Someone has been re-watching The Thick of It.

I know MF and he is an amazing lawyer and all round lovely chap (and no, I don't work at Proskauer). His comment about lego law is spot on. Sounds like the guy just wasn't very good. Very silly to throw away a career like that.

Struck off! That seems quite tough for a 4pqe associate compared to the small fine imposed on a Freshfields partner from practically raping a junior associate (RoF of today).

I get that dishonesty is a big no-no in our profession but not-raping should probably be up there too.

I like how this guy got struck off, while a barrister was supplying a class A drug and assaulted 3 people and got a month's suspension. Perfectly fair, perfectly normal.

Seems utterly nuts given that the exam concerned was not one that is required for practice nor, I assume, a condition of his employment.

Strike-off not appropriate here.

Worth reading the Freshfields case again - even the SDT, despite the process being unfair, made clear (albeit at the end of the process) that consent was not part of the claim they were considering.

SDT policy is very clear - partners etc can break all the rules, client confi etc and not get struck off - Male one mistake before then and your done!

Dishonesty is dishonesty folks.

I had to take a couple of swipes at the CFQ 2nd paper, it was embarrassing but I got it done and didn’t lie.  He did.

Goodbye old bean!  It’s ok to fail every now and again, but do not break trust and lie about it.

Well, Lord Lester QC was found to have made unwanted sexual advances to a woman and abused his position, and the House of Lords recommended that he be suspended from membership of the House. But he was not sanctioned by the BSB.

'Male's one mistake indeed 11th October @21.51. Partners can break all the rules except the new moral code it seems.

Dishonesty is dishonesty Teclis, but not a strike-offable offense.

In reality the Lords decided that the process by which Lord Lester was judged was unfair. He resigned from the Lords due to the toll the process took on his health. He referred himself to the BSB, who completely cleared him of any wrongdoing.

Lester was not “cleared” by the BSB. He was given clearance to practise, which is difference. It was decided by the BSB that, despite being found guilty of sexual harassment and abuse of position, that conduct was not worthy of professional sanction.

The Lords Commissioner found Lester guilty after a process which was widely criticised as unfair, which was voted by the Lords to have been such, and which ignored much of the available evidence. The Lords Conduct Committee said they agreed with the findings of the Commissioner. The Lords voted to recognise that the Commissioner had made findings and that the Committee said they recognised those findings. They didn't agree with the findings or say that they were fair. Lester had by this time resigned from the Lords due to the strain put on his health by the whole matter. So the Lords have never actually found Lester guilty following a fair process.

Lester referred himself to the BSB who completed an investigation and cleared him of any wrongdoing.

The CPI? F*ck me this is not even the JIEB.

Insolvency practitioners refer to this one as the "Cycling Proficiency" exam that's how easy it is. He should have just sat the thing.

As for Lord Lester, the House of Lords upheld the findings of the Committee and recommended that Lord Lester be suspended. He resigned before that suspension could be implemented.

The initial vote was that the process was unfair. The matter was then remitted to the Committee to reconsider; the Committee concluded the process was fair; the Lords then reconsidered the matter and voted to approve the conclusion of the Committee that the process was fair. So the Lords decided the process was fair.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-12-17/debates/E9E8AE1E-3CD4-4166-BCF9-0765260054A9/PrivilegesAndConductCommittee

“The Senior Deputy Speaker

The noble Lord said that there were six contemporaneous witnesses. We invite Members to read their accounts.

In her own words,

“on the basis of the strong and cogent evidence of the complainant and her witnesses”,

the commissioner found that Jasvinder Sanghera was a victim of sexual harassment and that Lord Lester was guilty of a grave abuse of power. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct reviewed and endorsed this view. We ask the House to do the same. I hope the House will now agree to this report.

Motion agreed.”

Actually the Lords Commissioner found Lester guilty after a process which was widely criticised as unfair, which was voted by the Lords to have been such, and which ignored much of the available evidence. The Lords Conduct Committee said they agreed with the findings of the Commissioner. The Lords voted to recognise that the Commissioner had made findings and that the Committee said they recognised those findings. They didn't agree with the findings or say that they were fair. Lester had by this time resigned from the Lords due to the strain put on his health by the whole matter. So the Lords have never actually found Lester guilty following a fair process.

As for Lord Lester, the House of Lords endorsed the findings of the Committee that (a) Lord Lester was guilty; and (b) the process which determined Lord Lester’s guilt was fair.

So despite being found guilty, after a fair process, of sexual harassment and abuse of position, Lord Lester was not sanctioned by the BSB.

The Lords Commissioner found Lester guilty after a process which was widely criticised as unfair, which was voted by the Lords to have been such, and which ignored much of the available evidence. The Lords Conduct Committee said they agreed with the findings of the Commissioner. The Lords voted to recognise that the Commissioner had made findings and that the Committee said they recognised those findings. They didn't agree with the findings or say that they were fair. Lester had by this time resigned from the Lords due to the strain put on his health by the whole matter. So the Lords have never actually found Lester guilty following a fair process.

Lester referred himself to the BSB, who cleared him of any wrongdoing.

The Hansard report speaks for itself. The House voted to endorse the findings of the Committee that Lester was guilty of sexual harassment and abuse of position. That is why they recommended that he be suspended. In turn, that is why he referred himself to the BSB when the House reached its decision. (No need if the House had rejected the Committee’s decision and thereby exonerated him.)

