Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Legal v Moral Duty

For the law, regulation, and practice of the various professions and those heading out to join up.

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby Voldemort » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:23 am

Why shouldn't all factual information be available to all parties? Indeed it should be a legal requirement of all parties to disclose anything relevant to the case.

Lawyers should only be there to debate the applicable law and evidence – not conceal it.
Voldemort
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:28 am

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby atticus » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:14 pm

That comment misses the point that the disclosure was to a party in a case that did not involve the solicitor's client.

There are indeed duties of disclosure in civil cases, but these duties apply to the parties.

I am not able to comment on duties of disclosure in criminal cases. Plainly the duties are different for prosecution and defence.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby shootist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:39 pm

I believe, (IIRC) that the rules of the time have since changed, with obligations on a defence solicitor to report some things that would simply have been unacceptable before the changes. I realise that's a big generalisation, but those details did not normally form part of my interest. I would wonder how he (or anyone else in his position) would have felt if, knowing what he did, the murderer committed a further like offence. Small comfort that the rule of legal procedure had been complied with.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby atticus » Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:55 pm

User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby atticus » Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:58 pm

Here's the text of the "regulatory settlement":
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicit ... 2017-06-23
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby SyntaxTerror » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:02 pm

I hate to resurrect an old thread but this is new to me. A solicitor under investigation can agree to effectively strike themselves off? Does the complaint remain on file?
SyntaxTerror
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby dls » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:33 am

A solicitor is only on the roll because he is properly qualified and because he asks to be so.
Disciplinary proceedigs ask whether his name should be removed from the Roll.
The settlement -as can be seen is recorded, so if he were to re-apply, it would be taken into account.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12276
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:33 am

SyntaxTerror wrote:I hate to resurrect an old thread...

May I ask why?
I've never seen it as a problem in general. There are specific instances where threads ought be left to sleep, but they should be locked if it matters.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10127
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby shootist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:59 pm

By coincidence, a couple of days ago I watched a program about Japanese history in which the tale of the 47 ronin was discussed. It is a major part of Japanese folklore / history and it has many variations in the telling. The generally accepted version is that 47 samurai set out to revenge the killing of their master and killed the person they held responsible, after a right good punch up I believe. What makes the story interesting, for me at least, is that they then surrendered to the authorities and admitted their crime. According to most versions they were ordered too commit suicide as a punishment, a fate they anticipated before setting out on their mission.

I have to say that I would almost always respect a person who breaks the law to do what they think is right, providing they then admit their offence and accept the consequences. OTOH, people who commit their crimes in the name of justice but wear masks and deny wrongdoing are, IMO, nothing more than thugs who deserve anything they get. One possible exception is a full blooded revolution against tyranny which descends into all out civil war, but that is a different matter.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Legal v Moral Duty

Postby SyntaxTerror » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:30 pm

I was curious as to how it worked. Some years ago I made a complaint against my solicitor via email to the Law Society. I received an acknowledgment email but nothing else happened. In the end I just left it. I started thinking about it again some 3 or 4 years ago. I contacted the law society but they had no record of the complaint. However, they did tell me that he'd asked not to be registered (which I now know is taking himself off the roll). Further investigation showed that he had asked to be removed around the time I would have made the complaint. This just looked a little suspicious because he hadn't long set up his own law firm with another solicitor.

Of course, there could be a rational explanation. He was overweight and a heavy smoker so it could have been health related issues. But it does make you think that there was some kind of agreement between himself and the law society that he step down or face an investigation.
SyntaxTerror
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Professions, Legal and Other. and their Students

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron