Report comment

There should be a nuanced approach to dishonesty cases. Not all dishonesty is the same.

eg. Would the 'hangers and floggers' below really be happy if they were struck off if they told a client on the phone that they had not had the time to read some documents from them today (when they had, but just didn't want to look at it)…?

This would be dishonest, and under their mantra a strike-off would be warranted.

Any messing around with client account I think we would all agree merits instant strike-off.

Everything else seems to be fact-sensitive.

And surely there should some sort of 'rehabilitative' approach to the SDT's sentencing - rather than teh current blanket punishment/deterrent approach?