Solicitor struck off after dodging £650 in rail fares

[DarloRich]

I never said I did know , and in my original post I said I was neither way . All I said is that lawyers represent people that are clearly guilty. That in itself is dishonest.

it isnt. Please try to understand the concepts involved. The rules that govern solicitors conduct, which you refuse to read, deal with this kind of situation.

 

[baz962]

it isnt. Please try to understand the concepts involved. The rules that govern solicitors conduct, which you refuse to read, deal with this kind of situation.

Well tell me then , I'm open to learning .

 

[Darandio]

Well tell me then , I'm open to learning .

They have already provided you with all the documentation you need, why do they need to tell you?

 

[DarloRich]

Well tell me then , I'm open to learning .

Do some research. I am sure a google on the terms "HOW CAN YOU DEFEND SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS GUILTY" will help no end. There will be loads of stuff to read.

it isnt for me to tell you what to think. You have to make up your own mind. It helps if you base that decision on a wide basis of fact.

 

[baz962]

Do some research. I am sure a google on the terms "HOW CAN YOU DEFEND SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS GUILTY" will help no end. There will be loads of stuff to read.

it isnt for me to tell you what to think. You have to make up your own mind. It helps if you base that decision on a wide basis of fact.

Missing the point. I have googled and had a read of the sra. I know that they are supposed to refuse to defend if known that the client is guilty , but in reality it does not happen. There are many cases where the defendant is obviously guilty , the lawyer could claim they don't really know , yet the whole world knows they are. If lawyers did what they were supposed to do then a lot of people would get no representation.

 

[radamfi]

Is he likely to get another job, even outside the law profession? How is he going to get his references and explain how he left the last job?

 

[cuccir]

We are going off on a tangent, alebit an interesting one.

There are many cases where the defendant is obviously guilty , the lawyer could claim they don't really know , yet the whole world knows they are.

But the point is that lawyers are trained to not make these assumptions, or if they make them, to leave them aside and carry out their professional duty. They may think that Johnny Nicksstuff is guilty, but if he asserts his innocence against overwhelming evidence, then the lawyers has to believe that. And there are further nuances - someone may be guilty of a crime, but not the one which they are accused, for example. Or, it's possible to act on someone's behalf and test the evidence; or, where someone has admitted guilt to some but not all of the charges against them, to defend them in a trial against those charges etc etc.

The Secret Barrister has a nice summary of this issue

9. How can you defend someone you know is guilty?

Quite easily. If they tell me they are guilty, I will strongly advise them to plead guilty. If they refuse and insist on running a trial, as is their right, I am strictly limited in what I can say on their behalf. I cannot assert anything in court that I know not to be true. So in that example, I can “test” the prosecution evidence (i.e. point out holes or inconsistencies in the prosecution case and suggest to a jury that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt), but I cannot positively assert something false (i.e. my client did not do X, where he has told me that he has). If the evidence against a client is overwhelming, but in the face of the evidence and all common sense they instruct me that they are not guilty, then I will fight their corner at trial. Finally, if someone has pleaded guilty or been convicted after trial, I can defend them by representing them at their sentence hearing and putting forward mitigation on their behalf.

Returning to the original topic...

Is he likely to get another job, even outside the law profession? How is he going to get his references and explain how he left the last job?

The answer I suspect is that he's going to have some awkward job interviews! But it's up to employers really; some may not care about the crime, or he may express remorse, or they may view that sufficient time has passed for someone's character to have changed. Loads of people with criminal convictions have jobs, some of them having very good jobs. If he's otherwise an attractive candidate for a job, then in the fullness of time someone is likely to offer him a chance.

 

[baz962]

We are going off on a tangent, alebit an interesting one.



But the point is that lawyers are trained to not make these assumptions, or if they make them, to leave them aside and carry out their professional duty. They may think that Johnny Nicksstuff is guilty, but if he asserts his innocence against overwhelming evidence, then the lawyers has to believe that. And there are further nuances - someone may be guilty of a crime, but not the one which they are accused, for example. Or, it's possible to act on someone's behalf and test the evidence; or, where someone has admitted guilt to some but not all of the charges against them, to defend them in a trial against those charges etc etc.

The Secret Barrister has a nice summary of this issue



Returning to the original topic...



The answer I suspect is that he's going to have some awkward job interviews! But it's up to employers really; some may not care about the crime, or he may express remorse, or they may view that sufficient time has passed for someone's character to have changed. Loads of people with criminal convictions have jobs, some of them having very good jobs. If he's otherwise an attractive candidate for a job, then in the fullness of time someone is likely to offer him a chance.

And I agree with everything you just said. Just my opinion though that if you know Jonny nicksstuff is guilty , but are trained to overlook it and believe he is innocent , that is in itself dishonest , albeit allowed . Legal dishonesty , but in my opinion dishonest.

