Report comment

Reading this alongside the Partington decision is almost comical, were it not for the fact this poor chap has lost his livelihood.

For example:

PARTINGTON: "In this instance, the Respondent had demonstrated – on one occasion in a long career – a significant lack of probity"

SAUNDERS: "Most solicitors had an unblemished professional history."

PARTINGTON: "This had occurred in circumstances where the Respondent had been suffering from a number of personal stresses which may have rendered him more susceptible to giving in to his client’s demands."

SAUNDERS: " Many solicitors, sadly, worked under conditions of professional and personal stress."

Both doctored documents, and to that extent each was clearly dishonest, but neither did so for personal gain. Partington gets a fine and can continue to work; Saunders gets struck off and his career ended.

The divergence of sanctions between these two cases is alarming. It smacks of an arbitrariness that should greatly concern us all.

I suppose not having a glowing testimonial from a former President of a local Law Society could be what sank poor Saunders in the long run.