Report comment

"The issue is what the punishment should be. Do you have anything to say on that topic (other than bare assertions)?"

I made my view clear at the outset i.e. that she should be struck off.

In my opinion, no amount of mitigation can justify what she did, in circumstances where she had a choice. She chose to go along with her superiors despite knowing (or ought to have known) what she was doing was wrong.

Her sob story i.e. "she feared she might lose her job if she came clean any sooner, and also worried that friends and colleagues would blame her if the firm was shut down" is simply not good enough for me, a qualified Solicitor with a strict set of principles that I (as many here) have to comply with in my professional and personal life.

I do, however, find myself conflicted with the whole issue of whistleblowing. I agree that the sanction here may discourage people from whistleblowing in the future, however in Ms. Scott's case my issue is that she did not act dishonestly on one occasion (for immediate fear or reprisal), but then immediately reported her conduct and that of her superiors. Instead, she engaged in a prolonged period of dishonest conduct, with (to my mind) one eye on using whistleblowing as a later argument in mitigation.

For that later reason, I believe the sanction was appropriate.