Michael Schwartz’s attempt to vary tribunal restrictions collapses after admitted breach
Michael Schwartz, a solicitor previously sanctioned for serious misconduct, has lost his attempt to loosen strict practising restrictions after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found his conduct reinforced the need for tight controls.
On 9 September 2016 the tribunal suspended Schwartz from practice for five years, itself suspended on conditions, after findings of breaches of integrity, client care and regulatory rules. The order allowed him to work only in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and obliged him to disclose the restrictions to all prospective employers.
Two months later, Schwartz returned to the tribunal seeking to vary those conditions. He claimed the approval process had become so slow and burdensome that he was effectively barred from working at all. In submissions lodged on 11 November 2016, he argued that firms were reluctant to wait for the SRA’s consent and that his freelance criminal practice required rapid instruction at police stations and magistrates’ courts, where delays made prior approval impossible. He said the restrictions were having a “punitive effect,” leaving him without income and threatening his family’s finances.
Schwartz’s counsel, Robin Halstead, insisted the tribunal never intended to prevent him from working altogether. He accepted his client had breached the condition once, by appearing in court on 14 September 2016, but described it as an “understandable lapse” under pressure. Schwartz apologised for that breach. He denied claims he had improperly signed particulars of claim, saying the evidence absolved him.
Embed from Getty ImagesThe SRA, represented by Marianne Butler of Fountain Court Chambers, opposed the application. Butler told the tribunal that no change in circumstances justified varying the conditions. On the contrary, she argued, Schwartz’s admitted breach just days after the order highlighted the ongoing risk he posed. She said the approval requirement was neither unusual nor oppressive, but a standard safeguard to ensure proper supervision.
The tribunal noted that Schwartz had already appeared before it three times, with each case involving issues around client money. Findings in September 2016 included breaches of Principles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, including lack of integrity and failure to protect client assets.
When questioned, Schwartz admitted in oral evidence that his written witness statement—claiming he mistakenly believed he could work until the tribunal’s judgment was published—was false. He conceded he knew the conditions applied immediately from 9 September 2016 but nevertheless undertook work on 14 September. The panel described this inconsistency as “a matter of great concern” and suggested it raised further questions about his honesty.
The tribunal dismissed arguments that freelance or ad hoc work should be treated differently, stating that supervision was even more critical if Schwartz worked for multiple firms. Suggestions that he could notify the SRA after carrying out work were rejected as “unrealistic and unreasonable.”
In a pointed rebuke, the panel said the conditions were not punitive but essential to protect the public and uphold the reputation of the profession. Personal inconvenience, it said, was secondary to safeguarding client interests.
Although the SRA invited the tribunal to activate Schwartz’s full five-year suspension immediately, the panel declined to do so without a formal application, but warned the admitted breach could trigger further proceedings.
The tribunal ordered Schwartz to pay £1,985 in costs, reduced from the £2,985 claimed, ruling counsel’s fees for the SRA had been disproportionate.
Its final order dismissed the application outright. Schwartz remains subject to the original conditions: he may not work as a solicitor except in SRA-approved employment, must inform all prospective employers of the restrictions and their reasons, and remains under the shadow of the suspended five-year ban should he breach them again.
The ruling underscores the tribunal’s hard line: a solicitor who fails to demonstrate integrity cannot expect leniency when seeking to relax safeguards imposed to protect the public.