 

[aye2beeviasea]

Missing the point. I have googled and had a read of the sra. I know that they are supposed to refuse to defend if known that the client is guilty , but in reality it does not happen. There are many cases where the defendant is obviously guilty , the lawyer could claim they don't really know , yet the whole world knows they are. If lawyers did what they were supposed to do then a lot of people would get no representation.

You haven't got the slightest idea of what a solicitor actually is, or actually does.

First of all, most solicitors don't have anything to do with criminal law.

Those who do, and who represent defendants, don't tell the court whether their clients are guilty or not. How would they know? Unless they were there at the time and witnessed the events, in which case they wouldn't be representing the client in the first place!

It's their job to put their clients case before the court. They're not stating it as a fact, they're telling the court 'this is what my client says happened'. They'll often have their own personal opinions about how likely that is to be true, but their own personal opinions are irrelevant.

If the defendant is 'obviously guilty' - maybe even because they pleaded guilty in the first place and the hearing is about sentencing - then that'll be 'obvious' to the court too. Who will make up theiir own minds based on the evidence given. The solicitor has no magical powers of omniscience.

In the rare situations where a solicitor knows as a fact that their client's case is a lie, they will withdraw. As explained in the links that are too much trouble for you to read.

 

[Antman]

No law company, and I mean absolutely none, of any standing or size is going to commit reputational suicide by employing a self-admitted thief/fraudster. It just isn't going to happen.

Bit over the top isn't it? He hasn't actually stolen anything he has used a service and not paid for it. I'm not excusing what he did but I think it needs to be kept in perspective.

 

[swt_passenger]

Point taken but I can't wondering how the conversation went after he was asked for a ticket, "I haven't got one, I'm bunking the fare and have been doing so for the last three months"?

Possibility?
Q. How do you get into the paid area at Shoreditch?
A. I use an Oyster card.
Q. Would you mind us checking the journey history?
A. There seems to be 3 months record of incomplete journeys...
etc etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Bit over the top isn't it? He hasn't actually stolen anything ; he has used a service and not paid for it.

I wonder what a judge would rule had you made that statement as Council for the Defence?

 

[baz962]

You haven't got the slightest idea of what a solicitor actually is, or actually does.

First of all, most solicitors don't have anything to do with criminal law.

Those who do, and who represent defendants, don't tell the court whether their clients are guilty or not. How would they know? Unless they were there at the time and witnessed the events, in which case they wouldn't be representing the client in the first place!

It's their job to put their clients case before the court. They're not stating it as a fact, they're telling the court 'this is what my client says happened'. They'll often have their own personal opinions about how likely that is to be true, but their own personal opinions are irrelevant.

If the defendant is 'obviously guilty' - maybe even because they pleaded guilty in the first place and the hearing is about sentencing - then that'll be 'obvious' to the court too. Who will make up theiir own minds based on the evidence given. The solicitor has no magical powers of omniscience.

In the rare situations where a solicitor knows as a fact that their client's case is a lie, they will withdraw. As explained in the links that are too much trouble for you to read.

Seeing as I said in a previous post I read it , now whos guilty of not bothering to read. I didn't say in every event. I didn't say it was fact , just my opinion. I said that if you know a client is lying , but by experience etc and evidence , not because you know by fact , in my OPINION , defending the indefensible is to me a form of dishonesty.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Something not mentioned is why he didn't buy season tickets for his daily commute. According to his statement, he started evading the full fare when he spotted people leaving Redhill through an exit without ticket barriers. But wouldn't even a weekly season have been cheaper than two singles five days a week?

Redhill is, I gather, one of the out of town Oyster extensions, but even so, isn't a season cheaper?

 

[radamfi]

Possibility?
Q. How do you get into the paid area at Shoreditch?
A. I use an Oyster card.
Q. Would you mind us checking the journey history?
A. There seems to be 3 months record of incomplete journeys...
etc etc.

Aren't incomplete journeys allowed if you have a Travelcard on the Oyster?

 

[swt_passenger]

Aren't incomplete journeys allowed if you have a Travelcard on the Oyster?

Yes but it still shows the pattern of use. Note that TfLs published terms and conditions DO require touch in and out with travelcard seasons, it just doesn’t normally get enforced.

 

[yorkie]

Aren't incomplete journeys allowed if you have a Travelcard on the Oyster?

Yes, perfectly allowable to combine a Travelcard on Oyster with a paper extension ticket.

 

[Llanigraham]

I never said I did know , and in my original post I said I was neither way . All I said is that lawyers represent people that are clearly guilty. That in itself is dishonest.

I'm sorry, but your knowledge of the way English and Welsh Law and how it is adjudicated by solicitors, lawyers and barristers is severely lacking.
As others have suggested please do some research into it before you make further comments.

 

[Llanigraham]

Missing the point. I have googled and had a read of the sra. I know that they are supposed to refuse to defend if known that the client is guilty , but in reality it does not happen. There are many cases where the defendant is obviously guilty , the lawyer could claim they don't really know , yet the whole world knows they are. If lawyers did what they were supposed to do then a lot of people would get no representation.

