Solicitor E entered into a sham partnership with solicitor O in order that E could practise as a sole practitioner when he did not have the necessary three years' experience. E and O were also found guilty of breaches of other requirements, including the Accounts Rules.

The SDT fined O and E but we appealed, arguing that the correct penalty was suspension or strike off. O and E argued that neither of them had been found guilty of dishonesty and that suspension or striking off should be reserved for far more serious cases.

Mr Justice Burnett allowed our appeal and determined that both solicitors should be struck off. He said the essential principle remained, identified by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Bolton v Law Society: 'The profession of solicitor requires complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness. Lapses less serious than dishonesty may nonetheless require striking off if the reputation of the solicitors' profession "to be trusted to the ends of the earth" is to be maintained.'

Mr Justice Barnett added that in cases featuring a lapse in standards of integrity, probity or trustworthiness a solicitor should expect to be struck off even if dishonesty had not been proved.

Solicitor B worked as a legal manager for a national newspaper. He was asked for advice on a potential story concerning an individual (K) who had been identified using unauthorised access to his email account. B advised that reliance on such material was unacceptable and unlawful.

The reporter concerned then pieced together publicly available information which he claimed would have enabled him to lawfully identify K anyway. The allegations in the story were then put to K.

K applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent publication. B handled the litigation, filing a witness statement on behalf of the reporter stating that K had been identified by only lawful means. In correspondence with K's solicitors B also stated that the allegation that K's email account had been accessed was 'baseless'. K's application was dismissed.<?p>

In subsequent disciplinary proceedings before the SDT, B stated that he had not revealed the hacking of the email to the court because the information had been given to him in confidence and was legally privileged.

The SDT found B's duty to the court outweighed any such confidence. It stated that B had not acted dishonestly but knowingly allowing the court to be misled, had acted without integrity. B then appealed to the High Court.

In allowing the appeal in part only, Mr Justice Wilkie (who gave the leading judgment) held as follows:

• Although B was not entitled to breach legal professional privilege he was also required not to mislead the Court - and had to find a way to reconcile both those positions. He could, for example, have asked/persuaded the reporter to waive privilege. Or he might have made it clear, in either the witness statement or the pleadings, that it was not claimed that K had been identified via legal means only but that he could have been.
• Since the SDT found that B had not acted dishonestly it was contradictory (and not open to it) then to find that B had 'knowingly' misled the court.
• However, B had 'recklessly' misled the court (going beyond mere negligence) and on that basis he was also guilty of a breach of the duty to act with integrity.

Two solicitors had introduced numerous conveyancing clients to stamp duty tax avoidance schemes which were of considerable potential risk and disadvantage to the clients. However, they were of considerable potential profit to the solicitors in the form of commissions and referral fees from the scheme providers.

They did not inform the clients of the risky nature of the schemes nor of their own personal opportunity to gain commissions. In doing so they put the interests of their clients below their own personal profit.

Although the two solicitors had not been accused of dishonesty the High Court found that on these facts a finding of lack of integrity was not just proper but inevitable.

A solicitor made a number of improper payments from client account. The SDT found him to have acted without integrity - but not dishonestly - and ordered him to be struck off.

Dismissing the solicitor’s appeal to the High Court, Lady Justice Sharp said: 'A person can lack integrity without being dishonest. One example which applied here was by being reckless as to the use of various client accounts.

'As the SDT found, the appellant had not enquired as to the reasons for the improper payments and transfers out of client account, he had not cared at all about what he was instructed to authorise and he had not shown any steady adherence to any kind of ethical code.

'Accordingly, it was not so much a case of what the appellant thought but that he neither thought nor cared about what was required by the rules governing his profession.'

Solicitor N recruited two new partners without any real vetting. When N became aware that a fraud had been committed by one of them in a conveyancing matter she took no real steps to protect clients in other transactions.

In agreeing with the SDT’s conclusion that N had acted without integrity Mr Justice Morris in the High Court said: '...actual knowledge or recklessness in the sense of being aware that the conduct posed a risk and consciously taking it, will be highly likely to give rise to a finding of lack of integrity. However, I accept the SRA's submission that it is wrong to define lack of integrity as requiring recklessness. Lack of integrity does not necessarily involve risk taking.

'So, for example, the solicitor who dips into the client account with the intention of putting the money back lacks integrity because a client account is sacrosanct regardless of the risk of the money not being repaid.'

Solicitor W represented a bankrupt client who was seeking to arrange the purchase by an associated company of his former home from the creditor bank.

W did not inform the bank that a third party had made the client a much higher offer than that made by the associated company. The plan was for the associated company to resell the property to the third party with a share of the profit going to the client.

Instead W told the bank on several occasions that the associated company’s offer was the highest that he felt could be achieved but that he would try and negotiate more.

The High Court overturned the SDT’s findings of dishonesty, due to procedural irregularities, but allowed a finding of lack of integrity to stand.

Giving judgment, Mrs Justice Carr stated: 'want of integrity arises when, objectively judged, a solicitor fails to meet the high professional standards to be expected of a solicitor. It does not require the subjective element of conscious wrongdoing.'

Sir Brian Leveson P added: ‘Honesty, ie. a lack of dishonesty, is a base standard which society requires everyone to meet. Professional standards rightly impose on those who aspire to them a higher obligation to demonstrate integrity in all of their work. There is a real difference between them.'

Solicitor A accepted a £350,000 loan from a client, supported by an agreement drafted by the solicitor and signed by his client in the presence of the client's friend. It was repayable at the end of an eight month period with interest at a 'preferential' rate of 2 per cent above the base rate.

The agreement was later varied, again by an agreement drafted by the solicitor, to extend the repayment date. In neither case did the solicitor make sure that the client obtained independent advice.

The client subsequently obtained a default judgment against the solicitor. At the time of the SDT hearing neither the loan nor any interest had been paid. The solicitor's evidence was that his client did not need independent advice because her friend who had witnessed the agreement was an 'intelligent and financially knowledgeable employee of a banking institution'. The solicitor inferred that the friend had given independent legal advice.

The SDT accepted the client's evidence that her friend was neither legally qualified nor gave legal advice about the loan.

Despite the solicitor being able to demonstrate that he held a well-respected practice with many loyal clients, supported by glowing references, and he said he 'felt bad' about his inability to repay the loan, the SDT found that the solicitor failed to act with integrity - as well as failing to uphold public trust and confidence by accepting the loan and failing to ensure his client took independent advice.

Solicitor C was a senior partner and owner of the firm where person B was a recently recruited paralegal working a short-term contract. While at a local wine bar with other employees and a client of the firm solicitor C touched person B’s leg, back, shoulder and bottom and rested their head on Person B's shoulder.

The touching was unwanted by person B and C, who was extremely drunk, should have known that it was uninvited and unwanted, not least because a client was present and there was no indication of interest nor direct invitation from person B.

At the SDT, solicitor C admitted the allegation, including that their conduct had been unwanted by person B.

The SDT found the allegations proved and found that Solicitor C had acted without integrity, in addition to failing to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in them. In making its finding the SDT referenced the imbalance of power between solicitor C and person B as being a relevant factor.