Report comment

Is that the sound of the stable door being shut long after the Horse has bolted I hear?

Yes, I agree that Ms Scott could not and can not argue she was blameless. Yes, I agree some sanction was appropriate. Yes, I agree therefore that Ms Scott should have answered to the SDT. At the same time the SRA should have asked the SDT to give her a lesser sanction and made it clear that they were grateful for her in raising the issue. A period of supervised practice or suspension for one year would have been more than adequate and would have sent the message that whistleblowers will be protected but the regulator cannot ignore wrong doing even if the individual eventually does the right thing.

As matters stand today no sane trainee or paralegal would blow the whistle because if there is even the slightest suggestion that they might have turned a blind eye just once or not acted as fast as they might have done there must be a chance they would be stuck off along with their dishonest principals. Even if they have done absolutely nothing wrong there is a good chance the real perpetrators will try to bring the whistleblower down with them. No-one is going to take the risk.

In acting as they did the SRA and SDT have wholly missed the point. The regulator exists to protect the public. The Judgement against Ms Scott will have the opposite effect because junior lawyers will simply keep their heads down and hope no-one notices. It is a charter for dishonest principals to intimidate their subordinates.

So the outcome of this episode is that the Regulator has failed to carry out its primary purpose in protecting the public, alienated a large section of the profession it regulates, and penalised a junior lawyer for doing the right thing.

What a sorry mess!