The David Greene Story: A Legal Battle Against the Law Society's Former President

Introduction

The legal profession in the United Kingdom prides itself on upholding the highest standards of ethics and integrity. However, the long-running dispute between David Davies and David Greene, the former President of the Law Society, has cast a shadow over these ideals. This complex case, spanning more than a decade, involves allegations of misconduct, multiple court hearings, and regulatory proceedings that have called into question the efficacy of the systems designed to maintain professional standards in the legal field.

Background (2008-2011)

On 31 March 2008, Edwin Coe LLP, represented by David Greene, was retained by EcoPower.co.uk Ltd, a company owned by David Davies. The firm was engaged to pursue a judicial review claim against Transport for London (TfL) and the Public Carriage Office (PCO) regarding the approval of an emissions reduction system for London taxis.

Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In this case, EcoPower was challenging decisions made by TfL and PCO regarding their taxi emissions system.

On 23 April 2008, His Honour Judge Hickinbottom delivered a mixed ruling. While dismissing the main ground of the judicial review, he found two of TfL's decisions to be unlawful. This partial victory opened the door for a potential damages claim. An attempt to appeal the dismissal of the main ground was refused by Lord Justice Laws on 29 July 2008.

David Greene/Edwin Coe represented EcoPower continuously from 2008 until 2010 for the judicial review, appeal, costs, and damages claims, all of which were unsuccessful. The damages claim that Greene was working on throughout 2008 and 2009 derived directly from the judicial review.

Between November 2008 and November 2009, there was ongoing correspondence between Greene and Davies regarding the case and the potential damages claim. This correspondence included more than a hundred emails, regular phone calls, and formal letters to and from TfL titled 'our client EcoPower'. This continuous communication would later become a central point of contention in the dispute.

In November 2009, Greene stated that he was opening a 'new file' for the damages claim, ostensibly to quantify all of the previous costs up to that point. Importantly, Greene did not at this time state that he was ending representation for EcoPower or that he was now representing Davies personally, nor did he indicate that Davies was becoming personally responsible for the fees.

The Dispute Emerges (2010-2012)

EcoPower Ltd had paid Edwin Coe ￡80,000, but Greene claimed further funds were owed. After ceasing to represent EcoPower, Greene made a retrospective claim that he had ended representation for EcoPower after the appeal in July 2008 and that there was no contact whatsoever for about a year until November 2009. Davies asserts that this claim was false, given the extensive communication during this period.

On 3 December 2010, Edwin Coe issued an invoice to Davies personally for ￡7,218.74 for professional charges. Davies refused to pay, maintaining that he was not personally liable for the fees and that EcoPower Ltd was the client. Davies argues that there was never a document ending representation for EcoPower, and the document which Greene claimed formed a new representation for David Davies personally was not signed by Davies and did not constitute an agreement for representation.

In March 2012, Edwin Coe began legal proceedings against Davies to recover the unpaid fees. The case came to trial at Winchester County Court on 12 December 2012, before District Judge Stewart. During this trial, Greene gave evidence that there had been a break in representation for about a year – a claim that Davies vehemently contests based on the email correspondence during that period.

Judge Stewart ruled in favour of Edwin Coe, accepting Greene's evidence and ordering Davies to pay the disputed fees plus costs. This judgment led to a charging order on Davies' home for ￡20,000. A charging order is a way of securing a debt against a property, which can be enforced if the debt is not paid.

Legal Battles Intensify (2013-2019)

Davies' attempts to appeal the judgment were dismissed in January 2013. In the UK legal system, appeals are typically only allowed if there is a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason.

Undeterred, on 29 June 2015, Davies applied to set aside the 2012 judgment, alleging that Greene had misled the court. This application was heard by Judge Stewart on 9 February 2016. During the hearing, the judge acknowledged that Greene could only have ever represented EcoPower Ltd and not Davies personally. However, he still upheld his previous judgment, stating that Greene had not been dishonest.

Complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in 2013 and 2018 were dismissed without proper investigation or response, according to Davies. The SRA is the regulatory body that oversees solicitors in England and Wales.

On 18 March 2019, Davies filed a Lay Application complaint to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) against Greene. The SDT is an independent statutory tribunal which considers complaints of misconduct against solicitors. The complaint was supported by 612 pages of documentary evidence.

In a hearing on 20 March 2019, the SDT found credible evidence of dishonesty and instructed the SRA to investigate. However, the SRA responded by dismissing any allegations of dishonesty against Greene, making statements that Davies claims were false and supportive of Greene's position.

On 21 June 2019, a differently constituted SDT certified that there was a case for Greene to answer, despite the SRA's stance. However, on 13 August 2019, yet another differently constituted SDT struck out Davies' Lay Application as an abuse of process and awarded Greene ￡30,000 in costs for a 2.5-hour hearing. Davies argues this was contrary to the SDT's own rules regarding adverse prosecution costs.

Higher Courts Intervene (2021-2022)?

Davies filed a statutory right of appeal against the 2019 SDT decision in the High Court. On 12 January 2021, the Divisional Court allowed Davies' appeal against the striking out of his Lay Application. The Divisional Court is a type of court in England and Wales that consists of at least two judges sitting together.?

The judges made strong statements that the evidence of Greene's alleged lies was credible and that the case should be heard at a substantive hearing by the SDT. They stated: "In our judgment, it is at least arguable that the disparity between what Mr Greene said in evidence and the position revealed by the correspondence is capable of supporting a case that the former was not only misleading but deliberately so, and not such as to be explained as a product of mistaken recollection due to the passage of time."

Greene appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal, which is the second highest court in the English legal system. On 29 March 2022, the Court of Appeal dismissed Greene's appeal, further solidifying Davies' right to have his complaint heard.

SDT Hearing and Final Appeal (2022-2023)?

In September 2022, the SDT held a three-day hearing on Davies' complaint. During this hearing, it was acknowledged that it is an offence if a solicitor makes a sworn written statement which is inaccurate, even if this is done inadvertently.

Despite this acknowledgment, the SDT judgment stated that while the statements made by Greene were inaccurate, because they were deemed inadvertent, there would be no sanction. This decision was particularly controversial given a ruling made a year later ?in a similar case.

In the case of Clay, chaired by the same SDT chair, Gerald Sydenham, a solicitor was suspended for six months for making inadvertently inaccurate statements. The tribunal in that case found that Clay's "failure to set out the full and accurate position – and then to ask for further instructions from the client – was a 'breach and departure from the ethical standards of the profession'."

The tribunal found Clay lacked integrity by giving a misleading impression to cover his own failures and putting his own interests before those of a client. While dishonesty and integrity were described as 'kindred and related matters', the tribunal said they were distinct concepts for the purposes of professional conduct. Clay had not intended to deliberately mislead and on that basis he had not acted dishonestly, the tribunal ruled. Despite this, he was suspended for six months and ordered to pay ￡12,000 costs.

The apparent inconsistency between these two rulings has raised questions about the consistency of SDT decisions. The judgment handed down by Gerald Sydenham in the Greene case completely contradicts the judgment he handed down the following year in the Clay case.

Like Colin Chesterton, the chair of the first SDT hearing in 2019, which improperly struck out the complaint and wrongfully awarded adverse costs in contradiction of SDT guidelines (a decision later overturned by the Divisional Court in 2021), Sydenham was also a director of a Private Limited company paid ￡3 million a year by the Law Society, creating a clear conflict of interest.

SDT rules state that Tribunal members should have no connection with the Law Society to avoid any appearance of conflicted interest.

