US-based lawyer successfully has Section 43 Order overturned by SDT

A US-based lawyer, Ryan Herrmann, has successfully had a Section 43 Order overturned by the SDT, after it was found an Adjudicator erred in the way the evidence was considered. A Section 43 Order is an order restricting the future employment of unqualified persons.

Herrmann, who is a registered attorney in the USA, Italy, and was partner of a law firm in the UK; had been acting in a divorce matter as foreign counsel on behalf of the Father, however having won the case, the Mother’s solicitors reported him to the SRA for purportedly claiming to be a solicitor.

The matter was presided over by the adjudicator, where the Section 43 Order was imposed – however Herrmann took it to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to overturn. In the ordinary course of things, a Section 43 Order can only be overturned when there has been a procedural irregularity, or unfairness.   

The Tribunal heard one basis for appeal was that the Adjudicator had considered evidence of an attachment said to have been attached to an email dated July 2021 – when in fact the document was in fact attached to an email in August 2021. 

Another basis for the appeal was the use of a binary C100 Form, the Section 43 Order was made on the basis Herrmann had carried himself as a solicitor. However, Herrmann argued there were only two options of either “Applicant” or “Solicitor” available on the firm – whilst although Herrmann was technically neither; he was foreign counsel and was permitted to act by the Court. The SDT concluded it was reasonable for him, having only one of the two options, to have used “Solicitor”; with Herrmann being able to prove on subsequent Forms, he had used the technically correct “Legal Representative” term, where he had the option to.     

Remarkably, the Tribunal also heard that a Deputy District Judge in the divorce case had not been using his judicial email address, instead using a personal one.

The Application was unsuccessfully opposed by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, even after the SDT announced Herrmann had succeeded; they argued there should be no order to costs. The SDT rejected this position, awarding Herrmann £5,000 in costs.

One of the more egregious results of the SRA’s prosecution of the case was a referral to the Police. It is now understood that following that, Herrmann is seeking to clear his name in the High Court.