SSDT Report: Section 42ZA appeal by Andrew Medley

The latest SSDT report covers an appeal made by Andrew Medley against a Council of the Law Society of Scotland determination made last year.

An appeal in terms of Section 42ZA(10) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 was made by Andrew Stephen Medley (“the Appellant”) against the Determination made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland (“the First Respondents”) dated 29 August 2024 not to uphold, or award compensation in respect of, a complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Lindsey M Fettes, Solicitor, Wilsone & Duffus, 7 Golden Square, Aberdeen (“the Second Respondent”). The Appeal was defended by the First Respondents. The Second Respondent did not enter the process.

Having heard submissions from the Appellant and the Fiscal for the First Respondents, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal, quashed the Decision and upheld a complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct against the Second Respondent. It awarded compensation in the sum of £750.

The Appellant was a beneficiary of a Trust Fund set up by his late father who died in 2011. The Appellant had three brothers. Their father had nominated his wife and eldest son as trustees. The wife died in 2017 and the Appellant stated that the Second Respondent should have relinquished the Trust Fund in favour of the remaining trustee at that point. However, that was not done. The elder brother died in January 2021 and the Appellant became involved at that point.

The Appellant initially became concerned that the Second Respondent had “grossly undervalued” the share value of assets held in trust. He asked the Second Respondent to explain that but did not receive a response. Thereafter, the Appellant instructed another solicitor to seek confirmation of value of the assets from the Second Respondent and also for payment to the beneficiaries. A firm of solicitors in England had been appointed as executors for the Appellant’s father’s late wife. Both the Appellant’s solicitors and the English firm had difficulties in obtaining responses from the Second Respondent.

The Appellant described a series of correspondence between his solicitor and the Second Respondent. There was no dispute on the facts or dates of correspondence. The Appellant’s allegation against the Second Respondent was that she had failed to communicate effectively with others in contravention of Rule B1.9.1 of the Law Society of Scotland Practice Rules 2011. The First Respondent made no finding against the Second Respondent. Referring to the case of Hood, Petitioner [2017] CSJH 21 the Appellant submitted that the First Respondent made a finding for which there was no evidence or which was contradictory of the evidence. As part of his appeal, he provided information which cast doubt on that decision. The Tribunal noted that and, having considered all the information presented to it, concluded that, in explaining the reasons for their decision to take no further action in respect of the Second Respondent, they had taken account of an irrelevant factor. The Tribunal concluded that this led to a finding which was contradictory of the evidence in terms of Hood, Petitioner.