Exclusive: Lord Harley is appealing against his striking off

Tribunal’s decision now subject to High Court appeal

high-court

Legal Cheek can reveal Alan Blacker, aka Lord Harley, has appealed to the High Court against his striking off.

The controversial former ‘solicitor-advocate’ was booted out of the profession last year by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which agreed the regulator (the SRA) had proven seven out of eight disciplinary charges made against him.

Some of these charges concerned “inaccurate and misleading” statements Blacker had made about his academic qualifications and professional memberships.

It has now come to light he has appealed against the SDT’s decision to remove him from the roll. Screenshotted below is a line of new information which has been added into the striking off order.

harley-sdt-order

The SRA has confirmed this to be the case, and issued us with this comment:

We will be involved as part of the proceedings, but cannot comment as the matter has yet to be heard. What is a matter of fact is that we made allegations of dishonesty at the hearing in July, and the Tribunal found these allegations proven to the criminal standard, beyond all reasonable doubt.

A hearing has been scheduled for 17 January. It is expected to last one day.

Earlier today, we reported that — despite being struck off — Blacker’s headline on LinkedIn is ‘Pro bono Senior counsel in civil and criminal proceedings with Grade A and Grade 4 accreditation. (Highest)’.

lead1

When the Legal Cheek team contacted the SRA about this, we were told the matter had been reported to the regulator and it is looking into it. Though the precise nature of the report cannot be disclosed, a spokesperson said:

We are aware of this particular issue and are gathering all the relevant information before deciding on next steps.

For all the latest news, features, events and jobs, sign up to Legal Cheek’s weekly newsletter here.

78 Comments

Anonymous

So Not Amused is not really a lawyer… or at least does not have basic legal knowledge.

(14)(2)
Anonymous

I have been saying this for ages, but oh how glorious it is to see it confirmed, and by his own hand no less. Not a real lawyer.

(12)(0)
Anonymous

For the benefit of lay readers, can you explain why what Not Amused said is wrong?

I googled the CPR and found r. 25.15(a) – “The court may order security for costs of an appeal against an appellant”.

Why doesn’t that apply here?

(4)(1)
Anonymous

Oh never mind, I answered my own questions by reading the next couple of lines and r. 25.12….

(6)(0)
Anonymous

Though it’s not so impossible that AB gave an incorrect address in the claim form, given his previous with the veracity of his personal information.

(2)(1)
Anonymous

The SRA should definitely make an application for security for costs. This guy has no assets and the last anyone heard was living on state benefits.

This is a waste of everybody’s time and recovering costs from him will prove impossible.

(6)(5)
Anonymous

He’s an individual resident in the UK. There’s no basis on which to make a security for costs order.

(17)(0)
Anonymous

There are more conditions than that.

(g) the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him.

He has no assets. Zero. A costs order against him is totally meaningless.

(1)(1)
redplanet

Is it possible they’re on some sort of permanent loan to a miniature railway that would prevent them from being taken into account?

(0)(0)
Travelling Gavel

But he has always been as such; he has not ‘taken steps’ so would not satisfy the CPR section.

(1)(0)
Anonymous

I set out a sketch of how he could draft a JR amidst the myriad of comments last year.
I wonder if he has given what I wrote a run.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Dear Mr Blacker,

Please have a look at my post of Sept 22 at 3.51pm again.

Suspending the idea that you were not really a Solicitor Advocate, as is asserted on here, for the moment, that seems to me to be the basis of your appeal.

You were regulated by a professional body which has a number of sanctions open to it if is found that the professional regulations have been breached.

You would need to research the Regulatory Rules and their custom and practice before drafting the next bit , but if the rules can bear out this view on your facts, then the jist of the next bit would be:

Options available on the facts of my case included:

1 Having the regulator identify special measures for my firm
– Which would be expected to include, on these facts

a) an order to file accounts by a particular date (Rule x)
b) a date by which the regulator would step in to control my practice if I failed to comply with a) (Rule x)
c) the imposition of professional fees to pay for a) and b) (Rule x)

2 Sanctions to impose to restrict advertisements or representations I had made about my firm which, upon receiving a complaint, would include:

a) Requesting that the adverts or representations be removed (Rule x)
b) Requesting that a corrective statement be given equal prominence to the offending advert or representation (Rule x)

I seek for the High Court to quash the verdict of the Regulatory Hearing which took place between date and date on the basis that

1 There was a breach of natural justice – in the 2 day hearing which took place in my absence, and in the pre hearing correspondence, the regulator never considered the above rules and remedies
2 Instead it considered only striking me off the Solicitors’ Roll – this was a disproportionate remedy and failed to take into account the relevant considerations of the rules above

In the circumstances I seek an order that

(1) the costs order of the hearing date between x and y and the costs of the correspondence between x and y be quashed

