Report comment

I have read this thread with interest and my sympathy lies with Ms Scott. Some sanction was clearly appropriate but the decision was unreasonably harsh under the circumstances.

Irrespective of whether the decision is right or wrong however there are two points that I think are central to the debate.

The first point is that the decision to strike of Ms Scott was (emphatically) not in the public interest because it will act as a major disincentive to potential whistleblowers. A person who sees dishonesty in his place of work is materially less likely to report it as a result of this judgement for fear of losing his livelihood. A slavishly application of the rule (as happened in this case) will have precisely the opposite effect to that which the SRA would presumably wish it to have. Even if the individual has done absolutely nothing wrong - in the back of her mind there will be the though of whether the dishonest principals of the firm will take her down with them. Defending ones integrity at the SDT is not something anyone can contemplate with equanimity.

Secondly, it is all very well to say that what Ms Scott should have done is to have immediately walked out and "blown the gaff" but, in reality how many trainees would have the confidence to do that? We would all like to THINK we would but how many of us could say they would with absolute certainty. If she had walked out she would have found it really difficult to have found another post or another training contract and would probably consigned her career to the dustbin before it ever got off the ground. Few firms would want to take on a proven whistleblower even if the candidate could prove that the whistle was blown wholly justifiably. Moreover, our profession does not treat its junior members with much kindness; doing what it is suggested she should have done, in the situation in which she found herself would require more raw courage than most people could muster.