Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

David Blair-Wilson

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against David Blair-Wilson, Solicitor, formerly of 3/2 Easter Dalry Rigg, Caledonian Village, Edinburgh, now care of 21 Ross Street, Dunfermline, Fife  (“the Respondent”). The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his breach of Rules 12(1) and 12(4) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules 1997 and his failure to respond timeously, openly and accurately to the reasonable enquiries made of him by the Law Society concerning the affairs of clients.  The Tribunal Censured the Respondent and directed in terms of Section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that any Practising Certificate held or to be issued to the Respondent 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 and for an aggregate period of at least ten years and thereafter until such time as he satisfies the Tribunal that he is fit to hold a full Practising Certificate.

The Tribunal was concerned by the Respondent’s persistent failure to respond to enquiries made of him by the Law Society.  The Law Society are required to investigate Complaints against solicitors and failure on the part of the solicitor to co-operate with the Law Society in pursuit of this enquiry hampers them in the performance of their statutory duty and is prejudicial to the reputation of the legal profession.  There is also a fundamental obligation on solicitors to keep properly written up books and accounts and the Respondent was unable to do this.

The Tribunal however took account of the fact that the Respondent was not dealing with clients money and there had been no complaints from the public relating to his accounting.  The Respondent had entered into a Joint Minute at an early stage in the proceedings and had health difficulties.  The Tribunal considered that the Respondent was not a suitable person to operate with an unrestricting Practising Certificate and accordingly restricted the Respondent’s Practising Certificate.