In Davies's case, the complaint was against the President of the Law Society, making it even more crucial for members to be free from any associations with the Law Society to ensure impartiality

Davies appealed the SDT's decision to the Administrative Court. However, instead of being listed in the Divisional Court as it had been previously, the case was allocated to a single judge, Justice Calver. Davies filed a complaint about this procedural irregularity, arguing that the case met the criteria for the Divisional Court in 2021 and had only become more complex since then.

The hearing took place on 12 December 2023, and on 21 December 2023, Justice Calver handed down his judgment, dismissing Davies' appeal. In his judgment, Justice Calver acknowledged that Greene had made false statements under oath but concluded that he had not been dishonest and that his statements were "inadvertently inaccurate."

A formal complaint was filed to the SDT about further conflicts of interest of the SDT Tribunal members, but this complaint was also dismissed.

Crucial Evidence

A crucial piece of evidence in this case is a letter from HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) dated 2015. This letter confirms that David Greene and Edwin Coe were on record with the court as representing EcoPower continuously from 2nd April 2008 to 21st May 2010. This is significant because if Edwin Coe had stopped representing EcoPower Ltd at any point during this period, they would have been legally required to notify the court, which they did not do.

This HMCTS letter directly contradicts Greene's claim that he had ended representation for EcoPower in July 2008 and had no contact for about a year. It provides strong evidence of continuous representation throughout the period in question and raises serious questions about the accuracy of Greene's statements to the court.

Controversial Judgment and Ongoing Dispute

Davies argues that Justice Calver's judgment contradicts an almost identical case just weeks earlier, where Justice Calver upheld a decision by the Bar Standards Board to strike off a barrister who had made inadvertently inaccurate sworn written statements. In that case, Justice Calver specifically stated that sanction was required against a legal professional who had made inaccurate sworn statements, even if they were inadvertent.

Furthermore, Davies contends that Justice Calver ignored the previous Court of Appeal judgment from 2022, which stated that "a lie that does not mislead the recipient is still a lie" and that "a lie that does not in the event mislead may nonetheless involve providing the Court with misleading information."

Davies has since appealed to the Court of Appeal, but permission was refused in March 2024. A Certificate of Exhaustion has been issued, meaning that all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted. The only remaining course of action may be an application to the European Court of Human Rights, based on an alleged violation of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

Alleged Conflicts of Interest?

Throughout this process, Davies has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest among the decision-makers. He alleges that some SDT tribunal members and judges may have had connections to the Law Society or to Greene himself, which could have influenced their decisions.

Specifically, Davies points out that the chair who handed down the judgment striking out his complaint in 2019 was the CEO of a limited company paid ￡3 million a year by the Law Society. This, Davies argues, goes against SDT rules stating that members should have no connection whatsoever to the Law Society.

Davies also raised concerns about the composition of the SDT panels, noting that different panels reached different conclusions about the merits of his case. He argues that the panels that ruled in Greene's favour may have been influenced by their connections to the legal establishment.

These allegations of conflicts of interest extend to the judicial process as well. Davies contends that the allocation of his case to a single judge in the Administrative Court, rather than the Divisional Court, may have been influenced by such conflicts.

Conclusion

The David Greene story raises serious questions about professional ethics, regulatory oversight, and the integrity of the legal system. It highlights the challenges in ensuring accountability, particularly when allegations are made against high-profile figures in the legal profession.

Davies argues that the evidence clearly shows inconsistencies in Greene's statements and that these should have been acted upon by the regulatory bodies. He believes that Greene's connections have led to the judicial system being compromised by conflicted judges and tribunal members, making decisions in favour of their colleague that do not comply with the right to a fair trial.

This case underscores the difficulties faced by litigants, especially those acting in person, when navigating complex legal proceedings and regulatory systems. It also raises concerns about the effectiveness of self-regulation in the legal profession and the potential for conflicts of interest.

As the legal community reflects on this case, it prompts discussions about how to balance the rights of individual practitioners with the need for rigorous oversight. It also raises questions about how complaints against high-profile legal figures are handled, and whether current systems ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.

