SSDT Decisions - March

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

JOURNAL REPORT

Law Society-v-SIMON KENNEDY DUNCAN

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Simon Kennedy Duncan, Solicitor, Flat G/L, 603 Clarkston Road, Glasgow (“the Respondent”).  The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect that he: Failed to communicate with the Complainers, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, his own clients and other solicitors; Breached Rules B1.2, B1.9.1, B6, B6.3.1, B6.4.1, B6.6.1, B6.7.1, B6.7.3, B6.11.1, B6.13.1, B6.13.2, B6.13.3 and B6.18.7 all of the Law Society of Scotland Practice Rules 2011; Failed to respond to and implement mandates; Unduly delayed in progressing, or making substantial progress in, claims; Failed to obtain a Medical Report; Failed to provide documentation and raised a Court Action without instructions; Failed to act in a client’s best interests in respect of advice on and instruction of an expert report; and inappropriately withdrew from acting.

The Tribunal censured the Respondent and directed in terms of section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for an aggregate period of ten years, any practising certificate held or issued to him shall be subject to such restriction as will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to such employer or successive employers as may be approved by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. Compensation was awarded to five Secondary Complainers.

The Respondent’s course of conduct in relation to his clients represented a total dereliction of duty.  He did not fulfil his professional obligations to his client, professional colleagues or his regulator.   The breaches of the accounts rules showed a complete lack of attention to this important aspect of a sole practitioner’s responsibilities. Accounts certificates are one of the means by which the Law Society monitors compliance with the rules and risk to client money.  They must be completed properly so that the Society can use the information to monitor compliance and assess risk. The Respondent’s conduct regarding to the accounts rules lacked integrity. The Tribunal noted the Respondent’s repeated failures to cooperate with the Complainers. Failure to respond to the Complainers and engage meaningfully with them hampers the Law Society in performance of its statutory duty and brings the profession into disrepute.

Having considered all the circumstances, the Tribunal considered that the Respondent’s conduct constituted a serious and reprehensible departure from the standards of competent and reputable solicitors and therefore constituted professional misconduct.