An interesting case reported today from the SDT – allowing rare anonymity to the perpetrator of non-financial misconduct at a law firm. One assumes the medical evidence was so stark that it convinced two of the three panellists to grant the application.

My view is that others in the profession facing similar charges should not take too much comfort from this ruling – as there are still plenty who can attest to the impact of being named and thereafter shamed.

That said, there are ways to handle this type of spotlight and much will depend on the prior reputation of the accused among colleagues and the profession at large.