Report comment

Some of us have worked in similarly challenging legal environments. "Senior" partners (more skilled at bullying than practicing law) exerting undue pressure causing staff to act in ways which they otherwise wouldn’t.

For those members of the judiciary who will almost certainly not have been subjected to such working conditions, I can see why the decision to strike off is more black and white than it would be for others.

There are 2 competing positions here :

1. Striking off is the only real option for dishonesty of this kind; or
2. Striking off is too harsh in cases such as these

I can genuinely see the argument for no.1 above but in that case why not make it strict liability ? What's the point of a tribunal hearing when mitigation is futile ?

Personally I go with no.2 above. These were cases of duress of circumstances. Yes there was dishonesty but these people acted in desperation and ought to receive a degree of sympathy eg suspension, fine, etc. But no, instead let’s wash our hands of them. They’re not fit to be a part of the legal profession. Whilst (as can be seen from the judgment) those who forge wills and commit perjury are welcome to remain.