Report comment

@ anonymous 10 August 13:54 and anonymous 10 August 13:26:

It is probably easier to assess impropriety where advice is given after the fact. If a corporate client has said that his evidence is a sham then to my mind that lawyer could not present a contrary case in the ET. In X v Y the advice was given before the fact, where I think the position could be more nuanced. An advisor could unwittingly get drawn into a scheme. So it may come down to experience but it must surely be wrong to knowingly participate in an unlawful scheme. There may be times when upholding the principles of professional conduct put one in conflict with the client and make things awkward for the partners. When the time comes each individual has to decide what kind of lawyer and what kind of person they want to be.

@anonymous 12 August 15:08:

In X v Y the employee was a lawyer, hence my reference to the business outcome in relation to lawyers. In most cases the SDT would not be applicable although I imagine that other regulatory bodies could be. I hope the lawyer in X v Y did not find him/herself before the SDT on charges conjured up and presented as a result of bringing a discrimination claim. That said, as a general concept, trying to smear a complainant employee would probably be consistent behaviour for a person who, in the first place, is prepared to manipulate a redundancy and is on stand- by to lie about it in the ET.