Best of the blogs

By on

Weekly round-up of the top legal blogosphere posts

Out with the old: Time to reform the legal profession for the benefit of all sides [City A.M.]

Is it forgery or fraud? What crime would you commit by lying about where you have been? [A Lawyer Writes]

Why Vernon Bogdanor’s Telegraph piece needed a response – and why the constitution of the United Kingdom does not care about your nostalgia [Law and Policy Blog]

Critics of the ten-year Covid jail term are out of touch [The Spectator] (free, but registration required)

Adam Wagner: For hotel quarantines to be lawful, the Government will need to answer some hard questions [The Telegraph] (free, but registration required)

David Allen Green: Brexit and the Good Friday Agreement [Prospect Magazine]

The 2021 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

Is it a sculpture or a monument? Copyright litigation reaches Russian Supreme Court [The IPKat]

Paths to becoming a lawyer: Your official roadmap to the legal profession goes live [Legal Cheek]

Calling all the reluctant leaders [Legal Business]

Accent bias in the law [Law Society Gazette]

Lawless lawyers: Is dishonesty really worse than a sexual offence? [Legal Futures]

“Absolutely loved this, especially when he said he was happy to move forward!” [Legal Cheek comments]

Event: Secrets to Success London — with Akin Gump, Debevoise & Plimpton, Vinson & Elkins and ULaw [Legal Cheek Events]



Re the Legal Futures piece, when it comes to maintaining the reputation of solicitors and barristers and sustaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession, then yes, dishonesty is worse than a ‘sexual offence’, much worse. That said, some dishonesty cases have been dealt with disproportionately, and strike off should be very much a last resort.
In the courts, a sexual offence may be worse, but that is a different thing. Also, the author of the piece doesn’t seem to fully get across that a conviction is necessary in order to be guilty of an offence and looks only at what (a small minority of) lawyer feel ‘comfortable’ about, rather than the public, which is what ultimately matters.

The BSB has got it about right at the moment, and shouldn’t be bullied into changing it.


Where exactly do you draw the line for believing that dishonesty is worse than ‘sexual offences’?

I would be very happy for the BSB to be ‘bullied’ into stopping any paedophiles from a practice at the Bar.

They don’t exactly need the BSB to ‘ruin’ their professional reputations and make their families upset.

Per Spective

The issue is not about paedophiles is it? It is most of the time about someone who happened to get handsy after drinking too much in the pub. That is the fact pattern in 80 per cent plus of the cases.


So funny that you think the job title ‘barrister’ gives anyone the right to get ‘handsy’ with women in a pub.

It’s like you don’t believe women have a choice to prefer to get ‘handsy’ with a surgeon, hedge fund manager, hot personal trainer or just about anyone else instead.

How very dare they complain!!!!


Nobody suggests it is a right, but people suggest loss of livlihood is perhaps disproportionate.

Join the conversation

Related Stories