Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal 2002

Gerald McMahon, Colin McFadyen and Lawrence Rew

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Gerald John Robert McMahon, Solicitor, of 1 Silverwells Crescent, Boswell, Lanarkshire (the First Respondent), Colin Harvey McFadyen, Solicitor, 3 Victoria Lane, Mearnskirk, Glasgow (the Second Respondent), and Lawrence Strachan Rew, Solicitor, 2 Victoria Gardens, Barrhead (the Third Respondent).

The Tribunal found the Respondents guilty of professional misconduct in respect of matters relating to their practice including breaches of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules and suspended the First and Second Respondents each for a period of five years and ordered that the name of the Third Respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.  

The Tribunal considered the most serious aspect of the conduct of the First and Second Respondents was their failure in relation to the Accounts Rules.  These failures extended over the whole breadth of the Accounts Rules and continued from 29th February 1996 until July 1998 when the Council of the Law Society after the fifth inspection took the exceptional step of suspending the First and Second Respondents’ Practising Certificates.  The First and Second Respondents failed during the relevant period to keep adequate records and there was also a succession of shortages and a persistent failure to take the immediate steps which were necessary to put their books in order.  The Tribunal were concerned by the First and Second Respondents’ cavalier attitude towards clients’ monies and their withdrawing money without reporting on the same to their client and their disregard to the interests of the institutional lenders when they left deeds unrecorded and deprived these creditors of the security which was a condition upon which the particular monies were being lent.  The Tribunal took the view that it was essential that the  profession demonstrates to the public the care which is taken with monies entrusted to solicitors by their respective clients.  Accordingly the First and Second Respondents were suspended from practice for a significant period.

The Tribunal had similar concerns in relation to the Third Respondent’s failure to comply with the Accounts Rules.  In respect of the Third Respondent however the Tribunal were particularly concerned with regard to his deceiving his clients in connection with a loan and his withdrawing a large sum of cash from his client bank account on the same day as he had been informed that a decision was being taken to suspend his Practising Certificate.  In addition the Third Respondent inexcusably failed to record deeds and account to a client and failed to reply to correspondence from the Law Society. The Tribunal considered the Third Respondent’s actings wholly inexcusable and unbecoming of a solicitor.  In the circumstances the Tribunal ordered that the name of  the Third Respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.

All three Respondents appealed the Tribunal’s Decision and the Court of Session issued their Judgment on 12th February 2002 upholding the Tribunal’s Decision in respect of the Third Respondent and in respect of the First and Second Respondents the suspension was upheld but ordered to run from the date of the Tribunal’s Decision.

Michael Gordon Robson

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Michael Gordon Robson, Solicitor, The Old School House, 2 Baird Road, Ratho (“the Respondent”). The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to reply to correspondence and other communications from the Law Society of Scotland.  The Respondent was Censured, fined the sum of £5,000 and the Tribunal Directed that in terms of Section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 for a period of three years any Practising Certificate held or issued to the Respondent shall be subject to such restriction that will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to such employer as may be approved by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland and thereafter until such time as he satisfies the Tribunal that he is fit to hold a full Practising Certificate.

The Tribunal were concerned by the Respondent’s cavalier attitude towards the Law Society, his disrespect for authority and susceptibility to improper influences.

The Respondent appealed but the Tribunal’s Decision was upheld by the Court of Session.