Read the latest decision

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL JOURNAL REPORT

Law Society-v-Matthew Philip Berlow

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Matthew Philip Berlow, (“the Respondent”).

The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect that

(1) his actions lacked integrity and to that extent breached Rule B1.2, when in a Facebook comment he deliberately associated members of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign with the criminal act of graffiti, knowing no crime had taken place and that the original post was false,

(2) his actions were likely to bring the profession into disrepute when he made a payment of £800 cash to Mr Reid in circumstances which appeared to be a quid pro quo for Mr Reid’s assistance with the Respondent’s ongoing complaints against Neil McPherson,

(3) his actions were likely to bring the profession into disrepute and breached Rule 1.14.1 and Rule B1.14.2, when he made disparaging remarks about Neil McPherson to Mr Reid, after the Respondent had withdrawn from acting for Mr Reid and Mr Reid had engaged Mr McPherson and

(4) his actions breached Rule B1.14.1, and Rule B1.2 in that they lacked integrity, and were likely to bring the profession into disrepute, when he published a grossly offensive exchange between two other people on his closed Facebook group for criminal lawyers.

The Tribunal found the Respondent not guilty of professional misconduct in relation to all other averments of misconduct in the Complaint. The Tribunal censured the Respondent, fined him £2,500, and directed him to pay £250 compensation to one of the Secondary Complainers.

The Tribunal considered that the Respondent’s actions constituted a serious and reprehensible departure from the standards of competent and reputable solicitors. On more than one occasion, his conduct had lacked integrity. He was therefore guilty of professional misconduct. Aggravating factors included the previous finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct which involved similar behaviour, the lack of remorse and insight demonstrated by the Respondent during his evidence, the course of conduct, and the detrimental effect on the reputation of the legal profession. Mitigating factors included the substantial provocation involved in the case and the difficulties the Respondent was experiencing in his private life. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal considered that the appropriate sanction was a censure and a fine of £2,500.