About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] NIKB 28
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan explained that “the simple test is whether an applicant who cannot meet the other requirements of the regulation has special qualifications and/or special experience by way of exception. This must be qualitatively and quantitively vouched to maintain public confidence in the professional entry requirements.”

Mr O’Donoghue KC with Mr McDonnell appeared for the applicant instructed by John Fahy Solicitors and Mr Egan KC appeared for the respondent instructed by Francis Hanna & Co Solicitors.

Background

The applicant, a legal secretary, was refused registration as a student by the appellate committee of the Law Society of Northern Ireland pursuant to powers contained in regulation 8(5) of the Solicitors Admission and Training Regulations 1988 (as amended).

The applicant did not hold a degree qualification, instead applying as a “special case” for registration and relying on her experience as a legal secretary. Her registration was refused on the basis that her range of experience was too narrow and that she had not established a “truly exceptional case” for registration as per In the matter of George Burns (1999, unreported).

The decision followed an earlier decision of the education committee of the Law Society, which decided that admission should be refused on the basis that she did not hold a degree qualification and did not meet the threshold in Burns.

The applicant challenged the decision of the appellate committee.

The High Court

Lady Chief Justice Keegan set out the Law Society’s powers in relation to the admission and training of solicitors arising from the 1988 Regulations, noting that two decisions were of relevance in this area – Burns and Re CH: Re The Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 [2000] NI 62.

The court also set out the statutory framework on appeal from a decision from the Law Society as contained in article 6(4) of the Solicitors (NI) Order 1976 and the role of the court in such cases as explained by the Lady Chief Justice in Murtagh v Law Society of Northern Ireland [2024] NICA 49, finding that the appeal was to be approached as a rehearing with freedom to review findings of fact and to draw inferences therefrom and that the applicable test was whether the Law Society’s decision was wrong or vitiated by some serious procedural or other irregularity.

The court observed that in the absence of any contention that the appellate committee’s decision was vitiated by some irregularity, its role was simply to consider whether or not the decision of the appellate committee was wrong.

The court considered that a “stand out feature” of the case was the high commendation the applicant received for the work undertaken by her in the last 18 years by John Fahy Solicitors against a background of difficult family circumstances.

The Lady Chief Justice also considered inter alia the positive testimonials from counsel in respect of the applicant’s professionalism, her ability to handle the day-to-day role of a solicitor in both criminal and civil law and her input in complex High Court cases, contrary to appellate committee’s conclusions that the applicant’s experience was confined mostly to criminal law and that she had no High Court experience.

The High Court expressed that Burns should not have been interpreted as presenting such a high threshold in circumstances where CH, the case that preceded Burns, and Burns itself involved very different factual circumstances.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that while the position in Burns was logical in that if regulation 8(5) was relied upon when the now extinguished “law clerk route” was available, there would have had to be a truly exceptional circumstance to allow admission by regulation 8(5), the opportunity to qualify via the “law clerk route” has been unavailable since 2015.

Thirdly, the Lady Chief Justice considered that the phrase “truly exceptional” from Burns forecasts the rarity of cases that may pass the true legal test in a particular context, but “does not establish a legal test in itself and should not be used as such. Whether or not the special qualifications and special experience requirement is established should be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the Law Society.”

The judge continued: “Regulation 8(5) provides an exception to the other entry requirements which will be satisfied by most applicants. This will be in exceptional circumstances due to special qualifications or special experience. To my mind the adverb ‘truly’ is unnecessary. The regulation should be construed strictly which means that there will be few people who can meet the strict requirements. However, it would be wrong if satisfaction of the test was rendered impossible.”

Finding that there were no countervailing policy reasons for proceeding in that way and pointing out that if the applicant were to be successful in establishing her special experience, she would not get a “free pass into the solicitor’s profession”, the court was not satisfied that the appellate committee applied the correct legal test.

Observing that the modern approach is not to create barriers to those who are able to undertake the important work of solicitors, the court concluded that the appellate committee underestimated the extent of the applicant’s experience and that the Burns case needs to be read in light of the subsequent amendment to the 1988 Regulations.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court remitted the matter for reconsideration before another appellate committee of the Law Society, with a pause given the existence of an ongoing consultation process commissioned by the Law Society in relation to enhancing access to the legal profession.

Laura Marie Gallagher v Law Society of Northern Ireland [2025] NIKB 28