Report comment

we're all lawyers ( well apart from anonymous at 2.40) but I think we should consider the full context of this . during the period when these submissions were being made the LAA was zero assessing late submissions as a matter of principle . This was despite the fact that there were a couple of costs judges rulings to the contrary. The LAA however ignored those and consciously went on, wherever possible, avoiding paying for work that was 'properly and necessarily done' under a rule that was wilfully misinterpreted to the point of institutional dishonesty . Similarly another oft used trick was to nil assess disbursement claims without prior authority simply saying ' you did not have prior authority' rather than complying with their statutory duty to asses the claim on the facts as they stood at the time of the claim . If he had been operating within a system where the LAA made some effort to make sure people were paid for the work they had done ( with an appropriate small reduction on a late claim) rather than attempting to chip them at every turn perhaps we would all be living in a happier world and the culture the LSC/LAA had created would not have led Mr Saunders to behave in the admittedly dishonest manner he did . It is refreshing that Mr Saunders and his firm made such full and immediate disclosure, but again, in instances when that does happen the profession should see that such infractions are treated with an appropriate amount of mercy - striking off was too harsh .