Report comment

@15.48 - I appreciate that the SDT has taken account of the mitigation in this case and hasn't technically set a distinction between levels of dishonesty.

But the precedent in Bolton v Law Society is that where there has been a finding of dishonesty, "the Tribunal has almost invariably, no matter how strong the mitigation advanced for the solicitor, ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors"

There is an argument that by placing weight on the mitigation in this case and not striking off the individual, the SDT has diluted this principle and in effect created levels of dishonesty.

I am not even saying that this is wrong, provided it is the intended consequence!