If accurate, it's a terrible message for trainees in dodgy shops
If your bosses are breaking the rules and you don't shop them the moment you understand that then you'd best keep schtum.
“As good be hang’d for an old sheep as a young lamb”
I can't imagine the pressure to comply on a trainee, reliant on their bosses in order to qualify and with nil prospects of another trainee job if this ones ends before qualification.
The reporting is a bit shoddy - a solicitor was struck off not a trainee, and since she qualified in November 2014 her career was hardly "over before it even started." She was 4+ pqe.
Kimmy do we know how much of a delay there has been in bringing the case? I assume that between a police investigation and other things it's quite possible that the actual fraudulent behaviour was several years ago.
The same story was on the Gazette website a few days ago. I can't remember if it was in the article itself of the comments, but apparently she left her career in law just after she left that firm and has no intention of working in law again. Which is probably a good thing.
I do feel very sorry for her and I think the SRA could have found an alternative "punishment" if they wanted to (further supervision etc.).
Although solicitors and trainees are both regulated by the SRA, there ought to be some leniency for trainees where they have not been the instigator of the dodgy dealings.
If you read the report, she was aware of the activity of her bosses for the entirety of her training contract, and seems to have engaged in some activity to support a cover up, then moved firms and shopped them as soon as she qualified.
I kinda have some sympathy with both sides. She was put in an invidious position because shopping the firm would plainly have put her and her mother (who also worked there) out of a job. She was only a trainee, so not really in a position to stop the behaviour, and if you only saw it once, you might well question your own judgment.
On the other hand, she appears to have made an active decision not to take action until after she qualified, with the result that she effectively decided to be complicit for the duration of her TC.
It's a shocking position to have found herself in, but ultimately the standard we are to be judged by is that we put our clients' interests ahead of our own, and that didn't happen here.
I do think, though, that the strike off potentially sends the wrong message to people thinking of blowing the whistle, and I would be very concerned if it caused the SRA to start looking at whether people should have come forward earlier in anything but the clearest of cases.
I don't have enough facts. If eg she knew they had done one hour on something and then did a bill saying she had spent 100 hours on it that is probably obviously to anyone as not allowed although we d not just bill based on time but other things like value to the client etc Do we know more about what she did? Eg you would not necessarily be that involved in bills as a trainee surely?
0
0
If accurate, it's a terrible message for trainees in dodgy shops
If your bosses are breaking the rules and you don't shop them the moment you understand that then you'd best keep schtum.
“As good be hang’d for an old sheep as a young lamb”
I can't imagine the pressure to comply on a trainee, reliant on their bosses in order to qualify and with nil prospects of another trainee job if this ones ends before qualification.
0
1
The reporting is a bit shoddy - a solicitor was struck off not a trainee, and since she qualified in November 2014 her career was hardly "over before it even started." She was 4+ pqe.
0
1
Maybe that's why - she might have been complicit for years.
0
1
Kimmy do we know how much of a delay there has been in bringing the case? I assume that between a police investigation and other things it's quite possible that the actual fraudulent behaviour was several years ago.
0
1
It says she was a trainee from 2012 - 2014.
0
1
The same story was on the Gazette website a few days ago. I can't remember if it was in the article itself of the comments, but apparently she left her career in law just after she left that firm and has no intention of working in law again. Which is probably a good thing.
I do feel very sorry for her and I think the SRA could have found an alternative "punishment" if they wanted to (further supervision etc.).
Although solicitors and trainees are both regulated by the SRA, there ought to be some leniency for trainees where they have not been the instigator of the dodgy dealings.
0
1
If you read the report, she was aware of the activity of her bosses for the entirety of her training contract, and seems to have engaged in some activity to support a cover up, then moved firms and shopped them as soon as she qualified.
I kinda have some sympathy with both sides. She was put in an invidious position because shopping the firm would plainly have put her and her mother (who also worked there) out of a job. She was only a trainee, so not really in a position to stop the behaviour, and if you only saw it once, you might well question your own judgment.
On the other hand, she appears to have made an active decision not to take action until after she qualified, with the result that she effectively decided to be complicit for the duration of her TC.
It's a shocking position to have found herself in, but ultimately the standard we are to be judged by is that we put our clients' interests ahead of our own, and that didn't happen here.
I do think, though, that the strike off potentially sends the wrong message to people thinking of blowing the whistle, and I would be very concerned if it caused the SRA to start looking at whether people should have come forward earlier in anything but the clearest of cases.
0
1
I don't have enough facts. If eg she knew they had done one hour on something and then did a bill saying she had spent 100 hours on it that is probably obviously to anyone as not allowed although we d not just bill based on time but other things like value to the client etc Do we know more about what she did? Eg you would not necessarily be that involved in bills as a trainee surely?
0
1
According to comments on the article ,there were more serious allegations, other than time recording
Join the discussion