Abstract

There are significant differences in the way that regulators treat lawyers and doctors who are found dishonest. Paula Case has found that lawyers are much more likely than doctors to be struck off after a dishonesty finding. This article considers why dishonesty by lawyers is treated more seriously than that of doctors. Analyses of 'trust' in professions make comparisons between doctors and lawyers and invariably report that lawyers are less trusted, but on a flawed basis. However, in the context of interpreting individual cases, practices, and what they say about regulatory approaches or policy, the practical differences between what lawyers and doctors do are rarely commented upon. This undermines the relevance of comparisons that do not recognise the differences and risks missing a deeper understanding of how professions are regulated or how they should be regulated. Ultimately, morality tests are applied