Solicitor struck off after dodging £650 in rail fares

Adlington · 4 Feb 2019

A solicitor faces “catastrophic” damage to his career after being struck off by the regulator for dodging £650 in rail fares.

[name suppressed] repeatedly avoided paying the £17 daily return fare from his home in Shoreditch to Redhill in Surrey by leaving the station through an exit without barriers. But he was caught after being stopped by a Govia Thameslink Railway ticket inspector who discovered he had been avoiding rail fares for three months.

[the solicitor] was then sacked by his law firm and reported himself to regulator the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Govia reached a settlement of £849.90 with Kemeny and did not report him to the police.

A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard [the solicitor] had “deep regret” for his actions and acknowledged any prosecution for his failure to pay the fares “would have a catastrophic effect on my career and ability to earn in the future.”

He told the tribunal he was “deeply ashamed of and remorseful for this total lapse of judgement” and apologised for his actions.

Judge Interjit Johalf [from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal] said [the solicitor] broke two Solicitor Regulation Authority principles by lacking integrity and diminishing the trust in him to provide legal services.

[the solicitor] was struck off and ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.

It's debatable whether the punishment is proportional to the offence.

RailUK Forums

Clip · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
It's debatable whether the punishment is proportional to the offence.

Im not sure what you mean by this - Solicitors sign up to a code of conduct and bunking train fares certainly shows that the person cannot be trusted.

What would you think was an appropriate punishment for someone like this? Remember he could be defending someone in a case that involves you - does that now change your mind about them and their punishment?

gordonthemoron · 4 Feb 2019

what a foolish thing to do, doesn't really explain how he got away with it for so long though

Adlington · 4 Feb 2019

It does explain:

by leaving the station through an exit without barriers

Why did it take so long for ticket inspectors to catch him and/or close the gateless exit?

DarloRich · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
It's debatable whether the punishment is proportional to the offence.

of course it is proportionate! This was an offence of dishonesty and one that breaches several legal regulatory rules.

big all · 4 Feb 2019

would you trust your affairs possibly worth hundreds and thousands to some one who thinks stealing is ok ???

Adlington · 4 Feb 2019

big all said:
some one who thinks steeling is ok ???

I don't expect solicitors to do any steeling

big all · 4 Feb 2019

now corrected

jamesst · 4 Feb 2019

If you can't do the time don't do the crime, simple as!

PeterC · 4 Feb 2019

gordonthemoron said:
what a foolish thing to do, doesn't really explain how he got away with it for so long though

Commuting against the peak flow. I would assume that RPI resources are more likely to be concentrated on the major passenger flows.

Macwomble · 4 Feb 2019

He knew the risks, and probable consequences, of getting caught. He got caught now must accept those consequences.
Simples.

swt_passenger · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
The Evening Standard reports:It's debatable whether the punishment is proportional to the offence.

Why have you found it necessary to redact Adam Kemeny’s name from a newspaper article?

Bertie the bus · 4 Feb 2019

He hasn't redacted it very well either as he's left his surname in the quotation a couple of times.

As for the solicitor - he got what he deserved. Lapse of judgement? Repeated behaviour over 3 months.

It does however show how morally dubious TOCs coming to out of court settlements is. It is obviously in the public interest for a dishonest solicitor to be prosecuted but GTR took the money instead.

RichJF · 4 Feb 2019

Knowing Redhill well, I suspect it's the back entrance at Platform 3. A wide brick alley way that's too wide for a single barrier, but too narrow for 2 barriers. Quite easy to get out there without having your ticket checked!

Adlington · 4 Feb 2019

Looking at the opinions of the majority of the contributors I infer that the popular vote is for the punishment to depend on the offender's occupation, and not solely on the offence. Would you say that a teacher, or an estate agent, or a journalist, caught in a similar act also deserves a banishment from his/her profession, on top of a financial penalty?

Clip · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
Looking at the opinions of the majority of the contributors I infer that the popular vote is for the punishment to depend on the offender's occupation, and not solely on the offence. Would you say that a teacher, or an estate agent, or a journalist, caught in a similar act also deserves a banishment from his/her profession, on top of a financial penalty?

Apart from a teacher in your list I would hazard a guess that the other dont have to be bound to a specific code of generally being whiter than white to commence or continue their employment - you seem to miss the fact they they were a brief for some reason and the trust that they must gain from others - bunking the train doesnt gain that trust.

Islineclear3_1 · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
The Evening Standard reports:It's debatable whether the punishment is proportional to the offence.

Why is it debatable?

The solicitor is/was in a priviledged position of trust. If he acted dishonesly, and not once but on several occasions, then he deserved everything he got

Islineclear3_1 · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
Looking at the opinions of the majority of the contributors I infer that the popular vote is for the punishment to depend on the offender's occupation, and not solely on the offence. Would you say that a teacher, or an estate agent, or a journalist, caught in a similar act also deserves a banishment from his/her profession, on top of a financial penalty?

Why not? Wasn't just a one-off. The relevant governing bodies of most professions would take a dim view.

Bertie the bus · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
Looking at the opinions of the majority of the contributors I infer that the popular vote is for the punishment to depend on the offender's occupation, and not solely on the offence. Would you say that a teacher, or an estate agent, or a journalist, caught in a similar act also deserves a banishment from his/her profession, on top of a financial penalty?

If you enter professions such as law or finance you know you are expected to maintain standards of honesty far greater than those expected of a labourer. If you can’t meet those expectations you should pursue a different career, so yes his job does have some bearing on how he should be judged and punished and I have no sympathy.

