|
Tam
|
Posted - 10 March 2010 09:15
not for certain professions
|
|
Tam
|
why don't you get him to have an anon chat with the SRA. they let surprisingly dodgy people into the profession. they should at least be able to give him an idea of what's involved and his 'chances'.
|
|
Tam
|
oh he's already spoken to them
|
|
Wellington
|
We shouldn't let junkies like this become lawyers.
|
|
Ceiling Cat
|
Since its not a dishonesty offence it shouldn't stop him being admitted. He'll have to disclose it to employers when he applies for his TC and it won't help him any but I'm sure he'll hit a hiring partner who is a former stoner himself eventually and who'll take pity on him.
|
|
Tam
|
he'll need a good explanation as to why he was so stupid as to get caught.
|
|
3-ducks
|
"a friend"
hehe
yeah right
|
|
struandirk
|
The Liberty Your Rights website (yourrights.org.uk) has a section on this
|
|
Wellington
|
The fact remains that he is a criminal who, buy possessing drugs was portentially funding pirates and terrorists. He shouldn't be allowed a job, let alone be allowed to be a lawyer.
|
|
Wellington
|
by*
|
|
Tam
|
welly the same can be said of anyone who has ever eaten at mcdonalds
|
|
Morning Lark
|
Lewin this is a regular question and yes you are wrong. It is ROA 74, but the text isnt on the web. Lawyers are in the exceptions section. Look it up or http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/rehabact.htmThe procedure has changed slightly but he will be subject to an enhanced check which means his conviction will be disclosed. Hardly surrpising if he is trying to eneter the profession. he can ring the CRB if he wants and they will say the same. http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/guidance/applicants_guidance/levels
_of_crb_check.aspx
|
|
3-ducks
|
Lewin, sozzles!
|
|
Morning Lark
|
Really the reference is about suitability for the profession and the thing they are concerned about is honesty etc. Perhaps you can spin it as the mistake of youth and that he's mature etc now. In some ways its a bit rich concsidering what crap must be going on in the profession.
|
|
Olaf Plori
|
There's too many wannabees entering the profession, so this is as good a reason as any to exclude your "friend" for the benefit of the rest of us.
|
|
Jim Wales
|
@olaf - you are pathetic and a fascist.
it is not an offence of dishonesty. according to the SRA, he needs not disclose it to his employer. many years passed. however, exempt from spent convictions and he must disclose it to the SRA.
conclusion: he will be alright.
for further advice email me at: araki1111@gmail.com
|
|
Morning Lark
|
Think you have it the wrong way round Jim.
If they do a crb check, then the crb will disclose it if its for a position as a lawyer. Unlikely employers are going to do such a check as they will rely on the Law soc. The Law soc looks at all offences, but is particularly worried by offences of dishonesty. Offences of violence or really serious crimes are not likely to go down well, whether they have anything to do with dishonesty or not.
|
|
Jim Wales
|
random points:
1. the applicant will have to disclose to SRA any offences including spent and send them a PNC record (a CRB only when he applies for admission only). the application itself says that you do not have to inform your employer.
2. the applicant will have to provide references etc. of course one of them must be from his current employer.
3. I had an awful personal experience myself for which i even consulted a QC - i made it afterall as the SRA did not want to make legal history against them.
4. all offences are assessed but dishonesty are the more serious. check caselaw Gideofo v the SRA on which the SRA guidelines were based.
|
|
Jim Wales
|
@luber, yes you are right
and that poor guy Jideofo withdrew his appeal - still his name will appear in textbooks for the next few centuries just because there were more hearings that date on SRA issues.
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
The majority of do-gooder posters seem to think that past convictions should be overlooked unless they involve dishonesty. In other words let everyone become a solicitor and give them the benefit of the doubt, then leave it to regulation to sort out the sheep from the goats.
That is why we apparently need so many regulatory bodies. It used to be just the Law Society. Now it seems we need the SRA, LCS, Legal Services Board, not to mention the SDT and OLC.
Better to raise the bar on entry to the profession and only admit those who have no convictions or cautions, or question marks about their character.
|
|
snafu
|
IIRC - employers won't be able to request CRB checks on a prospective hire, only the SRA. don't think individual companies/firms are registered bodies with the CRB and therefore wouldn't be able to apply.
|
|
KingMup
|
Possession of dope for personal use shouldn't be a crime anyway. I hope he makes it.
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
Oh well, let's overlook anything that in your personal opinion shouldn't be illegal.
