City solicitor did not lack integrity when refusing breathalyser, tribunal finds

£2,500 fine

A City solicitor who was arrested after failing to provide a breath sample did not lack integrity, a tribunal has found.

James Rafferty, a solicitor at Baker McKenzie, was pulled over in May 2023 after driving at speeds ranging between 65mph and 90mph whilst “wandering about the lanes”, with a police officer nothing that at one point he “almost collided with a bus”.

He was subsequently arrested for failing to provide a breath sample, and reported himself to the regulator shortly afterwards. He pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings and was hit with a fine of £3,800 alongside a 17 month driving ban, reduced by 17 weeks upon completion of a rehabilitation course.

This was followed up by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) bringing the matter before a tribunal, claiming that Rafferty had showed a lack of integrity, and that it’s fining powers (which extend up to £25,000) were inadequate to deal with the case. Although the solicitor admitted that he failed to uphold public confidence in the profession and the rule of law and proper administration, he denied acting with a lack of integrity.

In a newly published judgment the tribunal sided with Rafferty, nothing that “it was not unusual for an offender to disagree with some aspects of the case against them”, and that he had “entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity and acted with complete transparency with his regulator throughout”.

Although his drink-driving was the result of a “significant error of judgment”, the solicitor had shown “deep remorse”, apologised, and accepted responsibility. His conduct was therefore “moderately serious”, warranting a fine of £2,500.

There was, however, no order made as to costs.

It was argued by Rafferty that he had made a previous offer to pay the SRA a fine of £10,000, which was rejected, and he therefore sought to recover just shy of £11,000 in costs. This was rejected on the basis that the case was “properly brought” and that the SRA had succeeded in part (albeit the parts that were already admitted).

The SRA’s application for £6,000 was similarly rejected, with the tribunal stating that the case had been brought partly “on the basis of its [the SRA’s] misapprehension that its £25,000 internal fining limit was insufficient and the case required the tribunal to determine sanction”.