What drives a solicitor to commit fraud? What drives anyone? Is the profession in which the public places its greatest trust as open to vulnerability as any other? Reasons for fraud within the legal world are divergent and the spectrum runs from greed to desperation.The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) has investigated incidents ranging from the lawyer who gets a 'bit tempted' and needs a little extra money for a new car, to the drug or alcohol-dependent solicitor who is 'targeted' and caught up in big-time money laundering.

While the OSS stresses there are rarely more than 12 cases a year, it is still important to ask why these solicitors become 'bent', in the wake of a spate of such cases hitting the national press.Mike Calvert, head of the investigation unit at the OSS, says there are fundamentally two interesting questions: why do these few solicitors become dishonest, and why do they so often go to such lengths to cover up their actions?So what drives them to it? Mr Calvert says there are often issues of self-delusion involved.

A solicitor may have fees outstanding that are slow to come in, although the money has already been earned.

This may provide the temptation to 'borrow' fees to finance a new car or holiday, with the firm expectation of repaying it soon.

Then things build up.

The 'borrowed' money starts to furnish a new lifestyle and in this way a relatively minor matter becomes serious theft and deception.

Once on this route there might be little way out - accounts become doctored and fictitious clients might start appearing on the books.Mr Calvert suggests these lawyers may well be victims merely of peer pressure and are not 'inherently bad'.

The OSS occasionally receives calls from solicitors who find themselves in this predicament and who desperately want to resolve the matter.

It is certainly open to solicitors to acknowledge their mistakes before a tribunal and still retain their livelihoods.

But the majority go on to conceal their transgression.

Why?The recent cases involving legal aid scams could throw some light on the matter.

In one trial, it was shown that solicitor Bernard Ridsdale-Tombling had claimed £1.25 million from the Legal Aid Board, going on to amass a personal fortune of £2.7 million.

In tabloid reporting, it was held that he 'blew the profits on a fleet of supercars, luxury holidays, dream homes, antiques and expensive jewellery for his wife and two lovers'.

He owned eight homes and five cars.

Detective Inspector Peter Jones considered him the most 'charming, coolest, most calculating customer' he had ever come across.

Was he a consummate actor or had he finally succeeded in justifying his actions to himself?Another high-profile trial this month was that of solicitor Alan Pritchard and two legally unqualified colleagues, practice manager Peter Lane and consultant Brian O'Connor, who were all convicted of conspiracy to defraud the Legal Aid Board.

Their Birmingham practice was small and heavily dependent on legally aided work.

The fraud involved falsifying green form returns and presenting wildly inflated client figures to the board.

These figures, using fictitious client names, were obtained by canvassing door-to-door at a local housing estate.

Signatories believed they were signing a petition to improve living conditions.

Pritchard then submitted these names, claim ing them to be recipients of 'work in progress' by his firm.

During this time, his practice was paid nearly £2.5 million by the Legal Aid Board.

While this loophole has now been closed and the Legal Aid Board has been replaced by the Legal Services Commission, nevertheless the three were manifestly so credible that they convinced the board for several years.Despite many warnings about the danger of solicitors being targeted by criminals, the problem still goes on.

The target may be a quiet country lawyer with no previous dishonest reputation.

The solicitor will be used as a stooge and will often not realise what is happening until it is full upon them.

At this point, of course, there are two choices; go to the police or the OSS, or carry on with the fraud.

However, lawyers in this situation can consider themselves vulnerable and lonely - there may be threats of violence against them or their families from local villains, and their courage fails them.Why do many go to such lengths to cover it up? The OSS has investigated cases in which the theft by a lawyer was a deliberate act to maintain lifestyle and standing in the community.

They cite the past case of 'Robert', a high-profile solicitor, chairman of the golf club and a pillar of the community.

He was also a man who donated large amounts of money to charity.

Yet Robert had been systematically stealing money from his clients for 15 years.

No one had ever thought to challenge him, which may be considered interesting in itself.

The OSS discovered he was deliberately taking funds from clients to invest in many schemes.

When clients asked for money owing to be reimbursed, Robert's cheques were always 'in the post'.

Robert appeared to believe the money was his of rights; he used it to maintain his self-esteem and local standing.

His charitable donations seemed to cement his own self-belief.David Kirk, partner at London firm Simons Muirhead & Burton and head of the firm's corporate fraud department, has defended many alleged fraudsters.

He considers that the need has never been greater for individual lawyers in practice to take personal responsibility for vetting clients.

Vigilance has now become paramount.

In the old days, a client turning up at a lawyer's office with a suitcase stuffed with £50 notes 'for safe keeping' would not have given much cause for concern.

Now it will be suspected that the client is money-laundering.

The change in attitude has been caused by the tightened money-laundering legislation of the early 1990s, which made solicitors and others much more answerable for their actions.

A client approaching a solicitor nowadays, intending to buy a house using funds from Lichtenstein or Bermuda, may well lead a lawyer to have doubts.

In some ways, says Mr Kirk, solicitors in practice have to treat clients 'like an enemy' and 'assume they're up to no good'.

If they do not, they may well attract other fraudsters who see them as an easy target.

They also run the risk of being prosecuted.Another potential arena for fraud is the mortgage market.

In the present buoyant property market, fewer such frauds surface, when profits can conceal losses.

However, when property prices go down, clients get overstretched if they have claimed to have assets that they do not possess.

In the early 1990s, several solicitors, acting for 'dubious people', found themselves in the dock with these clients.

The danger again for solicitors is that they will be used as a respectable front.

Nevertheless, why did they not choose to blow the whistle when they realised what was happening?Mr Kirk agr ees that there is often a powerful element of denial of culpability, even after a fraudster has been found guilty.

When people are faced with what they have done, and whom they have hurt, they appear not to be able to connect with the situation as being pertinent to them.

The situation would appear to contain a strong thread of fantasy.

They ultimately succeed in convincing themselves.It is apparent that there is a serious gap in legal training.

Trainee solicitors need more instruction in business administration skills.

There may still be a knock-on effect from the 1980s, when banks thought nothing of lending sole practitioners £200,000.

Solicitors sometimes do not make good business people; they may not have the money or the willingness to buy in professional expertise, such as a business manager.

They try to soldier on and maintain a macho image, but the pressure builds up and they can become careless or desperate.The OSS tries to be proactive and discover fraud before the damage becomes too great.

However, the level of malpractice remains disturbing.

Mr Calvert says that however hard the Law Society tries to regulate practices, there will always be fraud.

Does this have something to say to us about the quality of human nature?