Ex-Addleshaws partner could face £20k fine over expenses saga

  • Print
  • Comments (5)

Readers' comments (5)

  • Why is it that someone earning £100k+ at such a high position as a partner needs to defraud his own firm? And that too, to cover expenses. Is it just greed?

    In other news, its still hard for students to get training contracts; who is to blame the Law society washing machine of churning as many students as possible or the student?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • “Solicitors working in the City of London work much longer hours than those the solicitor would have worked,” said panel chair Mr A Ghosh.

    Given the preceeding para above mentioned 16 hour days 6 days a week, has something been lost in translation?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They DIDN'T (as I understand it) defraud their firm or their clients (other than in the admitted misdescription - there was no monetary loss): having read the SDT proceedings on Peters and Wilson, it appears that for some unknowable reason, they had described expenses (eg taxis, travel & subsistence) properly incurred (and properly chargeable to clients) as photocopying and stationery. Accordingly, the fines, costs orders - and public opprobium they have had to endure - seems like a full and adequate punishmernt for the 'crime'...

    Mind you, there's a niggling voice in my head wondering about potentially different VAT treatments of those categories of expenses, in which case it rather points to an internal recognition that describing expenses in certain ways is 'better' (self-evidently, it is not), but I'm also quite sure I'm incorrect, since I know nothing whatsoever about VAT...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous at 3.15pm - What if the solicitor perceived that a client might take issue with taxis and subsistence, but not take issue with photocopying charges? It is quite unattractive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anyone else spot the sweet coincidence that the chair's surname just happens to be the same as the leading case on dishonesty......R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (5)