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
352
389
360
376
352
401
366
395
372
399
342
392
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.
373
378
Still, it looks like she has been able to move on.
362
374
374
386
366
381
362
387
344
392
350
419
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.
379
383
343
376
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.
371
372
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.
360
403
345
366
338
430
361
386
349
373
352
408
348
439
370
411
336
396
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.
372
385
380
427
326
435
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.
393
386
325
423
her new career, is it not bad enough she has lost one career?!
356
394
312
422
363
400
306
421
348
372
343
383
And yes, I am a ROF fan otherwise.
343
399