The Davies vs Greene case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of integrity, transparency, and accountability in the legal profession. It highlights the need for clear and consistent application of professional standards, regardless of a practitioner's status or connections within the legal community.

As the dust settles on this long-running dispute, its legacy may well be a renewed focus on these fundamental principles of legal practice and the need for robust, impartial regulatory mechanisms. The case calls for a thorough review of the processes for handling complaints against senior members of the legal profession, ensuring that these processes are transparent, fair, and free from any perception of bias or conflict of interest.

Regardless of the final outcome, this case has undoubtedly sparked a crucial debate about the standards of conduct expected from legal professionals and the systems in place to uphold these standards. It serves as a call to action for the legal community to continually examine and improve its self-regulatory processes, ensuring they are fair, transparent, and effective in maintaining the high ethical standards upon which the profession prides itself.

The David Greene story will likely be remembered as a watershed moment in legal ethics, prompting introspection and potentially leading to reforms in how the legal profession polices its own. It underscores the vital importance of maintaining public trust in the legal system and the ongoing challenge of ensuring that even the most prominent members of the legal community are held to the highest standards of professional conduct.

#LegalEthics #RegulatoryOversight #UKLaw #PublicInterest #LegalProfession #ConflictOfInterest

References

Ashraf v General Dental Council [2014] EWHC 2618 (Admin).

Bar Standards Board v Howd [2017] EWHC 210 (Admin).

Davies v Greene [2021] EWHC 38 (Admin).

Davies v Greene [2022] EWCA Civ 226.

Davies v Greene [2023] EWHC 3304 (Admin).

European Convention on Human Rights (1950). Rome: Council of Europe.

Greene v Davies (2012) Winchester County Court (unreported).

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (2015). Letter confirming continuous representation of EcoPower Ltd by Edwin Coe LLP. Unpublished letter. London: HMCTS.

Legal Services Act (2007). London: The Stationery Office.

R v McCook [2014] EWCA Crim 734.

Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules (2007). London: The Law Society.

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (2019). Memorandum of consideration of lay application. London: SDT.

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (2022). Judgment in the matter of David Greene. London: SDT.

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (2023). Judgment in the matter of Clay. London: SDT.

Solicitors Regulation Authority (2011). SRA Principles. Birmingham: SRA.

Solicitors Regulation Authority (2022). SRA Code of Conduct. Birmingham: SRA.

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Day [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin).

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Good [2019] EWHC 817 (Admin).

Public Interest Disclosure Statement

This statement is made in the public interest to provide transparency and uphold the principles of accountability within the legal profession. The information disclosed herein pertains to a long-standing legal dispute between David Davies and David Greene, the former President of the Law Society, which has raised significant concerns regarding professional ethics, regulatory oversight, and the integrity of legal processes in the United Kingdom.

The disclosure of this information serves the public interest by highlighting potential inconsistencies in the application of legal standards and the management of conflicts of interest within the legal system. It is intended to promote a fair and impartial examination of the facts and to ensure that all parties involved are held to the highest standards of professional conduct. The issues discussed have implications for the legal community and the public at large, particularly concerning the trust placed in legal institutions and the mechanisms designed to enforce ethical behaviour among legal professionals.

Disclaimer

The content provided in this disclosure is based on information available as of the date of publication and is intended solely for informational purposes. The details shared herein reflect the ongoing legal proceedings, regulatory actions, and publicly available documents related to the case between David Davies and David Greene. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information; however, this disclosure does not constitute legal advice, and no warranty, express or implied, is given as to the completeness or accuracy of the content.

The author does not accept any liability for actions taken or not taken based on the information provided in this disclosure. Readers are advised to seek independent legal counsel before making any decisions based on the content of this statement. Furthermore, the disclosure of this information should not be construed as an endorsement of any party's position in the ongoing legal dispute. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any affiliated organisations or entities.