Report comment

I have not seen any commentator actually argue that dishonesty should not be taken very seriously. However, to say that no other sanction can suffice is in my view blinkered and very outdated.

It also, again in my view, makes a mockery of the reasoning behind that approach, which is said to be maintaining public confidence in the profession. The press obviously love a good bit of lawyer bashing, but if the striking off of solicitors gets sympathetic write ups in the press, doesn't that also harm the reputation of the profession? Or maybe it doesn't count if it is actually the regulator harming its own reputation.

Very different circumstances obviously, but the same occurred to me with the Mark Lewis case, where again the justification for regulatory action was how his actions would harm the public's view of the profession. Yet I strongly suspect the public would not support the SDT decision in either case.

All of course against the backdrop of the SRA wanting to drop the burden of proof down to balance of probability.