The latest SSDT decision

Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal

Law Society v Patrick Stephen Alexander Copinger

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Patrick Stephen Alexander Copinger, (‘the Respondent’). The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in relation to his contraventions of Rules 4, 8 and 12 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts, Accounts Certificate, Professional Practice and Guarantee Fund Rules 2001; Rule 1 of the Solicitors (Scotland) (Standards of Conduct) Practice Rules 2008; and Rules B1.2, B6.3.1, B6.7.1, B6.7.4, B6.13.1, B6.13.2 and B6.13.3 of the Law Society of Scotland Practice Rules 2011.

The Tribunal struck the Respondent’s name off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.

The Respondent carried out a deliberate and dishonest course of conduct designed to disguise a deficit on the firm’s client account. It could only be seen as serious and reprehensible. Solicitors have a duty to act with complete honesty and integrity. If the public are to have confidence in the profession then they must be able to expect these qualities of every solicitor. The client account is sacrosanct. The Accounts Rules are there to reinforce the solicitor’s duty of honesty in dealing with clients’ money. It has previously been said that there can be no situation in which the client account can justifiably be in deficit. Here, the client account was in deficit for a significant period of time and the Respondent had taken steps to disguise that. In relation to sentence, the Tribunal had to have regard to the very serious nature of the conduct established in this case. This was a protracted course of conduct over a long period of time. Client account money had been used for the benefit of the firm. This conduct was clearly a danger to the public and clearly likely to seriously damage the reputation of the profession. The fact that the conduct had gone on for so long disclosed that the Respondent had neither remorse nor insight. The conduct clearly demonstrated that the Respondent was not a fit person to be a solicitor and therefore the only appropriate disposal was to strike his name from the Roll of Solicitors.