Report comment

Mr Hyde's article is not about the treatment of the three individuals by their respective employer firms. It is about the fact that under the current system they would be struck off regardless of the reasons behind their conduct.

Commentators appear to have missed this point.

Mr Hyde suggests that the three individuals had no chance under the current rules regardless of the standard of proof applied (civil or criminal).

The employer firms in these three cases had no option under current SRA regulations but to report the individuals involved. The SRA had no option but to prosecute. The judge no option but to convict.

The current system dictates that the only sanction available in cases of dishonesty, whether or not that dishonesty is for personal gain, is a strike off. In my view that is wrong and the system requires change.

I think the public are ready in 2018 for change and a system of two-tier dishonesty is workable.

In the case of the SRA v. James her firm followed the expectation of most high street firms of lawyers in that fee earners are required to achieve billing equivalent to three times their salary and record five hours of chargeable time per day. This model is nothing unusual. Working in the law is by its very nature a pressured environment and I would suggest that any individual who is properly supported by their employer, but is still unable to withstand such pressure, is in the wrong profession.

I have had, in my time, experience of working in numerous law firms including McMillian Williams.

The MW culture was one where fee earners were encouraged to report errors and learn from them, where a system existed to support fee earners seeking assistance in resolving errors at any hour of the day, where a team of auditors and compliance managers are available to offer guidance and advice and to take steps to rectify errors.

Only a “cover-up” of an error by a fee earner is deemed unacceptable. MW had and has an unsurprising open culture for a law firm in my extensive experience.

The firm is positive but private about mental health issues. It is private because members of staff with such problems do not wish them to be flagged publicly. I had such a mental health issue twice in my working life, once in MW and once in another law firm. The contrast as to how I was supported was marked.

In one firm I was left to get on with it, in MW I was supported.

In MW the head of HR was an experienced mental health judge and the CEO had considerable personal but sad experience of mental health issues which he chose to share with me. Both of these people responded positively to my request for help.

I was offered options and invited to choose the option that I considered most appropriate to me. This control was an important part of my road to resolving the issues. I was not treated as a problem but as a professional seeking help in extreme circumstances.

To now read comments that the firm which supported me so well has a negative attitude towards the mental health of its staff troubles me.

MW was and is a supportive place to work.

It had and still has a designated team of auditors, who are highly experienced lawyers, in place to support staff.

The firm not only had and still has a positive view towards the expression of mental health concerns, it also provides financial and pastoral support to those experiencing such problems, in order to keep them on the payroll which in itself reduces stress levels.

In my experience there was no “MW toxic culture”. Rather, there was a supportive MW culture when I needed mental health support.