SSDT Decision: Eric John Scott

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCPLINE TRIBUNAL

JLSS REPORT

LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND-v-ERIC JOHN SCOTT

A Complaint was lodged by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Eric John Scott, Solicitor, Edinburgh, that the Respondent may have been guilty of professional misconduct in respect of breaches of Rules B1.2 and B1.9.1 of the Practice Rules 2011. The allegation was that the Respondent, when writing to a third party organisation, had misrepresented the findings of a Sheriff in a family law action in that he stated that the children involved were abused and suffered trauma at the hand of their mother when there was no such finding, thus bringing the Respondent’s integrity into question and that he had failed to communicate effectively. The Respondent accepted that he had written the letter but denied that he had misrepresented the Sheriff’s judgement.

The Tribunal emphasised that it is essential for solicitors to use words carefully and with due consideration. While solicitors should be free to represent the interests of their clients in a robust manner without fear or favour, this does not entitle them to commit whatever they like to writing and there must be a clear and solid basis for their words.

However, the context in which words are used is important. The Tribunal concluded that this was not a case in which the Respondent had no basis for what he wrote and neither were his words untrue. It decided that giving careful consideration is not, in itself, sufficient if the solicitor does not have a reasonable basis for statement or assertions made, but in this case, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent was entitled to decide that he had such a basis. Therefore, the Tribunal found the Respondent not guilty of professional misconduct.

In relation to expenses, the Tribunal acknowledged the Complainers’ statutory duties as regulator of solicitors and their duty to investigate complaints as appropriate. However, the Tribunal was persuaded by the submissions on behalf of the Respondent and concluded that this prosecution was misconceived. The Tribunal exercised its discretion and, in all the circumstances, made a order of expenses in favour of the Respondent given the particular context of the Complaint and the not guilty verdict.

The Tribunal ordered that publicity should be given to the decision to include previous interlocutors and the name of the Respondent but agreed that parties and witnesses in the family law action determined by the Sheriff should be anonymised.