Skip Navigation


British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on February 22, 2005
British Journal of Criminology 2005 45(6):810-836; doi:10.1093/bjc/azi014
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/6/810    most recent
azi014v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Middleton, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 45:810-836 (2005)
© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

The Legal and Regulatory Response to Solicitors Involved in Serious Fraud

Is Regulatory Action More Effective than Criminal Prosecution?

David J. Middleton*

* Solicitor, professional address 8 Dormer Place, Leamington Spa, CV32 5AE. The author declares an interest in that he is employed by the Law Society and had personal involvement in some of the cases referred to in this article. The article represents the author’s personal views and not the policy of the Law Society.

The legal and regulatory responses to serious fraud can result in multiple proceedings against the alleged perpetrators. Drawing on a comparison of the regulatory and criminal-justice action taken against solicitors drawn into high-yield investment frauds, empirical evidence of an apparently more effective regulatory response is presented and the problems of multiple or parallel proceedings (including in the civil courts) are considered in the light of recent case law. The differing objectives of regulatory, criminal-justice and civil proceedings are discussed. Ultimately, this article addresses the appropriate legal and regulatory response to dishonesty or serious misconduct by solicitors—an issue which has received little attention in recent years.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.