Where do you draw the line? Borrowing from the petty cash? Pinching library books and stationery? Padding time recording and bills? Telling a few fibs to clients and the Court?
|
|
pukatuka
|
yours would be a terrible world to live in Sheikh - I hope the SRA show a little more empathy
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
pukatuka - you seem to be missing the point
This isn't about the rest of the world. It's about whether an entrant to this profession is a fit and proper person. A caution for possession of a Class B drug may be trivial to a scrote on a sink estate but solicitors need to be above such behaviour. Even if they are only transaction gimps chained to a workstation 18 hours a day. It really matters and if you don't see it that way perhaps you are in the wrong job.
|
|
pukatuka
|
I know plenty of solicitors who chose to unwind with canabis rather than beer. There is no difference between them in the quality of their legal advice.
I dont think I am in the wrong career - but I do feel saddened when I see posts like yours; clearly we are diametrically opposed. One of the things I like about of profession is the breadth of views!
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
OK so you know some solicitors who are willing to risk their careers for a toke of weed. All that says about them is that their judgment is impaired by their love of drug taking.
|
|
boufje
|
Surely the best thing would be for him to disclose this himself.
I think the fact that he was 18 at the time makes a difference too.
I am very anti-cannabis becuase I think it is linked to psychosis, but aside from that, it's not like he has killed anyone
|
|
funkymonkeyesq
|
I'd rather solicitors were rated by the quality of their legal advice, and not their extra-curricular habits. But, I see little to no value in being a "profession", when the fundamental issue of quality control could be handle by consumer protection legislation, or else as a matter of contractual risk in business cases.
|
|
struandirk
|
Do you really think that funky? I mean, (to pick an extreme example), you don't think lawyers are any different from estate agents in that sense?
|
|
funkymonkeyesq
|
I mean, (to pick an extreme example), you don't think lawyers are any different from estate agents in that sense?
No, not at all. We are service providers.
|
|
KingMup
|
Unlike you, Sheikh, I think there's a fairly obvious difference between being a thief and smoking a joint.
|
|
Morning Lark
|
eerr Sheikh I did point this out about other offences so please identify peeps when you are having a swipe. If you mean me then have the balls to say so ta.
As for raising the bar, then I expect the profession has more than its fair share of drug users and time sheet creationists.
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
There must be a difference otherwise the OFT would not have decided Estate Agents do not need regulating (*spits*) whereas solicitors have to put up with about 7 regulatory bodies.
|
|
KingMup
|
Plenty of solicitors have drink driving convictions. Maybe you shoudl take them down next.
|
|
funkymonkeyesq
|
There must be a difference otherwise the OFT would not have decided Estate Agents do not need regulating (*spits*) whereas solicitors have to put up with about 7 regulatory bodies.
Is estate agency a profession?
(Not that any of the above changes my view at all.)
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
ML - eh? I thought we were basically on the same side. No offence meant.
|
|
snafu
|
funky - i'd accept that those of us working in the commercial sector are essentially servive providers but we nevertheless have fiduciary duties which from time to time do kick in and require us to act in a manner consistent with our duties to the court, over and above our clients. estate agents simply don't have that.
but when you look at those in criminal practice, conveyanceing, probate, childcare etc, i'd say the difference is pretty damn clear - it's a completely different relatopnship with clients than an estate agent or plumber etc would have.
|
|
snafu
|
arse - "fiduciary duties and other professional duties..."
|
|
funkymonkeyesq
|
funky - i'd accept that those of us working in the commercial sector are essentially servive providers but we nevertheless have fiduciary duties which from time to time do kick in and require us to act in a manner consistent with our duties to the court, over and above our clients. estate agents simply don't have that.
We may, as it currently stands, have such duties - I guess my question is whether we should have such duties, and, if so, whether they need to take the form of professional regulation, or could be handled in other ways.
but when you look at those in criminal practice, conveyanceing, probate, childcare etc, i'd say the difference is pretty damn clear - it's a completely different relatopnship with clients than an estate agent or plumber etc would have.
I struggle more here - I guess I see no difference between someone who provides me advice on some aspect of technology, and someone who sells my house, for example?
|
|
Morning Lark
|
kk sheikh. probably are.If Louise Woodward gets in then there must be some latitude.
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
King Mup, I would say that a drink driving conviction and any associated pattern of behaviour that point towards a lack of honesty would be relevant. Take a look at what Sir Anthony Clarke MR had to say about it in the Evans v SRA section of the Jidofeo v Law Society case report. Ms Evans had a drink driving conviction and failed to diclose it on her application form. When she realised the Law Society would apply for a CRB check she rang them to own up.
