I see that they’ve started (very) enthusiastically fining solicitors for drink driving (on top of any court sanctions). Is there any aspect of our personal lives that they don’t think fair game?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/solicitor-handed-record-13836-sra-fin…
1
1
“SRA guidance indicated that the penalty should be 16-49% of King’s annual gross income.”. Absolutely bananas.
5
1
They are desperate to be seen to be doing something and don't understand how to actually regulate what lawyers do professionally so they come up with this sh1t.
They are an utter disgrace that ought to be shut down.
3
0
This is unbelievable.
2
0
Wot Donny said
3
1
Wtf? This is insane.
No more chancing the back roads home.
0
1
Would this happen to a City partner? Unlikely.
And of course a bit of sexual shenanigans is still allowed by the SRA.
0
1
Bananas is the right word.
0
0
I don't see why it's any less likely to happen to a City partner than a senior solicitor at Farrers.
0
0
16 to 49% of the the King's annual income? Fook me that is steep.,...pleasingly medieval though
1
1
None of their fooking business.
FFS.
4
1
Seriously though, this is ridiculous - parliament and judges decide a fair penalty for drink driving, it has fook all to do with being a solicitor and the SRA should keep their beaks out.
0
1
I might become a consultant. This is bonkers.
0
0
What sort of almighty auntwits would come up with guidance that has a range where the top end is three times the bottom end anyway
0
0
Rare unanimity from the denizens of RoF.
3
1
They presumably are on a cash grab pending the massive payouts under Prags-gate
The SRA appears to be undermining the courts by suggesting the proper penalty for the conduct given by the court was not enough.
5
1
SRA should confine itself to dishonesty offences and stuff done in the course of being a solicitor - that is IT. Everything else has fook all to with them and should be left to the courts to deal with.
0
1
On what authority can they administer these fines? There must be some sort of upper limit.
0
1
I mean, in this case, they quite obviously imposed the 16% bottom threshold, but who decided this arbitrary window anyway?
2
0
Well that's one way to fund the Axiom Ince shortfall...
4
1
It's also arguable that the commission of this particular offence, whilst being morally very bad, does not actually bring the profession into any disrepute at all.
The public are sensible enough to realise that it is unlikely to have anything to do with the solicitor's fitness to practice, and it only the Solicitor him/herself that is brought into personal disrepute.
It's so disproportionate to the criminal sanction that it would be worth someone refusing to be dealt with by the SRA and opting to go to the SDT instead.
1
1
In the beckwith appeal beckwith was found to have breached SRA principles 2 and 6 after spending the night with a junior colleague in 2016
The Court of Appeal ruled that the SDT's conclusion that Beckwith undermined public trust was ‘flawed, and cannot stand’.
It also warned that that regulators ‘will do well to recognise that it is all too easy to be dogmatic without knowing it; popular outcry is not proof that a particular set of events gives rise to any matter falling within a regulator's remit’.
So, on what basis is this within their remit when a competent court has already dealt with it.
5
1
I am beginning to think the SRA may be acting illegally. They are now acting as a court in an arbitrary manner without any rules or protections. Unfair trial issues. There are also legal arguments against punishing someone twice for the same thing. They have exceeded their powers as regulator. Clawing money back to recover costs of their own negligence is extortion and illegal if that’s what they are doing.
3
1
A while ago there was newspaper coverage of a MacFarlanes partner who had totalled his car while under the influence. At a hastily convened partners meeting the senior partner’s opening remark was to note his embarrassment that the car was a Range Rover Sport
2
1
Marshall hall - I agree that justice was served in the regular court so how can the profession have been undermined? It’s ridiculous
0
0
I think that's the most scandalous aspect Dux.
That they've exposed that poor man's salary to be a pitiful £63,000.
0
1
Maybe the SRA could pick up some of the backlog in the courts and make themselves useful.
0
1
This made me curious re. the SDT's powers of sanction. As it turns out the SDT has the power to make "any order as it may think fit" (unlike the SRA which has the £25k cap on penalties) so he should feel lucky that the SRA dealt with this and he wasn't thrown in the stocks or executed.
0
1
Meanwhile the SRA Directors sit on their well-paid arses and do now't about the appalling behaviour of several members of our regulated community in the Horizon Case...
0
1
Pretty sure there was a survey some years back which came up with the opposite - that the public thought it was VERY serious, on the grounds that solicitors should not be flouting the law, especially given it can endanger lives.
That it's a regulatory issue is not new. These are from 2019 for instance.
https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/drink-driving-solicitors-san…
0
1
Fines of around £1000 (but sometimes less than) were appropriate back the
I guess £13k is just inflation?
Just because the cap increased doesn’t mean that suddenly the fine can be 13x bigger - surely
3
0
Just googled the Macfarlanes partner story
"CCTV footage showed him weaving drunkenly along a train platform at London Bridge Station after a post-work pub binge, where he drank five pints of Guinness with a friend"
Should have been fined for being a fooking lightweight tbh.
1
0
who gives a fook what the public think - if you asked them if drink driving doctors were trustworthy to be doctors a majority would probably say no, does not mean the GMC gets involved in every drink driving case as the recognise in reality it has fook all with beeing an doctor - see also the accountants regulators
0
1
"Should have been fined for being a fooking lightweight tbh"
Indeed, 5 pints of 4% guiness should leave nobody "weaving" accept a teenage girl on her first night out, a bit more chatty than normal, perhaps.
1
1
‘Except’ - not accept
Have you been on the Guinness too?
1
1
The only thing that's pitiful is your maths.
16% = £86,644.
0
1
So it seems that you either accept the SRA fine or roll the dice with the sdt who could go big but could also get slapped down for not having jurisdiction. Difficult to know what to do if in similar circumstances.
0
0
Oops soz, you're right. The actual fine was only £10k.
2
1
Or not drink-drive.
0
1
Modelling agencies?
0
0
there should be an immediate practising certificate fee strike
0
0
Could be worse. If you’re before the GMC you basically have to say your an alcoholic.
0
1
Laz , it for this kind of reason i only renew my PC when absolutely necessary . WTF do the SRA think they are to impose fines multiples of those dished out by the courts.
0
1
runnersknee23 Jan 24 14:40
Reply|
Report
Vote up!
0
A while ago there was newspaper coverage of a MacFarlanes partner who had totalled his car while under the influence. At a hastily convened partners meeting the senior partner’s opening remark was to note his embarrassment that the car was a Range Rover Sport.
---
Heh. I had a few interviews with Macs a while back. We mutually agreed not to take things further. Well I definitely did at least, and told the recruiter as much. This illustrates why. What a bunch of twots.
0
1
The SRA fine was 31 times what the court fined him although they also banned him from driving for nearly two years.
0
0
ThI delta between the fines given in 2019 and the fines given now needs looking at. What’s the basis for the change?
1
1
None.
It's completely arbitrary.
0
1
How to check this progression? Seems mad.
1
1
A modicum of good news. The Farrers lawyer is better paid than we feared as apparently they then applied a 40% discount on the fine.
https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/drink-drive-solicitor-handed…
1
1
Not for those of us that pay their fees.
0
1
I see they've also suspended someone for doing her own research as a juror after she'd already been jailed for the same offence.
0
1
Just say difference m7 you sound like a blow hard
0
0
(Generally a fan tho snip)
1
1
Think the SRA have been on the sauce
0
0
"I see they've also suspended someone for doing her own research as a juror after she'd already been jailed for the same offence."
Contempt of court is hugely relevant to being a solicitor who are supposed to be officers of the court, so this one does not surprise me and strikes me as correct.
0
1
It's a bit American as suspending a 56 year old for eight years is effectively striking them off. Also what the hell is the point of an eight year suspension as nobody is going to kick their heels for that long then come back to work.
0
2
It certainly does bring the profession into disrepute. Almost any criminal matter should be grounds for striking off. It’s not like there’s a shortage of lawyers after all
0
0
Fine then strike people off for anything that warrants more than a two year suspension as a long suspension is no better.
0
1
Think that was the SDT, not SRA.
1
0
SRA should back off but frankly fook anyone who drinks and drives.
Join the discussion