(2) the substantive matter be remitted to the regulator for it to be reviewed in relation to the principles and rules above

Think about whether you just want to accept that there was a hearing , but that it proceeded in breach of natural justice and with disproportionate sanctions, rather than to appeal the medical evidence or the convening of the hearing in London. (These seem to be lesser points which are definitely less likely to succeed in view of the findings on medical evidence, in my opinion)

As I say in my first comment on 22 Sept, it is impossible for someone on the outside to know what you did, so I don’t know whether this suggestion is, in fact, frivolous and so should not go near a court. (A lot of these comments are certain you will lose an appeal or JR, so give it some serious thought about leaving it be)

However, at arms length, assuming you are a solicitor advocate, assuming that no judge ever reported you for being incompetent, assuming that the client account issue does not concern a great deal of money (any of which may be wrong assumptions), it is not clear why less draconian sanctions were ever considered.

Or perhaps they were, and a further appeal would be frivolous, and what the Regulator did was indeed a commendable piece of work.

I will leave it with you.

(3)(7)
Anonymous

He was found to be dishonest. No lesser sanction then striking off will result from that.

(11)(0)
BeauProno

The SDT did consider other sanctions. It concluded (correctly) that, because of the findings of dishonesty, a sanction other than striking off would not suffice. This was not a case which fell within the small category of cases where, despite a finding of dishonesty, a lesser sanction would be appropriate.

Warby J dismissed his application to quash the refusal to sit somewhere other than London, so that point is dead, unless his application is for judicial review of the SDT’s rejection of his application to set aside.

What does that leave? Nothing. If he has any chance at all, it’s on the question of costs. If he’s lucky he might get the court to reduce the costs and/or direct that the costs order shall not be enforced without leave.

(8)(1)
redplanet

He doesn’t have a “practice” he was supposed to be an in-house lawyer for JAFLAS, a charity for which he is now the only trustee, and is still touting for donations on LinkedIn to his personal PayPal address. The question is not “why was he struck off?”, it’s “why was he allowed on?”

(7)(0)
Bob Probo

The appeal is hopeless – just more money for the SRA’s solicitors and counsel. To make matters worse, it was probably lodged out of time.

Security for costs is a non-starter (and any such application would have had to be made before now).

(1)(1)
sue r pipe

Whats that?? Hmmm… the sound for all you’re readers eating humble pie lc. Eh?time maybe for the jealos twats to admit their wrong about alan there is pleanty of time for an apology eh?? Hahahaha

(1)(11)
Robert Stitz

You are kidding Alan.

You have no chance of winning any appeal.

You said you would win the review. You complained about HHJ Morgan. You complained about the press. You sued the Law Society. You lost the whole fcuking lot. Because you are a clueless Fuckwit.

You are too thick to realise that you don’t crow until AFTER you win. You have won yet and never will. #loser

(14)(0)
Wendy

Can’t wait for the LC article reporting Blacker’s appeal being kicked out.

Who will be bitter then Al ? Who will have the chip on his shoulder then ? You will squeal and whinge about how they all had it in for you and were jealous of you. As if.

(8)(0)
Rob Stephens

Alan is a top bloke. You are all haters but he will win. Watch and see.

(3)(11)
Anonymous

Hi Alan, have you had any work in yet as pro bono “Counsel”?

(11)(0)
Brickswallop

Thanks Alan. If your IQ was twice what it is, you would still be a moron. Speaking of pricks, your family tree is a cactus …… because everyone on it is a prick.

(5)(0)
Wendy

Blacker has to work for free as no one will pay him. The Jaflas accounts prove that.

(4)(0)
sue r pipe

hows that then you halfwit, can you even count?, or read?

(0)(4)
Snowball

i am starting to admire him. will being struck off effect his silk application? He is fast becoming a specialist in running rings around the SRA. I guess he has plenty of time on his hands so why not use it to develop his grade 4 highest advocacy in the high court. Sadly as a litigant in person he can’t wear his robes but he can wear his medals. Lord Harley, I salute you!

(3)(1)
Graham Grove

You really should stop posting drivel Alan.

You haven’t run rings around anyone. And you are fantasy grade 4. Keep knocking them out and you can claim to be a grade A tosser.

(3)(0)
Anonymous

Why is it that when anyone posts anything vaguely pro-harley, no matter how ridiculous or obviously satirical, you lawbytes oddballs think it’s the real blacker?

(2)(2)
Anonymous

Reasons why some of the comments could plausibly be Blacker:

1. If you look at his LinkedIn feed he is constantly commenting on random articles throughout the day, every day. So he clearly has spare time, spends it online and enjoys commenting on things.

