Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripplinger
I don't think it was a PR stunt. However, I can see why some will still think along those lines.
The attorney is still employed by the same legal firm (I would have expected him to be fired over this); and Rowlings still uses the same legal firm (again, I would have expected her to go elsewhere and stay away from the firm who still employs the blabbermouth).
I think that's why some will always think we're not getting the whole story here. The attorney basically got a slap on the wrist and the firm donated to a charity, and everyone seems off the hook.
|
Sounds even more of a reason to think it was a PR stunt, then.
Quote:
Rebuke
Where we are satisfied that a firm or individual has failed to comply with the SRA Principles, we may give a written rebuke. This power does not apply to non-compliance occurring wholly before 1 June 2010. In those cases we may impose a different type of disciplinary sanction; either a reprimand or severe reprimand. Both the decision to issue the sanction and the decision to publish can be appealed at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
We may publish the details if we consider it is in the public interest to do so. A decision to publish is a separate decision to the decision to impose the sanction.
|
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/soli...s.page#rebukes
Oh dear! He got a note in his permanent file...
