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

One absurdity of the SDT's judgment is that it criticises Emily Scott for not reporting matters to the COLP earlier. (para. 50.5). The COLP was the First Respondent (ie, one of the wrongdoers), so goodness knows what purpose would have been served by making a report to him.

An important practical point arises out of para. 38.1, which appears to suggest that, if you make a report to the COLP, you then have to monitor whether he/she actually does anything with that report:

"In response to a query from the Tribunal as to the effect of reporting a matter to the COLP (as the Third Respondent
had done shortly before leaving the Firm), [counsel for the SRA] submitted that if a serious breach was reported and no action is taken by COLP it was her duty to then report to
SRA."


Your details

Cancel