The issue before the BSB was whether, despite his conduct, he should be given clearance to practise. The BSB gave him such clearance. That shows the huge gulf between the approaches of the SRA and the BSB.

The Lords Commissioner found Lester guilty after a process which was widely criticised as unfair, which was voted by the Lords to have been such, and which ignored much of the available evidence. The Lords Conduct Committee said they agreed with the findings of the Commissioner. The Lords voted to recognise that the Commissioner had made findings and that the Committee said they recognised those findings. They didn't agree with the findings or say that they were fair. Lester had by this time resigned from the Lords due to the strain put on his health by the whole matter. So the Lords have never actually found Lester guilty following a fair process.

Having not been found guilty of anything by a fair process, Lester referred himself to the BSB. The BSB in turn completely exonerated Lester of any wrongdoing.

Lester isn't regulated by the SRA, but given that he hasn't been found guilty of anything following a fair process, it would be surprising if the SRA took a different view, especially since he isn't regulated by them.

It really is staggering that Lester was given clearance to practise, having been found guilty of sexual harassment.

Solicitors are held to a far higher standard, it would seem.

It would have been staggering if he wasn't given clearance to practice, 11.58, given that he wasn't found guilty of anything by a fair process. Given his age and the unfairness of the process, many people view him as the victim.

Lester isn't regulated by the SRA, but given that he hasn't been found guilty of anything following a fair process, it would be surprising if the SRA took a different view.

If he’d been a solicitor, he’d have been struck off. 

Guilty of sexual harassment and abuse of position, following a fair process. 

I spoke to the BSB. All this is publically available information. He was not cleared of wrongdoing. The BSB had to consider whether, in light of what he had been found to have done, he could continue to practise. It was determined that he could. 

And that is the nub of the debate here: there is a real difference of approach between the SRA and BSB. 

Lord Lester wasn't found guilty of anything by a fair process. Given his age and the unfairness of the process, many people view him as the victim.

He was completely cleared of wrongdoing by the BSB. The BSB didn't find he had done or recognise that anyone else had found he had done anything. In light of the fact he wasn't found to have done anything, he was cleared to continue to practice.

Lester isn't regulated by the SRA, but given that he hasn't been found guilty of anything following a fair process, it is not true that he would have been struck off.

The nub of the debate is that Lester hasn't been found guilty of anything following a fair process.

“Lord Lester wasn't found guilty of anything by a fair process. Given his age and the unfairness of the process, many people view him as the victim.

He was completely cleared of wrongdoing by the BSB. The BSB didn't find he had done or recognise that anyone else had found he had done anything. In light of the fact he wasn't found to have done anything, he was cleared to continue to practice.

Lester isn't regulated by the SRA, but given that he hasn't been found guilty of anything following a fair process, it is not true that he would have been struck off.

The nub of the debate is that Lester hasn't been found guilty of anything following a fair process.”

I am new to this comment section and reading the commentary. Are you OK? You just seem to be copying and pasting your previous outpourings, rather than engaging with the arguments. Get help. It has been amply demonstrated that the House of Lords banged Lester to rights; and you have said nothing to gainsay what the person above said, based on his/her call to the BSB. You might not like the result for Lester but, when it comes to your ability to debate, the Emperor has no clothes.

No help needed - as none of the posts attacking Lester, whether by different people or by the same person pretending to be different people, Concerned, make any new points, it can only be repeated that Lester hasn't been found guilty of anything by a fair process, was completely cleared by the BSB, and isn't regulated by the SRA.

@October 19 18:26

Hansard speaks for itself. You are denying the undeniable. 

Hey! anyone got his number? He can now provide specialist legal advice without any fear of SRA for one-fourth the cost of any cheap solicitor. Everyone should look out for such solicitors who are struck-off as they are cheeeaaaap!

Thats a good opinion. Does not matter if he is struck off from SRA as he can still provide most kind of legal services like advice and preparation of all court documents. The only thing he cannot do mainly is to speak in the court or call himself a solicitor. 

And since now he does not have to be bothered about the silly SRA objections or a heavy insurance premium, he will charge much less than everyone else. SRA would not tell you this directly, as they fear that they will be out of business if people are not being controlled by them. 

An interesting questions for the legal geniuses.

Can a solicitor, who has been struck-off, attend a court hearing with a litigant in person, take notes and then give his witness statement based on those notes in the next hearing?

A solicitor/barrister who has been struck-off by SRA/Barrister can do anything but to speak in the court. SRA/BSB can not take any action as he/she is off their cuffs. They can provide you advice on how to break the law, tell lies and act innocent. The judge can not do anything as well cause you will be a litigant in person for the judge. So it is highly advisable to go for a lawyer who is not regulated by SRA/BSB as the solicitors have a lot of restrictions. 

If you want a better advice than a solicitor or barrister ten look for someone who was struck-off. You can easily find them on Google. They usually charge £60/hour to £80/hour and will give you more attention than the regulated ones.

almost every other day I come across an ex-solicitor in court. Many of these were struck-off following criminal offense. But they still keep practicing and representing their clients. It is their love for the LAW (read MONEY) that keeps bringing them to the court.

Barristers are not far behind.