Solicitor fined after guilty plea to failing breath test; banned from driving for 17 months
A solicitor has been fined after a drink-driving related offence left him with a 17-month driving ban and a criminal conviction.
James Rafferty was stopped by police on 9 May 2023 due to the nature of his driving. Officers requested a breath sample, but Rafferty refused to comply. He was cautioned and arrested on suspicion of failing to provide a specimen, contrary to Section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act.
The following day, 10 May 2023, he was formally charged. Just a month later, on 9 June 2023, Rafferty appeared before Teesside Magistrates’ Court, where he pleaded guilty.
The court handed down a sentence that included:
- A 17-month driving ban, reduced by 17 weeks if he completed a Drink-Drive Rehabilitation Course.
- A £3,846 fine.
The conviction quickly drew the attention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which brought professional misconduct allegations to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). The regulator argued that his actions breached Principle 1 of the SRA Principles 2019, requiring solicitors to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice, and Principle 2, which demands solicitors maintain public trust and confidence in the profession.
The tribunal agreed. It found that Rafferty’s conduct was incompatible with the expectations placed on members of the legal profession, particularly because solicitors are expected to demonstrate compliance with the law both professionally and personally. The tribunal concluded that such behaviour risks eroding public faith in legal services.
However, the SDT did not find a breach of Principle 5, which relates to acting with integrity. While his actions were serious enough to undermine public confidence, they did not meet the threshold for a finding that he had acted without integrity.
The case highlights the professional risks for solicitors whose conduct leads to criminal convictions, even for offences committed outside the direct scope of their legal practice. The SRA has consistently maintained that the public must be able to trust solicitors to follow the law in their own lives as well as in the advice and representation they provide.
In its decision, the tribunal stressed that solicitors hold positions of responsibility and authority. Any criminal conduct—especially offences involving public safety—can have serious professional consequences.
For Rafferty, the ruling means not only a financial penalty and driving disqualification, but also a public disciplinary finding on his professional record. Such sanctions can affect future career prospects and professional standing.
While the financial fine imposed by the court was significant, the reputational damage from disciplinary action can be even more severe in the legal world. Clients, colleagues, and prospective employers may view the offence as a red flag, regardless of whether it relates to legal work.
The SRA has urged solicitors to consider how personal conduct, including actions outside of working hours, can impact their fitness to practise and the perception of the profession as a whole.
This case serves as a stark reminder: the law applies equally to those who uphold it for others—and when solicitors break it, the consequences are swift and public.