This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version.
Permanent repository link:
IntroductionThe disciplinary processes governing lawyers have been a defining feature of self-regulation.In many jurisdictions, such processes are being re-shaped to conform to best practice in business regulation. The environment of practice for lawyers continues, however, to be quite different from that of other sectors. A major consideration is the fact that the practice environment is shaped by professionally focused rules and processes, as interpreted and enacted by the main actors: practitioners, organisations and regulators. The performance of these actors helps to determine the strength of the profession compared with other stakeholders, including government. Reform agendas reflect a profession's record on regulatory issues. Periods of crisis or moral panics sometimes lead to reform that is reactive rather than strategic. 2 This paper considers the impact of a major professional scandal. It examines how the key players interacted and how the ethical environment of practice might have affected an individual's propensity for transgression. It also considers how the perceived lessons of the crisis influenced reform in England and Wales.* Andrew Boon, City Law School, London, UK; Avis Whyte, University of Westminster School of Law, London, UK. All drafts were written by Andrew Boon with research assistance and editorial comment from Avis Whyte. We are grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for a grant funding work on lawyer discipline which included work on this article, to Avrom Sherr for suggesting the topic as a case study, and to the interviewees for talking to us about it. We thank Avrom, Rick Abel, David Barnhizer, John Flood, Christine Parker, and the anonymous referees and participants at a session of the Lawyers and Legal The professional scandal became known as the miners' costs (or fees) scandal. It led to the largest disciplinary investigation ever mounted in the jurisdiction. Eventually, over 100 lawyers from around 30 firms faced disciplinary charges, and most were sanctioned. The scale of the charges and the parliamentary furore that surrounded the case suggests that there was widespread and significant dishonesty among solicitors. The analysis in this paper suggests, however, that the affair had the ingredients of a 'moral panic'. This may have led to the high numbers of disciplinary cases and clouded perceptions of the issues. The notoriety of the scandal, and the condemnation of the legal profession it usually evokes, arguably rests on the 'striking off' or suspension of a relatively small number of solicitors. The charges against most of those not struck off arose, however, from misinterpretation of conduct rules that were widely misunderstood, even by the professional regulator. This account is not a defence of those disciplined, or indeed, the profession's handling of the matter, both of which deserve more extended examination. Rather, it is an a...
