Report comment

Speaking as someone who used to work at MW during this period I am surprised to see a "we have changed" statement from the firm's management. This is clearly a knee jerk to the adverse publicity this story has received and shows little knowledge of the issue from current management.

SJ says the working conditions were bad, no support and afraid to report an issue and I do not recognise the MW she describes. The old managing partner was far more accessible and approachable than any firm or business that I have worked at and it was positively encouraged to report problems so others could fix them. There were also plenty of auditors whose job it was to prevent and solve problems and take it off the desk of the individual fee earner.

I am aware of the firm's policies and know of at least 3 of my former colleagues who received mental health support from the firm. At least one is still with MW having got through his personal difficulties. There would have been plenty of opportunities for SJ to have reported her personal problems and the problem case and it would have been taken away from her and resolved without any drama (as it was after her departure).

I don't agree that SJ should have been struck off as there was no gain intended in her dishonesty. There should be a different approach on penalties based on this factor but the issue here i that it is too easy to mitigate and put the blame on a third party who is not a party to proceedings and able to contradict the allegations. I don't blame SJ for this as this is a natural reaction when cornered but the new management of MW appear to have simply agreed her claims in their response even though they were not around during this time.

The old MW was a good firm with management who took time to really know the employees at all levels and its success was due to the loyalty to Mr S. Sadly, I cannot say the same of the new management whose statement shows no understanding of how the firm worked before they took over.