A SOLICITOR facing theft charges has filed a writ in the Supreme Court against the Commissioner of the ICAC and three senior officers. Choi Sze-fai is claiming a declaration that the search of his office by the Independent Commission Against Corruption was unlawful and the inclusion of his name on the stop list breached the Bill of Rights. Named as defendants in the writ are Commissioner Mr Bertrand de Speville, and officers Mr Jim Buckle, Mr Alan Stidwill and Mr Mick Chan. Choi, 32, faces 16 counts of theft, five of uttering forged documents and one count of deception. He is due to enter a plea in the District Court next Friday. He is on bail of $20,000 cash and $30,000 in surety. Choi is claiming a declaration that the search of his office was unlawful without the approval of his principal, Mr Ho Kun-lok, unless a court warrant was obtained. He is seeking a declaration that the inclusion of his name on the stop list on November 20 last year was unlawful and was in breach of his liberty of movement under the Bill of Rights. He is also alleging that Mr Buckle and Mr Stidwill were in contempt of court in lodging a wrongful application to revoke his bail on December 31 last year by concealing facts. He is also seeking a declaration that the officers were in contempt of court when they threatened on March 22 this year to arrest him before his family ''despite knowing that such threatened arrest is unlawful and in breach of a High Court bail order''. Choi is claiming aggravated damages, interest and costs. He was charged with uttering a forged document purporting to be a counsel's fee note in respect of a High Court action for $98,000 with intent to defraud between February 22 and March 1, 1990, and was said to have uttered a similar document on November 29, 1989, for $97,000. It has also been alleged that between October 31, 1990, and May 14, 1991, Choi stole more than $280,000 owed to a law firm. The Crown also accused him of dishonestly obtaining for himself a continuance of an existing overdraft facility with the Hongkong Bank on May 29 last year by falsely representing that he had been offered employment as a solicitor for two firms. He was further accused of uttering three other forged documents between March 1 and December 10, 1990, purporting to be counsel's fee notes for a total of $150,000 in respect of a High Court action.