LCRO 111/2024 MS v PC (24 March 2025) [pdf, 273 KB]
...regulated services outside the role in which one is primarily employed. [51] The fact that the respondent remained nominally employed by the company is not determinative. He could be regarded as an in-house lawyer. There is nothing magic in a job title. [52] I consider that the respondent has trodden a very fine line here. He did not necessarily do so intentionally at the time, although his comment about intentional avoidance of reference to a “client” and the lack of any other...