Report comment

I have said it before but it bears repeating; the job of the regulator is to protect the public. This decision does precisely the opposite; the public is MORE at risk as a result of it because (irrespective of the rights and wrongs of Ms Scott's actions) it actively discourages Junior solicitors and trainees from speaking out. I surmise that dishonest principals will point to this case in the face of disquiet about their actions and suggest - with absolute truth - that if the principals go down then they will take everyone with them.

It will not be long before a junior solicitor facing action before the SDT because of his alleged involvement with the dishonesty of his/her principals will offer as his defence that he thought of speaking out, but since the SDT would strike him off anyway he thought it better to keep quiet.

The counsel of perfection that the SDT advises; that the junior should resign and immediately report the dishonest solicitor to the SRA is simply impractical and sets an impossible standard. Firstly the solicitor may not immediately recognise that his/her supervisor is acting dishonestly, unless they have an accounting background they may not recognise improper payments from a client account even supposing they have access to the ledgers. Secondly, expecting a person to commit career suicide (as in many cases it would be) to expose dishonesty is wholly unreasonable.

The SRA has dammed the most junior members of our profession if they do report dishonesty and dammed them if they don't.