Report comment

The SRA have clearly engaged in their usual trick of throwing in a charge of dishonesty entirely without merit. That means that the solicitor ends up fighting that or risk losing his livelihood and ultimately negotiates to ensure the dishonesty charge is withdrawn. The dishonesty charges are not even put to him during investigation and the SRA withdraws. But the SDT still awards costs against the solicitor. Is this fair? And in the public interest? Are SRA capable of regulating solicitors? Should they really be given the task of ensuring the public has faith in the legal system when they appear to have behaved thoroughly unreasonably?