Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

IAN MACLACHLAN ALLAN

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Ian Maclachlan Allan, solicitor, 3 East Port, Dunfermline (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to provide his client and her executors with an accounting for his intromissions with her one half share of an estate for the period from 1976 until 1995 and his failure to respond to the reasonable requests of the Society for information. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal had some sympathy for the respondent’s position in that he was dealing with a complex executry where accounting records had not been kept for the period prior to him becoming involved. The respondent was however the sole practitioner in the firm and had shown by providing an accounting for the periods between 1995 and 2000 and 1986 and 1995, that he was able to produce an accounting from the records available. The respondent undertook to the Tribunal to complete the accounting covering the period from 1976 to 1982 by the end of September 2005. Given these circumstances the Tribunal considered that this matter fell at the lower end of the scale of professional misconduct and also noted that although the respondent had failed to respond to the Society he had in fact during the period been corresponding with the firm of solicitors. The Tribunal considered a censure would be a sufficient penalty.

DAVID ALEXANDER SYMINGTON

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against David Alexander Symington, solicitor, Hope Cottage, Duns Road, Gifford, East Lothian (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to protect the interests of his clients where there was an actual conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest between them, his failure to advise his client of the consequences of investing money in a partnership where his client and another client were partners in circumstances where they had not entered into a written partnership agreement and where the terms and implications of the draft of the partnership agreement had not been fully discussed, and his failure to respond to the reasonable requests of the Society for information. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct. It is important in order to maintain the reputation of the legal profession that solicitors properly protect the interests of their clients to ensure that a conflict of interest situation does not arise. The Tribunal has also made it clear on numerous occasions that failure to respond to the Society hampers the Society in the performance of its statutory duty and is prejudicial to the reputation of the profession. The Tribunal however noted that the respondent had fully co-operated with the Society and entered into a joint minute. The Tribunal further noted that the fiscal for the Society had suggested that a censure would be sufficient penalty. The respondent’s practising certificate was already subject to a restriction until December 2007 and the Tribunal considered that this would provide sufficient protection to the public. In the circumstances the Tribunal were of the view that a censure would be sufficient penalty.

MANUS GERARD TOLLAND

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Manus Gerard Tolland, solicitor, 138 Eastwood Mains Road, Clarkston, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his unreasonable delay of seven months in implementing a mandate from another firm of solicitors requesting that a file of papers in relation to an executry be forwarded to them. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal considered that there was a strict duty on a solicitor to implement a duly delivered mandate and the fact that the respondent had misunderstood the legal position with regard to this duty was not an excuse. The Tribunal however considered that this offence was at the lower end of the scale of professional misconduct and the Tribunal took account of the fact that the respondent had been in practice for 24 years and had not previously appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had fully co-operated with the disposal of the complaint and fully appreciated the culpability of his failure. In all the circumstances the Tribunal considered that a censure was a sufficient and proportionate disposal.

STUART FRASER WILSON

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Stuart Fraser Wilson, solicitor, 28 Moss Street, Paisley (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his unacceptable delay in settling the sum due by him to Faculty Services Ltd and his failure to respond to the reasonable requests of the Society for information. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal has made it clear on numerous occasions that failure to respond to the Society amounts to professional misconduct. There were unfortunate circumstances in this case but the respondent should have been aware that there was another bill to come from Faculty Services. The Tribunal found it particularly unfortunate that the respondent had allowed matters to come to the Tribunal by delay in settling the bill and his failure to respond to correspondence from the Law Society. The Tribunal felt that the respondent’s conduct fell at the very bottom end of the scale of professional misconduct and that a censure would be sufficient penalty.