A solicitor has been struck off for pinching a pair of sunglasses.
The DAC Beachcroft lawyer was caught stealing a pair of Prada sunglasses worth £154 from the duty-free shop at Stansted Airport in 2012. The then-26-year-old received a caution for theft, but said she "decided to keep it to myself" after police reassured her that the crime was so minor they wouldn't disclose it and her solicitor advised her that it was unlikely anyone would find out.
She kept her mouth shut until DAC sent round a compliance questionnaire later that year which she had to complete to renew her practising certificate. When she realised that it asked for details of prior cautions as well as convictions, the NQ fessed up to the firm, which reported her to the SRA.
At the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal her representative argued that the crime was committed in a "moment of madness". He said it was brought about by depression caused by pressure to work long hours and the departure of colleagues from DAC when it merged with Beachcroft. Several DAC partners testified on her behalf.
The tribunal conceded that it was "a very sad case", but ordered her removal from the roll after deciding theft was too serious to warrant a lighter punishment. The momentarily light-fingered lawyer had already left her job in anticipation of the verdict, and is now a legal recruiter.
Tip Off ROF
The DAC Beachcroft lawyer was caught stealing a pair of Prada sunglasses worth £154 from the duty-free shop at Stansted Airport in 2012. The then-26-year-old received a caution for theft, but said she "decided to keep it to myself" after police reassured her that the crime was so minor they wouldn't disclose it and her solicitor advised her that it was unlikely anyone would find out.
She kept her mouth shut until DAC sent round a compliance questionnaire later that year which she had to complete to renew her practising certificate. When she realised that it asked for details of prior cautions as well as convictions, the NQ fessed up to the firm, which reported her to the SRA.
At least it wasn't over a Toblerone |
At the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal her representative argued that the crime was committed in a "moment of madness". He said it was brought about by depression caused by pressure to work long hours and the departure of colleagues from DAC when it merged with Beachcroft. Several DAC partners testified on her behalf.
The tribunal conceded that it was "a very sad case", but ordered her removal from the roll after deciding theft was too serious to warrant a lighter punishment. The momentarily light-fingered lawyer had already left her job in anticipation of the verdict, and is now a legal recruiter.
Comments
373
409
380
400
376
419
390
416
401
419
365
408
I would also add it is pretty harsh to attach a link to the judgment with the individual's name, and point out her new career. I'm sure she wants to put this as far behind her as possible and this sort of thing clearly doesn't help.
396
401
Still, it looks like she has been able to move on.
385
400
400
407
389
409
382
403
359
414
369
447
But the circumstances do indeed seem to be exceptional. This was foolish but near to the extreme low end of dishonest offending - and the offer (and acceptance) of a caution supports this. She appears to have received incorrect advice from the Police and - quite honestly and properly - declared the matter on a compliance questionnaire having carefully read its terms.
If the SDT aren't prepared to use the "exceptional case" exception in these circumstances, it's hard to see when it would - and it sends a clear message to people less honest people precisely to keep this sort of very minor caution to themselves.
It all seems to me to be classic disproportionality.
403
401
373
398
However had she just said no convictions on the compliance qu. would they have found out?
I have never understood why people steal when under pressure. It sounds a ridiculous idea. You might be crying in your bed but if you're upset about life you don't go off and steal.
383
389
It may not match your intuition, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a real thing. The evidence is that it is one of a number of obsessive behaviours which correlates with other, more common, symptoms of depressive conditions. It doesn't mean every depressed person will steal or that all thefts are by depressed people - but that there is a link is a statistically pretty robust finding in the academic literature.
379
422
358
392
352
459
388
413
375
398
377
428
375
450
397
433
362
411
Saying she shouldn't be struck off isn't condoning the behaviour. Indeed, her own defence said a period of suspension and a fine were appropriate. But this was a caution at the extreme low end of offending by a very young person, which was disclosed on the form. Worthy of penalty, certainly, but was it really proportionate to prevent practice for ever more in order to protect the reputation of the profession? Frankly, worse things happen in City offices every day, and most of us here know that.
392
405
396
454
347
451
Ultimately very sad, wasted career etc etc. But if you want to be a lawyer don't go round nicking things.
Harsh judgment but fair enough that the rest of the profession is informed of it.
416
410
349
448
her new career, is it not bad enough she has lost one career?!
384
416
342
438
378
421
329
444
368
392
378
402
And yes, I am a ROF fan otherwise.
366
428