In the ECU’s view, most of the instances cited by the complainant were either immaterial to a reader’s understanding of the substance of the article or in connection with matters where the article was entitled to rely on authoritative sources with which the complainant’s account conflicted.  However, the article in its original form was materially inaccurate in saying the complainant had “admitted the allegations” against him, whereas he had denied some of them (while admitting to dishonestly misleading his client and acting without integrity).   In response to the complaint, the article had been amended to correct this and the less material inaccuracies and an explanatory note had been added.  In the ECU’s judgement these actions were sufficient to resolve the issue of complaint.

Resolved