Report comment

very sad case and commentators are right that this decision is hardly likely to encourage whistleblowing. Hiowever I cannot see an appeal against sanction succeeding on the facts. The case of Sovani James who also created backdated correspondence (albeit of her own choice rather than at the instruction of one of the partners), clearly illustrates that a strike off is all but inevitable. Ms Scott left this appalling firm in November 2014, however it was not until four months later that she contacted the SRA. That will not have helped her cause in circumstances where 'prompt' reporting is obligatory.

The fundamental problem though is that every adult knows that backdating letters in order to mislead is wrong and dishonest. It has long been recognised that acting under orders is no defence and Ms Scott clearly knew that what she had assisted in was dishonest and that is why she blew the whistle.

Whilst I would expect everyone to have a lot of sympathy for her in obviously difficult circumstances, and rehabilitation may well be possible in the future (a lot of struck off solicitors have been given a second chance including many who with hindsight should not have received such generous treatment), it is a basic requirement that solicitors are honest and for that reason the sanction in this case is inevitable.