In a rare legal move, the High Court has annulled a notice of intervention issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against a law firm, citing that the potential harm to the involved solicitor and his clientele outweighed the risks posed to the public.
The High Court’s decision comes after an intervention by the SRA in July 2024, which was driven by suspicions of dishonesty involving Martyn Howard Santer, a seasoned solicitor, and his firm. His Honour Judge Jarman KC noted that while there were grounds to suspect dishonest actions by Mr Santer and Asad Sahi, known to be the disbarred barrister Yawar Ali Shah, the situation warranted a reconsideration.
Mr Santer, who has a longstanding career in conveyancing, established Santer Solicitors in 2022 in East London before planning to retire. The firm was sold to Asad Sahi, later identified as Yawar Ali Shah, a disbarred lawyer imprisoned earlier for fraud. The SRA’s intervention arose when this alias conduct was suspected to extend to fraudulent activities within the firm, including false mortgage applications and bogus title documents.
In his defence, Mr Santer argued he was deceived by Sahi and had not engaged in any fraudulent activity. The High Court acknowledged that Mr Santer had conducted due diligence with identity checks and had a previously impeccable record. His involvement was deemed more as a victim of deception rather than complicit in fraudulent activities.
The intervention by the SRA led to significant reputational damage and operational disruptions for Mr Santer’s firm. The SRA’s adjudicator had initially ordered the intervention, pointing out suspicions towards Mr Santer’s association with problematic individuals, such as Robert Jones, also known apprehensively under different aliases. Judge Jarman admitted that the suspicions of dishonesty against Mr Santer were lessening with progression in the investigation.
Judge Jarman critiqued the adjudicator’s decision, which was based on reasonable doubt rather than conclusive fact-finding, and found her reasons for suspicion considerably weakened. He also noted that continuing the intervention would further harm the practice, which had already borne significant repercussions. The withdrawal of the intervention offers an opportunity for the law firm to retain its remaining clients and resolve matters harmoniously.
In spite of the withdrawal, Judge Jarman highlighted the importance of Mr Santer recognising and rectifying administrative lapses, noting that while Shah and associates were no longer part of the firm, a complete lack of risk was improbable. The SRA’s option to reinstate the intervention in future cases of significant suspicion was noted, though no immediate plans for this were mentioned.
The High Court’s unprecedented ruling to retract the SRA’s intervention notice marks a significant moment, balancing the need for legal oversight with fairness to affected practitioners. Mr Santer’s opportunity to recover his reputation and conclude his career without the stain of presumed dishonesty underscores the importance of thorough and fair legal processes.
