(unnamed respondent)

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Reham El Menshawy, the complainer, appealed under s.42ZA(12) against the £1,000 compensation directed by the Law Society Sub Committee to be paid by solicitor Joseph Hann, who had been found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct (censured, fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 compensation). She argued the Sub Committee erred by failing to consider her losses, by categorising her inconvenience/distress as 'significant' rather than 'exceptional', and by awarding the lowest figure in that band. The Tribunal applied the Hood test. It found the Sub Committee had erred by not addressing 'loss', but on analysis (loss of chance/opportunity) concluded the appellant had not been deprived of a real chance of obtaining leave to appeal, and that the inconvenience/distress award was within reasonable range. The appeal was refused. Although the appellant alleged dishonesty/cheating by the solicitors, the Tribunal made no finding of dishonesty. The appellant was found liable in expenses (taxed, agent and client basis, including interpreter), reduced by 30% for partial success; publicity ordered including her name but not her address.

Duties found breached:

• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Mitigating factors:

• Tribunal found the Sub Committee had made an error of fact and/or law in failing to consider the issue of loss/lost opportunity, giving the appellant a degree of success reflected in a 30% reduction of expenses
• Appellant was an unrepresented party litigant with language difficulties and ill-health

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]