"52. The starting point for an assessment of character and suitability in Ms Evans’ case is her convictions. They are not convictions for dishonesty. Her offences arose out of her consumption of alcohol. They are convictions for offences which do however call into question her integrity, probity and trustworthiness."
and at para 54:
"However, the Law Society was in my judgment entitled to cancel Ms Evans’ enrolment as a student member. While her consumption of alcohol would not in and of itself necessarily call into question her character and suitability to be a student member of the Law Society, her offences committed after the consumption of alcohol do so. Equally, and more seriously, her non-disclosure of her offending to the professional regulator calls into question her character and suitability. Taken together these two factors justify the Law Society’s decision to cancel her student enrolment."
IMHO the SRA would apply the same principle to any qualified solicitor convicted of drink driving.
|
|
KingMup
|
Er, yes if they lied about it. DD doesn't seem to be a major problem in itself for the SRA.
|
|
lonesome cowboy bill
|
I had 'issues' involving the old bill and having to plead guilty in a room full of magistrates many years ago. I disclosed everything prior to the LPC but what the SRA didn't tell me was that when I qualified they were going to withhold by practicing certificate until I gave them a stat dec saying I had paid the fine. You might have thought they would have told me, rather than me having to ask them after waiting for three months for the certificate to arrive. KHUNTS.
|
|
Lord Halifax
|
I got through positive vetting for a sensitive Govt job despite saying that I had communed with the great and good God ganja. All they said was that I had to agree not to smoke it while in the post. They don't care (and can't afford to care) about stuff like that.
|
|
Horatio Hornblower
|
Confronted by the depressingly parochial and smug effluent from Sheikk Yabouti, we can but console ourselves in the knowledge that he is unlikely ever to have had a decent shag in his life.
|
|
Nobby
|
sheikh, it has been a while since I commented on here, but I feel you need some guidance. May I suggest you climb down from your high horse and take a toke or two yourself? You may pure good, pure and honest, but you're so uptight you run a very real risk of being in the ground before you are forty.
Character comes from lessons learned. Some learn lessons later and harder than others, but that doesn't mean they are any less worthy nor trustworthy. Frankly, I'd trust a thirty two year old who is still keen to enter our profession - even though he happened to have been caught with a bit of grass 14 years ago - over someone wound tighter than a duck's chuff.
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
Well Nobby, you do make some sweeping assumptions. Your username suits you.
".. so uptight you run a very real risk of being in the ground before you are forty."
HAHAHA I probably qualified before you were in nappies. I could be your dad. Only your mum really knows.
If you would rather trust the judgement of someone who gave priority to smoking weed above his career prospects go ahead. Maybe he learned his lesson, or maybe he still lacks self-discipline. Too little value is attached nowadays to integrity, probity and professionalism. Maybe that's why the reputation and standing of this profession is turning to sh1t and we are being so heavily over-regulated.
|
|
Nobby
|
If you are older than 40, then I stand corrected only with respect to your age: you remain uptight, a fact well illustrated by your Batman-esque HAHAHA.
The rest of my comment was fundamentally about me and my willingness to give people the benefit of the doubt. I am and always have been open to the real possibility that people can and do change. This is something I thought fundamental to our profession: do we not frequently work to understand, change or in some way influence the views of others?
Incidentally, unless you are in your mid fifties the chances of you being my dad are incredibly slim.
|
|
sheikh yabuti
|
I'm even older than that. Only 2 long-standing Rofers are older than me. Ghost of Partner being one of them. So the answer would depend on (a) did I ever meet your mum, and (b) did we get it on. I'm not too bothered about that now; too many relationships ago.
While we're on the subject, that hornblower fella can spin on it.
|
|
Nobby
|
Then you really ought to be considering the pipe and slippers, not getting wound up by the bright young things on here.
|
|
Torchy
|
oh deary me...
Nobby, I am POSITIVELY ancient and yet I emphatically agreed with your stance on issueof forgiveness and understanding in the professional context [or in any context
|
|
Torchy
|
life is shiitty enough without going out of one’s way to make it worse, and anyway I’d much rather have folks around me who had erred, felt they could have erred if things had been maybe very different in their own lives, or at least were prepared to be open-minded about the erring of others. I would not knowingly employ the tight-assed, thank you very much
|
|
Medvedev
|
didn't the CoA say that a conviction for murder does not prevent someone becoming a solicitor?
also interesting is that giving a false name and address to a police officer when pulled over in the motor is a mere motoring offence and (get this!) not an offence of dishonesty, and therefore does not need to be disclosed to SRA
|
|
Olaf Plori
|
The real test should be not what the CoA thinks, or even the SRA thinks, but what the NOTW or Daily Mail would print about your "previous" and therefore what the clients would think.
|
|
funkymonkeyesq
|
The real test should be letting the market decide.
|
|
Medvedev
|
Gosh, how awful it must be for one to deal with clients that read the News of the World or Daily Mail? One probably has to travel to work on the bus and such like.
|