SSDT Decision: Section 42ZA appeal by Emmanual Anoliefo

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

JLSS REPORT

SECTION 42ZA APPEAL BY EMMANUEL ANOLIEFO

An appeal in terms of Section 42ZA(10) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 was made by Emmanuel Anoliefo (“the Appellant”) against the Determination of the Law Society of Scotland (“the First Respondents”) dated 12 December 2024 to take no further action in respect of a complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct against Haroun T Malik, MCO Solicitors, 1st Floor Office, 2, 20 Carlton Place, Glasgow (“the Second Respondent”). The Appeal was defended by the First Respondents. The Second Respondent did not enter the process.

The Second Respondent was instructed to represent the Appellant in relation to criminal charges. The Second Respondent instructed Counsel in the case. Following conviction and sentence of the Appellant, he raised a complaint about the Second Respondent. The following two issues were determined by the First Respondents:

“1. Issue 3 – Mr Malik…….failed to treat [the Appellant] with respect in that he pressured [the Appellant] to hurray the case along by saying that the advocate would not act for [the Appellant] if [he] did not.

2. Issue 11 – Evidence – Mr Malik and/or the firm of MCO Defence Solicitors, failed to act on [the Appellant’s] instructions to appeal [the Appellant’s] conviction.”

The First Respondents raised a preliminary plea that the appeal was irrelevant and lacking in specification and invited the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal. The Appellant opposed this motion.

The Tribunal considered all submissions made by parties at a Preliminary Hearing. It took great care to explain the narrow focus of the proceedings to the Appellant and checked that he understood the position.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant’s submissions and responses were of a general nature and did not relate to the specific principles set out  in the case of Hood, Petitioner [2017] CSJH 21. The Appellant had not presented any information demonstrating flaws in the decision of the First Respondents. This lack of specification meant that the Respondents had no fair notice of the allegations being presented by the Appellant. Given that there were no specific or meaningful averments, the appeal was irrelevant. The Tribunal unanimously decided to uphold the First Respondents preliminary plea that the grounds of appeal were lacking in specification and relevancy. This meant that the there was no stateable case before the Tribunal. In those circumstances, the Appeal could not proceed and the Tribunal directed that it be dismissed in terms of Rule 50(5) of the SSDT Rules 2024.