Although a firm may have been accused of treating  women poorly, that doesn't mean it actually did. If the accusations are not true then it is the firm who has been treated badly.

How did each previous firm become aware of the caution?

Anon 8:36 : Sacko is that you?

Does this raise an issue about references? I know of several people who have been sacked for behaviour issues like bullying by several firms and just moved on to another. Apparently firms are stupid enough not to see through cvs but doesn’t a firm that sacks someone for not mentioning something like this have an obligation to make sure the offender doesn’t repeat the same offence?

Anon 8.50: no, ex-girlfriend, it's not.

So the second firm sounds like "[redacted by ROF]"? [you may be right - no more guesses in the comments though, please... - ROF]

Did any of these firms not think to tell the SRA about the caution? Am I right in thinking you have to report those to them (useless as the SRA is, it should at least help where references fail)

Speaking of sacking, has the RoF proof-reader been disposed of?

I wouldn't think it would be relevant to include the caution in references 9.04 as it didn't relate to the workplace.

Not sure cautions need to be reported to the SRA. Even if they did, not sure the SRA are under any duty to tell the employer, and not sure the employer would take any action. I'd imagine there are a lot of lawyers in employment who have cautions.

Anon 13:33, if the caution was relevant enough to be grounds for dismissal, wouldn't it be relevant enough to mention it in a reference?

Would be interested to know if Firm 2 sacked because of the caution, or because Sacko failed to disclose.

Anonymous 13:42 above, when practising certificates are renewed you or the firm doing the bulk renewals have to disclose anyone who has received a caution/warning from the police, an ASBO, been charged/convicted of an offence which is not indictable or is under investigation or any disciplinary action by a professional/regulatory body in the last year. So you need to tell the SRA or if your firm is renewing for you, the firm. 

Anon 13:33 - the reason for the caution is irrelevant.  It still forms part of a criminal record and should be disclosed if it has occurred within the last seven years.  

To limit this to the boundaries of the work place is ridiculous.  

Criminal records can be easily checked and vetted.  Most firms now will outsource reference  checking to specialist firms who will follow-up all references, check criminal record databases, professional qualifications and dates of each period of employment.  

Non-disclosure would definitely result in an offer of employment being rescinded.  However, had he disclosed the caution and the circumstances behind it, the employer might have considered all the facts and decided that they were still happy to make an offer despite the caution (there may have been mitigating circumstances, there were no previous occurrences and none after, etc).  

Not all firms use reference-checkers, some still do this in-house.  Probably he will need to use an 'in-house checker' firm for his next role ... and hope they are too busy to be diligent in their checks.  

This is very old news. I heard Sacko was about to be offered a job at a different big [redacted by rof] firm (separate from the two he ended up going to) a few years back but just before they made the offer they discovered he had also ridiculously lied on his CV so they pulled out. 

“The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked make themselves a stench and bring shame on themselves.”  [redacted by rof]

A caution? That's a telling off by the police. Surely you don't have to declare something as trivial as that.

When did ROF stop writing funny stories and start Daily Mailing us with typos?

Not sure 13.57, the first employer chose to dismiss but I don't see that there's any duty to disclose as the dismissal didn't relate to work related matters and not every employer would have dismissed in the circumstances. 

Agreed, would be interesting  to know why firm 2 dismissed.

@15.28 - it's not the reason for the caution which irrelevant, but the fact that the caution wasn't work-related which is. It's none of the employer's business. It's clearly not ridiculous to limit screening to relevant records - it would be ridiculous to do otherwise. Yes, a firm may be able to use non-disclosure as a reason for terminating employment,  but really it shouldn't need to see all cautions in the first place.

The original question was whether the employer should be passing on details of cautions to other employers,  and the answer is no. Doubly so when the caution has nothing to do with work.

You'll be lucky to get a reference which says more than X worked for us from date A to date B Fat chance that anyone will be told about stuff like this.

@pumpkin - I think it depends on the form- some ask for details of convictions and cautions, some just cautions. I don't think the SRA specifically say that cautions have to be disclosed though, although I could be wrong. But even if the SRA were aware of a caution, it's unlikely they would tell an employer about it.

i worked at Latham and the firm does not treat women poorly.  

Did he end up at [redacted by rof]? Proper sleazebag if that's Sacko.

Solicitor is a notifiable occupation so police should report the caution to SRA - unless Sacko lied to them about what he does for a living.

Unlikely Escaping Puppy given lack of relevance to the job and absence of public interest. Even if they did, unlikely the SRA would notify the employer.

I tend to think cautions should be the end of matters like this.