Anonymity orders in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal – in the public interest?

In May 2025, a partner who had engaged in unwanted and sexually motivated conduct towards a junior colleague was suspended for two years by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“SDT”). His identity, however, remains unknown as the SDT granted an anonymity order after concluding, based on the medical evidence, that an unredacted ruling would cause him serious harm and significantly violate his Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) ECHR rights (see Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v AR; case no. 12668-2024) (“AR”).

Such outcome proved to be controversial, with the SDT itself split on the issue of anonymity.

The majority in AR concluded that publishing an anonymised version would meet the “public interest of the public in knowing the sanction which would be imposed on a solicitor found to have committed professional misconduct of this type would be met and those engaging with the Respondent in a professional capacity would have the means to access the same. The publication of this judgment…with the Respondent anonymised did in this specific case provide the correct balance…between the principles of open justice and the rights of the Respondent”.

By contrast, the minority stated that:

“The Respondent’s decision making was not impaired, he had given instructions to his lawyers and made informed, full admissions in relation to the allegations against him. Given the nature of the allegations there was a necessity for the public to be fully informed about the Respondent’s name and professional details to allow for other complainants who may have been impacted by similar, separate conduct by the Respondent to come forward and report their concerns to the SRA.

The principle of open justice and the importance of transparency in the public interest outweighed the Respondent’s interests notwithstanding the medical evidence in the case”.

This article will consider: (i) the circumstances in which an anonymity order may be obtained in the SDT; and (ii) how anonymity applications should be approached in cases where the Respondent faces allegations of sexual misconduct.

When can anonymity be obtained in the SDT?

Rule 35(9) and (10) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 (“SDPR”) state that:

“(9) The Tribunal may make a direction prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead to the identification of any person whom the Tribunal considers should not be identified.

(10) The Tribunal may give a direction prohibiting the disclosure of a document or information to a person if it is satisfied that—

1. the disclosure would be likely to cause any person serious harm; and
2. it is in the interests of justice to make such a direction.”

The starting point for the SDT when dealing with applications for anonymity is that it must be exceptional to justify the abrogation of the open justice principle. The High Court in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Spector [2016] EWHC 37 (Admin) state at §§19 – 21:

“19.  Open justice is a fundamental principle of the common law… There are two particular aspects to the principle. The first is that the public should be free to attend court proceedings...

20.  The second aspect of open justice is that the proceedings are freely reportable: Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440, 450. For the overwhelming majority of the public physical attendance at a court hearing is not a practical option. If they are to learn about what took place, it will be at second hand, often through the media, but sometimes via other sources. Once again, the authorities establish beyond dispute that this is a key component of the open justice principle.

21.  Free reporting of court proceedings includes being able to identify the persons involved, whether as parties or witnesses. In In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1; [2010] 2 AC 697, para 63 Lord Rodger of Earlsferry said: “What's in a name? ‘A lot’, the press would answer. This is because stories about particular individuals are simply much more attractive to readers than stories about unidentified people. It is just human nature.” But the importance of being able to identify those involved in court proceedings is not confined to the writers and readers of human interest stories. Take the present context. Any report of the present tribunal would lose much of its force if it has to be neutered by anonymity. As Cranston J said in Yassin v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 2955 (Admin) at [59]: “There is a general interest in the public being able to know the identities of those who have been subject to disciplinary proceedings.”

In practice, the circumstances where the SDT (or any other court or tribunal) may decide to abrogate the open justice principle is where the curtailment of the open justice principle may be necessary to avoid the violation of a person’s rights under the ECHR, such as the right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR (which must be balanced with competing rights, such as freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR and the common law principle of open justice).

Lord Steyn held in Re S (A child) [2004] UKHL 47 at §17 that “where the values under the two articles [of the ECHR] are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary…the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account” and “the proportionality test must be applied to each”.

How should disciplinary tribunals approach anonymity where the Respondent seeking the application is facing allegations of sexual misconduct?

Regulators such as the SRA have been increasingly taking more action against non-financial misconduct, including sexual misconduct.

Unsurprisingly, professionals facing disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations of sexual misconduct might be inclined to make an application for anonymity. After all, those facing professional disciplinary proceedings arising from such allegations might be concerned that such publicity would adversely impact their private and family life and that the reputational damage might be irreparable even if the SDT clears the Respondent of the sexual misconduct allegations.

However, the SDT should only grant anonymity applications (in favour of the Respondent) in exceptional cases which would justify the abrogation of the open justice principle. After all, as stated by the Court of Appeal in L v Law Society [2008] EWCA Civ 811 at §41, “Public confidence in the profession and its reputation is to my mind protected by hearings such as this being held in public. It not only ensures that matters are open to proper scrutiny such that the proper administration of justice in this domestic setting is done, but it enables the public to see what steps are taken to ensure that only those who it can properly be said have a suitable character are admitted into the profession.”

The minority decision in AR is particularly forceful, as it is inherently in the public interest that the identity of individuals facing disciplinary allegations of sexual misconduct is made public so that other complainants feel encouraged to step forward and report matters to the SRA. This is consistent with the SRA’s aim of giving the public full confidence in the solicitors’ profession.

Nonetheless, the SDT’s decision to grant the Respondent an anonymity order in AR was particularly exceptional in the circumstances, noting that:

• The SRA did not oppose the anonymity application, after the parties jointly instructed a psychiatric expert. The expert report showed how the publication of the SDT judgment would cause the Respondent serious harm, as “publication would act as a trigger to worsen still further the already serious medical position as described in the report” (see §13 of AR).
• The SRA did not challenge the jointly instructed expert report.
• The SDT further noted that the anonymity was particularly appropriate in the individual circumstances “which included admissions properly made by the Respondent”.

Lucas Nacif is an employment and business disputes barrister at 42BR Barristers. Lucas welcomes instructions on issues regarding anonymity and privacy orders in the Employment Tribunal, County Court/High Court and disciplinary tribunals. He also welcomes instructions regarding professional disciplinary matters concerning the SRA, BSB, GMC, ICAEW and the police. Please contact Lucas’ clerks at 42BR Barristers ([email protected], [email protected] or [email protected]) should you wish to instruct him.

29th Oct 2025

Lucas Nacif

Call 2021