Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Two Complaints were made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alistair Iain Macdonald, Solicitor, 16 Cameron March, Edinburgh (“the Respondent”). The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct singularly and in cumulo in respect of his delay and failure to fully implement a mandate, failure to reply to correspondence from fellow agents, failure to reply to correspondence from the Law Society, failure to comply with statutory notices issued by the Law Society, his delay in recording a standard security, his accepting responsibility for preparing a fresh ranking agreement and failure to pay additional fees incurred by other solicitors and his misleading a client. The Tribunal Censured the Respondent and Directed in terms of section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for a period of five years any practising certificate held or issued to the Respondent shall be subject to such restriction as 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, said restriction to run concurrent with his existing restriction.

There were two Complaints before the Tribunal which were conjoined and the Respondent entered into joint minutes in respect of both cases. The Tribunal has made it clear on a number of occasions that failure to respond to fellow agents and to the Society amounts to professional misconduct. It is imperative that solicitors act with fellow solicitors in a manner consistent with persons having mutual trust and confidence in each other. There is a duty on solicitors to fulfil their professional obligations and respond promptly to mandates. In this case it was clear that the Respondent was not coping with the running of his practice. The Tribunal took account of the Respondent’s letter detailing the difficulties he was having at this time and it was clear that the Respondent was genuinely sorry for the inconvenience caused to clients. The Respondent had been before the Tribunal in respect of analogous matters in November 2002 when a restriction was placed on his practising certificate for a period of three years. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had complied with the undertaking, which he gave to the Tribunal at that time, to close his Edinburgh office. The Tribunal accordingly considered that a further restriction on the Respondent’s practising certificate would be the best way of ensuring the protection of the public.