Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I really don't see why we are being so lenient to these 6 (or 11) when it has been repeated ad nauseum that integrity is not to be compromised in this profession.
Just last week, a very respected family law senior practitioner was suspended for 3 years by the Court of 3 Judges for inter alia being dishonest to his client and the court in the conduct of a case. The court also found that the lawyer did not benefit from his dishonesty, nor did the dishonesty ultimately caused the client harm.
While involving different circumstances and fora, the juxtaposition of outcomes could not have been more stark.
If, as has repeatedly been emphasized, misconduct involving dishonesty will often lead to an order for striking of, the outcome in this cheating saga is seriously hard to rationalize.
|
These trainees were effectively suspended for 6 months to a year due to their cheating. I think that is a proportionate penalty considering that (a) they were trainee lawyers and were not yet subject to the professional conduct rules; (b) their dishonesty was not directed at the courts or any client; and (c) they are relatively young and immature.
In contrast, the senior family lawyer had 20+ years of experience, should know better, his misconduct involved deceiving both his client and the courts, and when caught he fought the dishonesty charges for 7 years instead of coming clean quickly.
All cases of dishonesty ought to be punished, but it is right that there should be distinctions depending on the seriousness of the conduct and the circumstances also.