SSDT Decision: Steven John Docherty

The latest SSDT decision covers a complaint made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Steven John Docherty.

A Complaint was lodged by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Steven John Docherty, Solicitor, Glasgow, which averred that the Respondent may have been guilty of professional misconduct. The Complaint was amended at the substantive hearing and the averments of fact were agreed in a Joint Minute. The only averment of professional misconduct remaining before the Tribunal was an alleged breach of Rule B1.7.1 of the Practice Rules 2011. The Tribunal found the Respondent not guilty of professional misconduct and made an award of expenses in favour of the Respondent.

The facts were agreed by way of an extensive Joint Minute. In offering to settle litigation on behalf of his client, the Respondent included a condition that any Complaint made to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in respect of the Respondent’s firm and assistant be withdrawn. It was agreed that the Respondent had ‘overlooked’ the potential conflict, believed he was following the instructions of his client and was acting in haste given the proximity of the next court date. The Tribunal noted the ‘robust’ instructions of the Respondent’s client in stating that the settlement should be ‘bullet proof’. The Respondent subsequently recognised the potential conflict of interest, drew it to the attention of his client and removed the condition from the eventual offer to settle. It was agreed that the Respondent’s conduct had no impact upon the interest of the client and the Tribunal noted the potential for that to occur.

The Tribunal was not satisfied that a breach of Rule1.7.1 had been established. The Tribunal emphasised that it considers cases of conflict of interest (particularly where one of the interests is that of the solicitor or firm) to be serious matters and that it arrived at the decision in this case due to the particular circumstances. There being no breach of the rule, the Tribunal found the Respondent not guilty of professional misconduct.