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

Another case of SRA and SDT "headline grabbing". The lender through its agent waived or misrepresented the lenders' conditions and yet that is deemed to be misconduct on the part of the solicitor who apparnetly is somehow expected to know that a business purporting to make practice loans to established solictors was actually a front for some kind of fraudulent scheme siphoning off investors' moneys to the people who set up the lending company? Ultimately will it serve the public good if honest men and women are deterred from entering or remaining in the profession for fear that one day they will face some swingeing and ruinous penalty for an inadvertent transgression imposed by a Regulator willing to devote unlimited time and money into such prosecutions? Can the innocent solictor even afford to defend his or her good name? The message for some might be abandon the profession and instead find lawful ways to operate outside the regulatory sphere. Perhaps its about time SDT and SRA were subject to a fixed costs regime.

Your details

Cancel