Report comment

@Anonymous; Commented on: 3 April 2019 08:17 GMT:

"...I can't see that it is alleged that the work was not actually carried out as if so (as we've seen in other cases) that deserves a strike-off for dishonesty but charging too high an hourly is a different kettle of fish. .."

As the case appears potentially appealable as no finding of dishonesty was made, the reason for the concerns was probably that the bill was reduced by 91%. That could have been as a result of many other reasons though than simply 'charging too much'.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out longer term.