You’re an arse: this being true whether you’re a barrister or a troll.
]]>“I reckon hundreds of solicitors in the UK have done something similar at some point in their career. This is not a proportionate or effective outcome…”
Are you seriously suggesting that the frequency of a crime alone should result in greater leniency across the board? If not, what are you saying?
]]>I’m a barrister and I sometimes correct typos that I can see in previous rolling attendance notes.
Is this falsifying a document and should I self report to the BSB for this?
]]>I really dislike the SRA and just on a human level this is minor and I want him to not face trouble. BUT, he falsified a document. Editing a FWD email is falsifying a document (the email being forwarded). There are very few things that solicitors must never under no circumstances do or else the system structurally collapses. The second it occurs to any SRA regulated individual that they should change something on a document (without disclosure), a red banner must immediately appear in front of their eyes (by their imagination) that says ACTION PROHIBITED. This should be absolute second nature. It’s a fat, bold, red, unmistakable line. There is no grey area and no doubt to be had. Otherwise, I’m gonna be in court tomorrow wondering whether the certified copies provided by solicitors of xyz are real. We so have a (limited) duty to society and it’s this.
]]>How does this stand aside the SRA’s incredible work allowing Axiom to lose £60m of client money and giving them a £4300 fine?
The SRA are a bunch of performative bullies, interested only in adding to the stress and misery of the profession, coming down harshly on unrepresented juniors so they have some outcomes to point to. Their focus is clearly not where it should be.
The people on these tribunals and the barrister who claimed these costs should also be ashamed of themselves.
]]>The punishments do not “seem” harsh. They are harsh. Egregious, in fact. I detest the SRA.
]]>Can the SRA be reformed please? Thanks.
]]>Should’ve studied harder and become a barrister then my dear boy.
Tally ho!
]]>24 month repayment plan on Klarna baby. Going to the local Cashino tonite and hoping to win big
]]>Joke.
]]>Agreed on the disproportionate costs. But serious offences or dishonesty for a solicitor usually equals certain disbarment and basically is career suicide.
Quite a few self-proclaimed “Masters of the Universe” have fallen this way in the City.
]]>Pocket change my dear bean.
£12k is my monthly budget for the finest Bolivian the City can provide.
]]>The SRA is draconian in the extreme.
]]>Hope you agreed payment terms.
]]>Charmed as always to see that self reporting an error garners a one year suspension. But serious offences, dishonesty and sexual don’t.
Remember kids, if you are going to break the law or professional rules, go big and you’ll probably go home. To a comfortable place, with a small fine compared to your means and ability to continue your practise and behaviour.
]]>So should you for calling him a moron.
]]>So should you, for being a moron of industry.
]]>It’s relatively common, in the event of an email bouncing or being stuck in one’s outbox, to follow up with a soft note to smooth over the interaction. As opposed to openly admitting to being an id*** who mistyped an addressed causing the email to bounce and then self reporting.
Obviously, if client information is delivered to the wrong person transparency with the client is required and the erroneous recipient should be asked to delete the correspondence.
Even in this case, which clearly involves dishonesty, a 12 month suspension and 12.5k fine seem harsh. Do the SRA think the average solicitor is driving a Lambo like the infamous LegalCheek Kirlkland NQs?
]]>