Quote:
Originally Posted by markharris
All very valid points. Nah I’m not his friend, just a keyboard warrior but one that got quite shocked when I read the news. I do part time university admission counselling so it seemed analogous to that.
Your point about the implied circumvention of the democratic application process is true; but we all know people who have entered the industry using connections privately, at least this opens it up to everyone ? Plus there was an option to defer payment if they can’t afford. But ultimately you’re right it’s never a right thing to publicly insinuate corruption-like services.
Yes It was Milbank’s decision not the law soc, but that was a very predictable outcome from the law Soc’s POV when they used words like fox in sheep’s clothing - pre-charge accusations and libel ?
Yes moral of the story is if sounds bad it probably is - thanks for clarifying ! Stay safe !
|
I think the fact of charging fees for mentorship / counselling / training is probably the most legitimate part of what they were offering. I agree that the really, really dodgy part is taking money to do placements (especially at your own firm - corrupt inducement?), and to a lesser extent the more extreme form of marketing used (described as fear-mongering).
If the various parties' reactions to this episode seem a little harsh, that's because the profession places a lot of emphasis on reputation and standing. There may be other reasons behind closed doors, so it's hard to say.