Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

@David Crawford

(i). The convicted solicitor is entitled to due process before the SDT, which is a judicial tribunal. The procedure you are suggesting would lead to mistakes and injustices. All should be entitled to a fair trial before judicial tribunals. There must be no exceptions. There are delays before the SDT, but it takes time to prepare and bring cases - notices must be served, bundles prepared, hearings convened, etc.

(ii). One possible solution to the problem of delay and the issues this creates for public confidence might be found in the fact that solicitors are officers of the court. Criminal sentencing judges could be empowered to either strike-off the convicted solicitor immediately in appropriate cases (subject to appeal of the conviction) or refer the case to a High Court judge for consideration. I believe this is already possible and there is at least one precedent for a High Court-initiated striking-off. Personally I would disagree with this solution, as I don't think there is a 'problem' in the first place (see my comments in (i) above), but it is worth consideration and would address any concerns about public confidence in the profession.

(iii). In my opinion, it should not be the role of the regulator (whether the SRA or anybody else) to decide who is admitted to the profession. That should be for the profession itself to determine.

(iv). There have always been solicitors who commit dishonesty for whatever reason, even in the days when there was closer involvement from the Law Society in the admission process. There is no real 'solution', as we're dealing with human nature.

(v). I think, with the greatest respect, you are also forgetting that most of these people probably don't enter the profession with the intention of being dishonest. In most cases, they are 'circumstantially dishonest' - i.e. they end up committing small acts of dishonesty for expedient reasons, which then escalates out of control. Really, this could happen to anybody, and while not wishing to excuse such conduct, it behoves us to remember that we are all fallible.

It may seem to you that there are more cases of dishonesty nowadays, but I think you are kidding yourself. If anything, dishonesty has diminished in the profession. What incidents there are, when you look at them more closely, mostly involve solicitors who are mentally-ill and/or suffer under stress and the greater pressures solicitors are under - financial and regulatory. Most cases involve little or no personal gain, and I suspect for most of these people the prison sentence and striking-off are a welcome release from the pressures of a tortured, high-pressure existence. The Pickard case looks from the outside to be a case of greed, but we don't know all the facts - which is why we need to be careful about respecting due process! You're a lawyer, so you know this!

Practising law is now extremely challenging, and running your own firm still more so (perhaps impossible to do on your own for any lengthy period of time). Those of us who read the Gazette are well-aware of the struggles and challenges practitioners now face. That does not excuse wrong-doing, but it often explains it.

Your details

Cancel