Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

IAN JAMES HOUSTON

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Ian James Houston, Solicitor, 3 Mine Road, Bridge of Allan (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to respond timeously, openly and accurately to the reasonable enquiries made of him by the Society concerning the affairs of a former client. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s failure over a period of 15 months to give a detailed response to the Society, despite reminders, coupled to his failure to respond to a statutory notice, did amount to professional misconduct but considered that this was at the very lower end of the scale. The failure related to only one client and the respondent had taken some steps to reply. The Tribunal accordingly considered that a censure was a sufficient penalty in the circumstances.

JAMES DAVID MILLAR

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against James David Millar, Solicitor, 28 Cairndown Avenue, Muirend, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his misleading his clients with regard to the raising of a court action and presenting them with false court documentation, contrary to article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors holding Practising Certificates issued by the Law Society of Scotland in 1989. The Tribunal censured the respondent, fined him in the sum of £5,000 and directed in terms of section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that 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, and to being supervised by, such employer or successive employers as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland and that for an aggregate period of at least 10 years and thereafter until such time as he satisfies the Tribunal that he is fit to hold a full practising certificate.

It is imperative, in order to preserve the reputation of the legal profession, that solicitors act honestly at all times and in such a way as to put their personal integrity beyond question. In this case the respondent deliberately misled his clients over a two year period and produced false court documentation. It was clear that once the respondent had started the fabrication it was very difficult for him to stop. The Tribunal considered the respondent’s actions to be regrettably disgraceful and dishonourable. The Tribunal found the respondent’s behaviour bizarre. He himself seemed to be unable to explain why it had happened. The Tribunal were however impressed by the fact that once matters came out in the open, the respondent was totally honest and explained to the clients what had happened and co-operated with the fiscal and had entered into a joint minute. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent was apparently working competently in his present job. The Tribunal decided, on balance, that a restriction on the respondent’s practising certificate requiring him to work under supervision where he can learn from others would be sufficient to protect the public. At the end of the 10 year period of restriction it will be for the respondent to satisfy the Tribunal that he has gained the experience and maturity to be trusted with a full practising certificate. Given the serious view the Tribunal takes of this type of behaviour the Tribunal also imposed a fine of £5,000.

ALAN ALEXANDER CRAIG

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alan Alexander Craig, Solicitor, 15 McCallum Drive, Cambuslang, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his delay and failure in the administration of two executries, his misleading executors and beneficiaries in respect of the progress with an executry estate, his failure to reply to the reasonable requests of the Law Society for information, his obtaining loan funds in a transaction where he was unable to settle and obtain a valid security on behalf of the lender, his retaining those funds for six weeks and his failure to comply with requests by the lender for interest due.

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 with effect from the expiry of the suspension imposed by the Tribunal at its meeting on 25 March 2003, 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 might be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland.

Solicitors have a duty to progress business entrusted to them with reasonable expedition and to reply to the Law Society’s enquiries. Failure to do so is prejudicial to the reputation of the profession. In this case the Tribunal took account of the fact that the matters emanated from the same period and were analogous to matters contained in two previous sets of findings, which had resulted in the respondent being suspended. The Tribunal’s main concern was with regard to the respondent returning to practice as a sole practitioner. The Tribunal felt that the public would be protected if a restriction was imposed on the respondent’s practising certificate so that when he returned to practice he would require to work under supervision and would not be able to operate as a sole practitioner. The Tribunal noted that prompt action had been taken by the respondent and his agent prior to the hearing which had been helpful in bringing an early conclusion to the proceedings.