Report comment

A few random observations:
1. This is not a judgment. It is an endorsement by the SDT of a series of admissions made by the firm. Undoubtedly the firm did that under pressure from the SRA; that pressure at the very least being the continued incurring of very substantial costs, not to mention an SDT trial. What status should we as solicitors therefore accord it?
2. This firm sought to 'cure' the conflict by aligning the firm's interests with the firm's own. Firms do that all the time.
3. The first barrister, who advised the firm 'you have a conflict' did so before the firm had cured it. The second barrister, post-cure, said 'you do not have a conflict'. The second barrister was correct, at least in the view of this (apologetically anonymous) commentator.
4. Most importantly, nowhere in the 'decision' is there any analysis of what was truly in the client's interests when the error was identified. Had the client been cast adrift in January 2014, his interests would have been prejudiced. That is why he was so grateful when the firm continued to act.