In Law no defendant is guilty until the Court makes that decision or unless they plead Guilty.
That is the whole concept of UK Law; "Innocent until proven guilty".

 

[Antman]

I wonder what a judge would rule had you made that statement as Council for the Defence?

Well it's a statement of fact.

 

[jumble]

He knew the rules of his professional/regulatory body when he signed up to it. Solicitors along with others such as accountants, simply can't have convictions for fraud/dishonesty etc. It's pretty fundamental in professionals reliant upon honesty.

Exactly
I was a Scout group treasurer for a few years
I did not want to and had no unsupervised contact with the children
The Scout association insisted on an Enhanced CRB ( back in the day)
The opportunities for dishonest handling of money were pretty much zero as the turnover was so low but they needed to satisfy themselves I was a person of integrity.
Jumble

 

[Adam Williams]

Remember he could be defending someone in a case that involves you - does that now change your mind about them and their punishment?

Not really, no. Contrary to popular belief, solicitors are human too! Humans make mistakes. I don't see why that needs to destroy a career, and at the end of the day it's their job to provide the best possible defence for their client.

From my time in information security I worked extensively with some folks who'd done ethically questionable things in the past. It didn't affect their ability to do their job and in some cases was probably a factor in their career path and current technical expertise. I'd have different views if they did something questionable during the course of work with a client.

 

[sprunt]

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.

No you aren't. A labourer isn't allowed to do anything that a solicitor isn't allowed to do. The only difference is the consequences.

I have seen the removal of dishonest PCs and their feet don't touch the floor.

Well, that or they're promoted to Commissioner of the Met a few years down the line...

Yes but it still shows the pattern of use.

One that would be fairly easily explained away if you put a bit of thought into a scam you're running - "Yes, I touch in to get through the barriers at Shoreditch then exit at [name of appropriate barrier free station you've researched earlier]."

 

[GB]

I wonder what a judge would rule had you made that statement as Council for the Defence?

In the eyes of the law it is not theft so would not be charged and tried as such. Therefore there would be no need for such a defense/statement.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Not really, no. Contrary to popular belief, solicitors are human too! Humans make mistakes. I don't see why that needs to destroy a career, and at the end of the day it's their job to provide the best possible defence for their client.

A one-off "might" be a mistake but repeated evasion!? Are you serious!?

 

[Antman]

Perhaps it's time to reassess that approach though.

For example, in many cases, a solicitor is there to prove innocence.
Even if the solicitor (with a "normal person" hat on) knows the party is guilty... they'd still argue their innocence and point out holes in the prosecution.

That doesn't sound like a trustworthy person to me.

But I also note that many solicitors will argue the crime wasn't that bad, thus admittance of guilt.

The way you look at it is - you do your best in defence to make sure the conviction is solid - that they did it. If you do a good job and they still get convicted, then you have best served justice. Guilt has to be found by a court. Not by a solicitor/barrister deciding their client probably did it, so why bother putting a shift in.... Your latter point (crime not that bad) is mainly around mitigation - getting a lesser punishment

 

[mde]

Bit over the top isn't it? He hasn't actually stolen anything he has used a service and not paid for it. I'm not excusing what he did but I think it needs to be kept in perspective.

Using a service but not paying for it is theft, no?

In any case, it's notable that Govia Thameslink Railway didn't take legal action, but, instead, offered a settlement. The much higher penalty has occurred because Mr Kemeny's regulator has found that he broke their principles and acted dishonestly, to which he has admitted. I suggest reading the judgement that @Romilly has previously linked to. where the panel's findings are outlined, along with the reasoning for their decision.

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files-sdt/11845.2018.Kemeny.pdf

 

[Clip]

Not really, no. Contrary to popular belief, solicitors are human too! Humans make mistakes. I don't see why that needs to destroy a career, and at the end of the day it's their job to provide the best possible defence for their client.

Yep humans make mistakes and with those mistakes come consequences - he knew the consequences of his actions which is why he threw himself at the mercy of his employer - and now he has to live with them.

From my time in information security I worked extensively with some folks who'd done ethically questionable things in the past. It didn't affect their ability to do their job and in some cases was probably a factor in their career path and current technical expertise. I'd have different views if they did something questionable during the course of work with a client.

Maybe so if you are talking about hackers but we are not - we are talking about a professional who signed up to a code of conduct when he completed his degree and then threw it all down the pan by thinking he was clever and repeatedley refused to pay the correct fare for his journey. All premeditated too.

 

[etr221]

Using a service but not paying for it is theft, no?

No it isn't: 'theft' is term defined in law (Theft Act). Using a service but not paying for it may - depending on service and circumstances - be criminal, illegal, dishonest and/or immoral, but it is not theft, within the meaning of the Act.

 

[Eccles1983]

It's not theft.

It's fraud. Obtaining a service dishonesty or deceptively.

Fraud act 2006