OxtedSignaller · 4 Feb 2019

To me its all been released to send a message especially at Redhill where the back entrance is wide open, similar to Worthing and unlike any other operator they never seem to have blocks and check tickets there especially in the rush hour. Southern Rail Fraud Inspectors (the very small number they have off) are booked off by 3pm. Obviously Thameslink now run a huge number of trains through Redhill so perhaps they will be enforcing it more as they generally do. How did he enter the railway at Shoreditch is that ungated as well?

furnessvale · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
Looking at the opinions of the majority of the contributors I infer that the popular vote is for the punishment to depend on the offender's occupation, and not solely on the offence. Would you say that a teacher, or an estate agent, or a journalist, caught in a similar act also deserves a banishment from his/her profession, on top of a financial penalty?

What would you say if it was a police officer?

Adlington · 4 Feb 2019

The same

farleigh · 4 Feb 2019

I don't agree that he should lose his job.

What does that achieve? He has been caught and there was an agreed settlement.

Too easy to label a person as 'dishonest' and send them to the scrapheap with no opportunity of redemption.

DarloRich · 4 Feb 2019

Adlington said:
Looking at the opinions of the majority of the contributors I infer that the popular vote is for the punishment to depend on the offender's occupation, and not solely on the offence. Would you say that a teacher, or an estate agent, or a journalist, caught in a similar act also deserves a banishment from his/her profession, on top of a financial penalty?

there are very particular rules that govern a persons registration as a solicitor. They are very clearly known to all who are enrolled. The punishments for transgressing those rules are also very clear. The solicitor holds a position of trust within society and that trust requires compliance with a heightened standard of behaviour. The report indicates the tribunal found that the person was "lacking integrity and diminishing the trust in him to provide legal services." Short of nicking client money that is about the most serious disciplinary "offence" a solicitor can commit.

What happens to people in other roles is immaterial. Solicitors know the rules they are bound by. I don't understand how you can imagine this is an unfair punishment.

PS you can find the SRA code of conduct here: You can find the code of conduct here: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page EVERY solicitor has a copy of this in his or her draw.

farleigh said:
I don't agree that he should lose his job.

What does that achieve? He has been caught and there was an agreed settlement.

Too easy to label a person as 'dishonest' and send them to the scrapheap with no opportunity of redemption.

They are not being struck off from life! They are being punished for transgressing the standard of behaviour required to hold a position of trust. That doesn't mean they cant work again in another field and make a good living. They have some pretty decent transferable skills after all!

Emblematic · 4 Feb 2019

farleigh said:
I don't agree that he should lose his job.

What does that achieve? He has been caught and there was an agreed settlement.

Too easy to label a person as 'dishonest' and send them to the scrapheap with no opportunity of redemption.

I would advise against seeking any role in the legal or financial industries if you expect this level of understanding. There is zero tolerance of dishonesty. During my time working at banks, I have known two colleagues who had their careers ended by being summarily dismissed for petty theft. No-one employed or working professionally in such a position of trust is under any illusion that dishonesty will be tolerated.

Islineclear3_1 · 4 Feb 2019

farleigh said:
I don't agree that he should lose his job.

What does that achieve? He has been caught and there was an agreed settlement.

Too easy to label a person as 'dishonest' and send them to the scrapheap with no opportunity of redemption.

He clearly defrauded the railway which shows an act of intent.

He did this on numerous occasions and would probably would have carried on had he not been caught

This sends out a clear message that repeated fare evasion will not be tolerated

If you were the magistrate/judge, what would you deem an appropriate punishment? Railway community service, e.g. sweeping platforms, cleaning trains...?

Bertie the bus · 4 Feb 2019

farleigh said:
I don't agree that he should lose his job.

What does that achieve? He has been caught and there was an agreed settlement.

Too easy to label a person as 'dishonest' and send them to the scrapheap with no opportunity of redemption.

You’re correct. It is easy to label dishonest people as being dishonest. Easy and correct.

Why do you think solicitors have to abide by a code of conduct? It’s not as though it’s there to protect their clients from unscrupulous or dishonest practitioners or anything trivial like that is it?

AM9 · 4 Feb 2019

As a licenced solicitor, he would display a certificate with the words:

In the Supreme Court of England and Wales I am satisfied that Adam Kemeny (or whatever full name he used)
has complied with the training regulations of the Law Society and is of suitable character to be a solicitor and is therefore admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court.
Dated and signed by the Master of the Rolls and the Chief Executive of the Law Society

Now, jokes apart, that is a pretty serious endorsement of a person's integrity. The odd parking offence can be excused but serial theft would make a mockery of the status of all solicitors if offences were shrugged of a just being "unlucky" or even "well he got fined so it's wiped clean now".
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

LeeLivery · 4 Feb 2019

big all said:
would you trust your affairs possibly worth hundreds and thousands to some one who thinks stealing is ok ???

There's a lot of people who would say "yes" to that. Not everyone wants a holier than thou legal team.

But yes, he's an idiot.

Robertj21a · 4 Feb 2019

farleigh said:
I don't agree that he should lose his job.

What does that achieve? He has been caught and there was an agreed settlement.

Too easy to label a person as 'dishonest' and send them to the scrapheap with no opportunity of redemption.

I think most people would accept that he should lose his job. He is a qualified professional who we should expect, at the very least, to be a law-abiding citizen. For a solicitor, of all people, to *continually* and *deliberately* defraud a company is most certainly an offence requiring dismissal.

Solicitor struck off after dodging £650 in rail fares

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation