Report comment

I’m not a knee jerker.

The real issue here, surely, is whether he was dishonest or not. The tribunal heard the evidence and concluded that he was not - a finding of fact that it was entitled to make. Once dishonesty falls away, then we are left with his motives. Again the tribunal concluded that they were to the best he could for his client - a finding of fact ditto.

What is then left? Stupidity, lack of insight, other professional criticism or astonishment set out below and so on. Professional offences?

Of course, the tribunal may have made findings that are inconsistent with the run of the evidence or been over persuaded - the tenor of much of the later posts. But none of us was there and actually heard the stuff.

If there is an appeal then so be it. However, given the criticism of the SRA’s conduct of the litigation, it’s position may be difficult.