Thread: Richard Lincoln

I did not question this person's competence, I commented on his suitability.

Personality disorders are pervasive and do not just confine themselves to only certain functions or activities.

A fine point, but you introduced competence as the measure by which suitability is determined - by implying that competence as a lawyer would be affected by him being a "wounded helper" as defined by yourself....

The fact of the matter is that suitability and competence is not bestowed by the Law Society, and to ignore the willing custom and employment opportunities makes a considerable mockery of that general argument.

Diagnosing personality disorders on the basis of your limited knowledge of Mr Lincoln is also inappropriate give the lack of valid information that you have. That would appear to be a job for experts and while your observations may be informed through some experience, mine are also and would have no less validity. Neither of us however would meet the standard for the court to accept either as expert in that area.

Nor has the court had sufficient evidence to justifiably reach that conclusion of unsuitability because no real evidence of ongoing unsuitable behaviour has been submitted. Remember that the court disqualified itself from considering the incidents themselves as being material.

As pointed out, in the role of advocate, legal assistance and competence he is clearly suitable. You must have also missed the "dispassionate" bit as well. The only piece of evidence challenging "personal suitability" was as discussed' a couple of facebook posts, and a historic letter of complaint and that is an absolute joke given its vintage.

That standard for what is a significant penalty despite LS assertions, is at best an absolute reach. There were no laws broken, nor any threats made. Indeed not the smartest response in the world but whether you like it or not, making an observation that someone is a thug and that they might be going to jail, when from personal experience that has been reality, is not dishonest.

Suitability? The court clearly could have reacted differently and wouldn't have been in error, as could have the LS. So on balance to not offer benefit of the doubt to the applicant speaks little as to the value of justice and significantly more to retribution and predjudice.