2. He has previously admitted to reading legal cheek. In fact I believe he claimed at a hearing that he only found out about the hearing when it was reported here on LC.

3. He’s clearly an enormous narcissist and there’s no way he could resist commenting on an article about himself…

(3)(0)
Shitstabber

He doesn’t have any mates so no one else is going to post in defence of him.

Oh hang on a minute, Steamy Rob is his buddy so he might …

(2)(0)
Vapido

Running rings round the SRA is not difficult. That’s why he was admitted and given higher rights in the first place.

(5)(0)
Graham Grove

He did that by lying. That isn’t the same as running rings.

(5)(1)
Vapido

It is if the lies are obvious and the recipient fails to spot them.

(1)(0)
Reasonableadjustments

The relevant questions have been asked and the SRA has refused to answer them – which is a news story in itself.

(1)(0)
John Smith

Let’s not lose sight that in the last 4 months he has filed yet another set of accounts at Companies House that cannot possibly be right.

Still it’s not like he advertises himself as an expert in that area is it.

(3)(0)
I KNOW YOU YOU VERY WELL ALAN

No Alan John Smith is not talking out of his arse . What John Smith has posted is fact

(2)(0)
Anonymous

Claim numbers CO5560/2016 and CO5230/2016. An appeal and an application for judicial review. 17 January. Listed together for one day at the RCJ.

(6)(0)
Gazette

So one more Legal Cheek article to go. “Blacker loses appeal”. Then he is gone. Forever.

(1)(0)
Anonimoose

Why is LC still referring to this joker as Lord Harley? Surely they should at least put “…” around the name? Just adding credence to the morons’ lies …

(3)(1)
sue r pipe

and you’re posting on a blog about him, so whos the moron? Il’l give you a clue thicko its you, Alan has actually played a blinder here cos he has boosted his profile to be more well known that most silks , meanwhile you lawbytws morons keep posting jealous shit, haha LOSERS (thats in case you cant understand shorthand)

(0)(10)
Wendy

See you next Tuesday when you lose Blacker.

Still running I see.

(2)(0)
sue r pipe

and you’re hiding on a blog behind a fake name idiot, dont get irony do you?

(0)(2)
Wendy

Ironic that you are hiding under an assumed name Slackbladder.

(3)(0)
Anonimoose

Good Lord, are you a troll or someone who knows Blacker and is genuinely trying to defend him (or both?). Either way, waste of your time, mate

(6)(0)
Anonymous

“Alan has actually played a blinder here cos he has boosted his profile to be more well known that most silks”

I assume ‘seu r pipe’ is one of Mr Blacker’s many LC aliases . In any event this is a rather peculiar claim to make. It smacks of the millennial obsession with ‘celebrity’ which often confuses fame and infamy. Mr Blaker’s ‘profile’ is invariably higher than most QCs, by virtue of him being very publicly ridiculed, investigated, disciplined and struck off.

While these factors may well have elevated his profile, one expects he will hardly be inundated with work as a result.

(5)(0)
redplanet

By that standard, Rolf Harris must be delighted by his press coverage, it’s quite surprising he didn’t release anything in time to make Christmas Number One.

(5)(0)
Anonymous

I hope this geezer realises that High Court Judges tend to dish out cutting judgments when their time is wasted. The judgment is likely to burn his soul.

(5)(0)
Dualit

Harley will not be there to be inserted into the toaster and says he has no money to pay any costs orders. But those who represent people who commence hopeless, money-wasting litigation are at risk of wasted costs orders, even if they act pro bono. Let’s hope the SRA has made that point to whoever is acting for Harley. The fact that Harley has a right of appeal does not mean he should exercise that right, when all he is going to do is re-run arguments which have already failed spectacularly in front of the SDT and Warby J, while failing to adduce medical evidence to substantiate those arguments. Fraser J gave Harley a clear warning about costs in Blacker v Law Society, when he struck out Blacker’s injunction application.

Blacker v SRA will certainly keep Harley (and his representative) in the news, but for all the wrong reasons. And, at the end of all this, there will remain the crucial question, which the SRA does not want to answer: how did the SRA admit him and give him higher rights in the first place?

(10)(2)
Anonymous

Costs won’t be awarded against his barrister. Grow up. You clearly have no idea about the realities of the Court.

(5)(3)
Wendy

D day tomorrow.

The fat fake Lord will be history.

One more Legal Cheek article to go.

What spin will the ignorant cretin put on it ?

(4)(0)
redplanet

COURT 18
Before MR JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS
Tuesday 17 January, 2017
At half past 10
FOR HEARING
CO/5230/2016 Blacker v Solicitors Regulation Authority

FOR HEARING
CO/5560/2016 Blacker v Solicitors Regulation Authority

(16)(0)

Comments are closed.