A case of dissent

18 May 2020

Sexual misconduct cases continue to divide opinion within the profession and, recently, among the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) panel hearing such a case.

In SRA v Richard Daniel Smith, the respondent was accused of regularly touching the bottom of a relatively junior employee over the course of about five months.

The allegations were found not proved in a majority judgment. Unusually, the solicitor chair of the panel published a dissenting judgment.

As with most cases involving alleged sexual misconduct, the SDT was required to make findings based on its assessment of conflicting witness evidence of the respondent and his accuser. There was little written evidence and limited value in the evidence of ...

Want to read on?

This article is part of our subscription-based access. Please pick one of the options below to continue.
Already registered? Login to access premium content

Single User

  • - 10 issues a year delivered to you
  • - Digital edition of the magazine
  • - Access to premium content
  • - Access to the SJ Archives
  • - Weekly email newsletter
  • - Access to the SJ community online
  • - Advanced search feature
  • - Online support
  • - Access to SJ app- coming soon!
  • - 6 special focuses per year
  • - Special offers on SJ and IICJ events

Corporate User

The Corporate IP Licence is tailored to your firm, making it the most cost effective way for the firm to access Solicitors Journal, and enables the firm to remain compliant with copyright and our Terms and Conditions. This gives you the ability to print and circulate articles within the firm.

To enquire about a Corporate IP Licence for your firm, please contact our Subscriptions Manager on george.miller@solicitorsjournal.com.