The relevance of the past

Should a lawyer's disciplinary history be taken into account for purposes of developing their character and ensuring their continuing licensure? Or is the past the past and irrelevant to the issue of their periodic practising certificate? And what of clients' views about their lawyers' character, specifically their sense of ethics? Past histories have always had a minor role in lawyers' ethics, but clients' opinions have always been seen as too unreliable. Nevertheless, both mechanisms could promote lawyers' improved character well beyond presently accepted norms.

If it is accepted that continuing licensure of all lawyers is not a mere formality; for example, when a regulator seeks evidence of adequate mental health after a complaint or report is received, then it is logical to also consider whether ongoing disciplinary problems should be taken into account when re-licensing. The majority of lawyers in most countries will not have these problems, but there is a smaller group in most jurisdictions who have one or two minor offences every year or so, and an even smaller cohort who are repeatedly prosecuted by their law societies (or other regulator) and who do not appear to learn quickly from these encounters: in particular, those who fail to answer regulator requests for information when complaints are made or who have repeated problems with trust account verification. These lawyers are likely to benefit from some sort of remedial attention before their minor problems become major.