Report comment

The solicitor who blew the Whistle on the dishonest practices at De Vita Platt Solicitors was, like her two bosses, struck-off at a hearing on 7 December, 2018. The full judgment is dated 24 January, 2019 and an appeal against the tribunal's decision has to be made within 21 days of the publication of the judgment which is 14 February, 2019. However, that judgment was not available on the SDT website until 28 January, 2019 because the person responsible for website updates was on holiday.

But should the whistelblower appeal? There has been a lot of debate on this topic by those more more qualified than me (I have no legal training) with some suggesting they are willing to act for the whistleblower on a pro bono basis, while some suggest setting up a crowdfunding campaign.

The whistleblower did state to the tribunal that she did not wish to practice law again so, on the face of it, there may be little to be gained by appealing even if this could be done at zero cost for the appellant. However, the whistelblower currently has this stain on her character which could limit her opportunities for the rest of her life. Yes, she was found, by the tribunal, to have acted dishonestly but is she really a dishonest person?

She was was subject to pressure by her boss to act dishonestly, under threat that she would lose her job if she did not comply. At the time she was a trainee solicitor and trainees who decide to leave a firm and transfer to another to continue their training are frowned upon by employers. In her own words, she was "between a rock and a hard place".

She had dedicated herself to her chosen career from the age of 18, worked unpaid for six months at De Vita Platt and then as a paralegal on minimum wage for another 18 months before getting a training contract with De Vita Platt. Why should she lose her career because of her employers dishonesty and greed? She did not benefit from her own dishonesty, that benefit all went to the fee earner who pushed her to the brink emotionally and mentally so that she needed anti-depressants during the final year of training.

When she did finally confront the compliance officer at De Vita Platt, she was ignored. There was no complaints procedure at the firm and the compliance officer apparently did nothing; certainly did not inform the SRA. Instead, the now newly qualified solicitor was given her marching orders by being placed on “Gardening Leave”.

Within about two months she had obtained a new job and she informed her new bosses of what she had gone through at De Vita Platt. Her employer advised that the SRA protects whistleblowers and so she ‘blew the whistle’ But the SRA were not happy and her new employers soon dispensed with her services because of impending disciplinary proceedings. This was just months after commencing that employment. She has not worked in the legal field since and does not wish to do so. She is self-employed and works long hours and her earnings are below the tax threshold. She has had to move back in with her parents because of the loss of income.

The whistleblower took 18-24 months before telling the SRA of the activities at De Vita Platt but how long did the SRA take to stop those activities? The answer is six days short of three years! It was 25 January, 2015 when the whistle was blown but the practice was not intervened until 19 January 2018, despite charges against the two partners at the practice being made in February 2017. Those charges were very serious and many were subsequently proved with dishonesty at the tribunal in December 2018.

Given that the SRA decided to prosecute, the SDT really had no alternative but to strike-off the whistleblower as dishonesty by her was proven. But was the prosecution really in the public interest? I don't think so. If she had told the SRA she did not wish to practice law again she could have entered an undertaking with the SRA to remove herself from the Roll and to never re-apply. That would have been a private agreement not publicly disclosed. Alternatively, if she wished to practice again, the SRA could have imposed restrictions on her practicing certificate to give time to evaluate her when working in an environment that was not so toxic.

NOTE: This is my personal view as a layman with no legal training