Career Clinic: Will a train fare fine derail my job hunt?

I would like to think that any serious employer would not turn away an otherwise solid candidate (be it on paper, interview or both) on the basis of one skipped train fare, which you have been honest enough to declare on the application form. Just be prepared for plenty of exaggerated "a crime is a crime" and "are you sure you're in the right profession if you are willing to steal" comments.

Anon -12 Mar 2009 | 09:10

It depends why you did not pay your fare; if it was inadvertent or because eg there were no staff at the ticket office, that is very different from a deliberate intention to avoid paying. In the former case there would be no problem but in the latter, there is dishonesty which would harm your career prospects. But if you are not asked the question, why volunteer to disclose it?

Percy -12 Mar 2009 | 10:37

The reality is that it's tough enough in this market for anyone to land a TC. Unless you have a spectacular academic record or some other redeeming track record, with a dishonesty conviction against you, your chances of getting a TC with a good firm are probably as good as nil. By all means see if you can land one, but if you don't, it is probably not wise to embark on the CPE and hope to find a TC. The real problem is that you may be disqualified from so many other jobs, it is not just a legal career that requires a clean criminal record.

May -12 Mar 2009 | 11:49

This will count as a criminal record - it's a pity that you didn't just pay the penalty fare rather than letting it go to court. However, as someone else said, if you simply got on the train without a ticket because the machine wasn't working or because you would have otherwise missed your train, then say so. Personally I find the train companies' rules bizarre and feel they should sell tickets on the trains, and there may be others who think so. The problem is as someone else said, that criminal records checks are required for so many other jobs, mainly where you are working with children and even though this does not in any way affect your suitability to work with children, it would come up on your record and could count against you. I would make efforts to land a TC before incurring the expense of the CPE and LPC. This is a real fix to be in and you have my sympathy (assuming that you didn't simply not pay your fare, in which case you were silly in the extreme).

Helen -12 Mar 2009 | 13:13

Dont compound a stupid mistake by pursuing the CPE/LPC without a TC. I would be shocked if you make it through to the interview stage given this. Why give an interview to you in these circumstances when there will be a dozen people also applying with no such blemishes. Its difficult to stand out from the crowd these days but I think you managed it, and it will do you little good sadly. Best of luck, everyone deserves a second shot after all, but I think you have had a shocker here unless there is some innocent explanation.

Robert, Associate -12 Mar 2009 | 16:02

Of course it will - if you out it on your application! Ask yourself - what sort of checks are going to be carried out? Do they do CRB checks at law firms?

Consultant -12 Mar 2009 | 16:11

Ignore the consultant, clearly they are anything but. Let's not get carried away here, but terrible, terrible advice.

John -12 Mar 2009 | 16:21

I must admit I enjoyed reading all the melodramatic points above. However I can't imagine anyone cares one jot if you got a minor fine. As people have said, it'll count against you if you say 'I took a chance' - but equally if you argue that there wasn't a ticket machine that worked and you contested your fine they may see it as a positive.

Postmodernist -12 Mar 2009 | 16:51

Don't be a fool! If that's the worst thing you ever did you sound a damn sight more honest than a number of people I know who are employed.

Mr T -12 Mar 2009 | 17:31

Surely you will have to declare this to the SRA who take dishonest activity very seriously, and you will have to show it was inadvertent and not deliberate? The fact that it was only last year will definitely not look good.

Anonymous -12 Mar 2009 | 18:32

Remind them that Cherie Blair also failed to pay her rail fare... it was no hindrance to her career as a judge and barrister!

Frodo -13 Mar 2009 | 08:57

Many years ago I was staying at a house where, unknown to me, the owner of the TV had forgotten to renew his licence some three weeks previously. I opened the door to a licence inspector and ended up being convicted in a magistrates court for watching television without a licence. Five years later I was obliged to disclose this to the Law Society when seeking membership and they gave me a REALLY hard time about it, wrote to my employers for statements that they were aware of the position (they were and thought it hilarious), insisted I provide them with all the court papers including my plea in mitigation, and then wrote me a snotty letter about bringing the profession into disrepute. They magnanimously exercised their discretion to allow me to become a member of their august organisation and warned me never to do anything like that again. So be prepared - I gather the SRA ain't half as fluffy as the Law Soc.

Amanda -13 Mar 2009 | 12:50

The problem is you may well be a lot more honest than the profession at large - but the dishonest ones didn't get caught. You get punished for getting caught. As for the TV licence example, why on earth didn't you appeal, and didn't the Law Soc have anything better to do? Mind you, I have had a run-in with the SRA for not having a practising certificate (I don't need one but they sent me a VERY rude letter (and I sent them an equally rude one back) so maybe they really will be condescending little jobsworths about this one as well.

Helen -13 Mar 2009 | 13:17

I agree that you'll have a much more difficult time with the SRA. The SRA is a pathetic entity; badly organised, with no understanding of the profession and an arrogance that is baffling. The sooner they are overhauled the better. I'm yet to meet a solicitor who has any respect for the SRA.

Postmodernist -13 Mar 2009 | 13:52

It would show up on a CRB check but VERY unlikely it would count against an applicant working with children - as long as they declared it. Don't declare = dishonest.

Anonymous -13 Mar 2009 | 15:39

The TV licence thing was strict liability so I couldn't do much about it. A long time later a colleague had the same problem, and decided to keep quiet. As for the SRA (and the Law Society before it) they seem to focus on "easy pickings" when disciplining solicitors - bit like the police really...

Amanda -13 Mar 2009 | 16:05