Dishonesty is ‘a blunt and inflexible tool’ when judging a solicitor’s behaviour and should not form the central question for a tribunal, a regulation specialist writes in this week’s NLJ.
Last week the Court of Appeal, ruling in two conjoined cases on disciplinary proceedings brought against solicitors, Wingate v SRA; SRA v Malins [2018] EWCA Civ 366, overturned Mr Justice Mostyn’s ruling that integrity and honesty are conceptually the same thing.
John Gould, senior partner of Russell-Cooke, which acted for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), said: ‘The Court of Appeal has now provided the definitive approach to integrity for professionals.
‘Professions are to be held to a standard of integrity that is above the everyday standard of honesty. It is not enough simply not to be a crook.’
Writing in a new NLJ series on navigating the challenges of regulation, Gould draws a distinction between honesty and integrity and explains why it is better to use the latter as it is the ‘higher standard of a particular profession’ whereas honesty is ‘a single standard applicable to all members of society’.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
