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'.

he'll need a good explanation as to why he was so stupid as to get caught.

welly the same can be said of anyone who has ever eaten at mcdonalds

@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

@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.

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.

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 - 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.

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.

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?

Unlike you, Sheikh, I think there's a fairly obvious difference between being a thief and smoking a joint.

Plenty of solicitors have drink driving convictions. Maybe you shoudl take them down next.

ML - eh? I thought we were basically on the same side. No offence meant.

arse - "fiduciary duties and other professional duties..."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then you really ought to be considering the pipe and slippers, not getting wound up by the bright young things on here.

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

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.