Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal

James Ian McAllister Stewart Sloan

An Application was made to the Tribunal by James Ian McAllister Stewart Sloan for an Order restoring his name to the Roll of Solicitors. The Tribunal refused the Application.

The Order striking Mr Sloan’s name from the Roll was made in respect of his being found guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his misappropriation of clients’ funds and breach of Rule 4(3)(b) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules 1989 and Rules 4(1)(a), 6 and 12 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules 1992. The Tribunal had to decide whether or not the Applicant had discharged the onus on him to displace the original conclusion reached at the time of striking off that he was not a fit and proper person to be a solicitor and to show a change in character, conduct and suitability between the time when he was struck off the Roll and the time of his Application. The Tribunal considered that in a case such as this where the Applicant had been struck off for a criminal offence involving dishonesty and misappropriation of clients’ funds for his own personal use, the onus on him to demonstrate that his restoration to the Roll would not damage the reputation of the profession as a whole was a very heavy one.

The Applicant led the evidence of a number of witnesses who were former clients who stated that they would again be clients and would trust the Applicant. The Tribunal however had to consider the wider issue of perception by members of the public and the profession who do not personally know the Applicant and the circumstances of the original finding of misconduct. The question for the Tribunal was not whether the Applicant had served his sentence and paid his debt to society but whether he was a suitable person to be on the Roll of Solicitors. The Applicant had been convicted of a disgraceful act of dishonesty and there had been an objection to the Applicant’s restoration from the Law Society who represent the legal profession. The Tribunal were not satisfied that there had been a change in the Applicant’s character and were not persuaded that the Applicant had demonstrated that he could be trusted by the public and the profession.