Report comment

Guessing the point that Solicitors are officers of the Senior Courts of England and Wales doesn't count for much any more...

Probably commenting out of my subject area but from recollection, if someone pretends to be a solicitor and are charged with wilfully holding themselves out to be so they would have the benefit of the criminal burden of proof - yet for someone admitted, as a trusted officer of the court, they are sought to be subject to a lower standard at risk of career shattering decisions with justice potentially being judged on the flip of a coin (at worst) and not even by a proper judge (thinking of the inherent jurisdiction of the Courts re: Solicitors).

At the worst end of the spectrum are instances of professional misconduct which are criminal in nature and often go hand in hand with a criminal prosecution and the associated burden of proof (thinking of dishonest appropriation from Client accounts you see in the SDT now and again).

Goes hand in hand with the watering down of the SRA handbook, removing the prescriptive rules in favour of more 'elastic' outcomes and indicative behaviours.

As Billy Flynn stated earlier @ 13:05 - the consultation is a smoke screen to suggest open and frank discussion but the odds are they have already decided what the 'outcome' needs to be and are working on the indicative behaviours to pave the way forward.