Tribunal concluded that the genuine insight Ms Hallam had shown, the steps she had taken to seek rehabilitation, along with the length of time since she was stuck off, were sufficient to tip the balance in favour of restoration. The Tribunal stated: “The particular circumstances presented by the Applicant in this case allowed the Tribunal to exercise its discretion with an element of compassion. The Tribunal was satisfied that this was one of those narrow category of cases where there was a route back into the profession for those who had made demonstrable, credible and real steps to rehabilitate themselves as the Applicant had done.” The Tribunal was satisfied that public confidence in the reputation of the profession would not be damaged by readmitting Ms Hallam with conditions. 

The Tribunal urged those in situations similar to Ms Hallam at the time of her strike off to engage openly with their regulator and the Tribunal, as such engagement could have had an impact on the outcome. The Tribunal then went on to pay “respect to the Applicant for protecting herself and her children through traumatic times, her dedication to the profession and her tenacity in bringing the application.”

We were delighted to obtain such a favourable result for Ms Hallam, particularly in terms of the details that were kept out of the public domain. Indeed, Ms Hallam was “shocked” at the compassion the Tribunal showed her, but our determination in the end paid off. We hope future Tribunals continue to show such compassion and understanding to those facing disciplinary proceedings. 

Alecsandra Manning-Rees is a practical and engaging advocate working across the full spectrum of professional disciplinary cases. She is instructed to act both on behalf of Registrants facing disciplinary proceedings and Regulatory bodies.

As Joint Deputy Head of the Professional Discipline Team, Alecs leads our junior barristers in their training and is an experienced mentor to those wishing to break into the professional discipline field of practice.

Alecsandra is highly regarded and has been ranked in both Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners since 2020 and 2021 respectively.