Report comment

I've read both judgments. As I said in earlier posts if that is the result, then so be it. That does not make me feel any better about it.

This passage does give me pause for thought though:

"Furthermore, the work of a solicitor, in whatever field he or she practises, inevitably involves a degree of stress and the public must be able to expect that those whom they consult are not so susceptible to mental ill health that they are at risk of behaving as Mr Farrimond did, however difficult the work might become. Before being restored to the Roll, it will be necessary for Mr Farrimond to provide the clearest evidence of recovery such that such an assurance in that regard can be accepted."

The CPS fully supported Mr Farrimond in his ill health.

However, does what is said here imply some obligation on employers or professional partners to do more and report the solicitor so that "the public['s] expect[ation] that those whom they consult are not so susceptible to mental ill health that they are at risk of behaving as Mr Farrimond did, . . . . ." is met. I can't think that the subjective reference to Mr Farrimond limits the risk to that of murder. The expectation/risk exists before any offence is committed.

If so, to whom is the duty to report owed? What will be the consequences of reporting? Will that passage deter solicitors from seeking help?