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,

I ought to add that I was once the victim of a financial deception by a solicitor to the tune of £6k. He remains in practice, and nothing was done. I hold no brief for people who do wrong, however I have done wrong too - everybody has. Nobody is perfect. All I am doing here is looking at the matter objectively and taking into account the sort of facts and experiences about human nature which are familiar to most people.

I don't accept that if somebody acts in a dishonest way that this makes them dishonest forever. That makes no sense. My point is that the concepts of 'dishonest solicitor' and 'honest solicitor' were originally meant to denote the standing of a solicitor in the eyes of the community. This has been abused by the SRA and the SDT and replaced with what I think is quite a horrific system where an individual's conduct is fixed in time forever and rehabilitation is of no professional value. Why raise this? Because it is relevant to the diminishment of solicitors as a profession. Professionalism comes at a price - the price is self-regulation.

I agree that there are cases, such as (it would appear) the Pickard case, where the scale of wrong-doing is such that it is difficult to see why there should be a delay with disciplinary action and it would be near-impossible for the convicted solicitor to return to the profession. But the Pickard case is extreme and perhaps doesn't serve as a very helpful example when discussing how things should work and what, if any, sensible reforms could improve the system.

I stand by what i have said. My basic point is that if solicitors want to be a profession (which is what I think should be the position), then there is a price to be paid by everybody - solicitors, clients (consumers) and others - in exchange for the benefits of an independent profession. If on the other hand the priority is consumer protection, then the SRA model is more or less the correct way to go about things. I have the impression that a lot of solicitors who come on here to comment would like some kind of hybrid, the best of both worlds, but then you will have a constant tension between the two philosophies and the SRA model will always win out. For instance, why do solicitors need a ban on referral fees or cold calling? Because solicitors are not a profession any more. To believe that these rules enhance professionalism is simply to prove the point of the Soviet regulators - i.e. that solicitors are no longer capable of regulating themselves.

The 'professional spirit' has gone.

Your details

Cancel