Report comment

Um... no. Would you change the standard in a criminal trial? I.e., in a process of fact-finding via oral testimony to determine wrongdoing?

The answer is no, you wouldn't, because quite frankly you cannot make a decision of such magnitude, one which will undoubtedly change someone's life to it's core, based on 'more likely than not'.

Why should the SDT apply a different standard? The principle is the same.

They say the current standard protects solicitors rather than clients. Why should solicitors not be protected from wanton and malicious regulatory prosecution?

How frequently do we see Joe Bloggs run through the mill by the SRA for a minor breach, with their costs running into the tens of thousands to secure a small fine? Are these the actions of a competent regulator? Or are they simply seeking to justify their own existence?

At a time when the concept of justice is being eroded on a daily basis, we need to attract more outstanding people to this profession - I wouldn't, if I had a choice, as it seems they're itching to get rid of me already.