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


Agree Ed, as I said on another thread yesterday this appears to be a terribly punitive and unpleasant decision.

The SDT's 'mantra' of "dishonesty = strike off unless exceptional circs" is clearly absolute nonsense.

If you told a client that you didn't see their inconsequential e-mail until this morning (when you had seen it the previous day) this would clearly be dishonest - is the SDT seriously saying that you would be struck off for that...?

What the rule should clearly say is that if there is any dishonesty regarding CLIENT FUNDS that is clearly an automatic strike out.

Mr Saunders had clearly done the work and presumably it was only the silly deadlines of the legal aid authorities that made him back-date them.

He pleaded self-reported to the SRA and pleaded guilty. Where is the incentive for others to do this if, when you do, you are crucified?

I think that the SDT panel in this case should resign en-masse - for themselves bringing the profession into disrepute.

Your details

Cancel