Letters roundup: 9 December 2022

Sixty and out

One of my more exciting moments at the Law Society’s School of Law came after a few weeks of the intermediate course. One day we were corralled into the basement to hear a speech from the president of the Society himself; a grand moment, as at the time the president was given an automatic knighthood. Some of us, he said, would go on to great things in the profession and some would fall by the wayside. My recollection is that he said some of us would go to prison – or worse, be struck off.

I cannot remember any of my crop going on to these great things, although one did become a coroner. Another fell in love with a jump jockey and nearly killed herself in a point-to-point. She was later struck off. Certainly, several went to prison.

On the plus side, several became successful property developers.

Now, after 60 years, I am about to be struck off myself. When I achieved 50 years in the profession I received a certificate which congratulated me on my fidelity and a letter saying I did not have to pay an annual fee. Recently, I received another letter saying I will have to pony up an annual fee after all.

I know times are hard, but really. The savings must be nugatory, as the number of us left who qualified for this munificence must dwindle every year. To take away this modest recognition is insulting. I would rather be struck off than pay, and that is what will happen in March.

I shall at least be in good company, joining a former president who had stripped his clients of several thousands of pounds to buy shares in failing coalfields and, more recently, a solicitor who used a disabled parking badge to which he was not entitled.

James Morton

Solicitor (and long-time Gazette columnist), Barnet

Inclusivity illusion

Highlighting efforts to include people with disabilities in law ( ‘Taking control’, 25 November) is misleading, because the rules of the legal professions effectively forbid people, solely on the basis of their disability, from being lawyers. The way the fitness-to-practise rules work bars people with certain forms of cognitive (for example, autism) or mental health disorders from joining the law. This should be highlighted in large print at the start of every talk on disability and the law. Failing to do so gives false hope to people – like me – who waste years studying law, only to later be told that the legal professions work to exclude people with certain disabilities from joining.

Failing to broach this may make people feel better about their profession but it harms the most vulnerable. It also prevents a frank discussion about reforming discriminatory rules. As I endure the indignity of a fitness-to-practise tribunal, I am left to conclude that those touting the professions’ inclusivity are leaving out a crucial corollary to the idea of ‘Everyone is included’: ‘Everyone but you and people with your disabilities’.

Elijah Granet

London NW1