Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

So, Scott had no financial motive, other than wanting to keep her job and/or actually make use of the years of training/education prior to the training contract. She was in a truly awful situation where she was pressured into things by her boss and someone many years her senior professionally.

The SDT effectively only found her liable for:
- falsifying documents sent to the Ombudsman (on instructions, and to conceal actions of her boss) &
- not reporting the whole mess sooner.

The justification for strike off being the only option was to protect the reputation of the profession.

Firstly, the SRA/SDT cannot have it both ways. If they want people to speak out (as we all should encourage), then there has to be a more balanced approach than: this has been held to be dishonest conduct, therefore it has to be a strike off.

More generally, this is depressingly familiar, and I have said the following before. On one hand such relatively minor misdeeds, from someone under intense pressure, is held to harm the reputation of the profession so strike off is the only option.

On the other hand, there are the various firms going under, owing creditors huge amounts of money (including HMRC of course). No action is taken against those responsible, and often (following a pre-pack) the very same people continue running the firm. How does that not massively harm the reputation of the profession?

(as mentioned, I have said the above before but coincidentally the Gazette reports today that Just Costs has collapsed for a *second* time, both times under the control of the same person)

Your details

Cancel