Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

GHAZALA AHMED

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Ghazala Ahmed, solicitor, 207 Albert Drive, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of her breach of rules 4, 6, 8, 9 and 19 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules etc 2001, despite her failures being brought to her attention. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal noted that a lot of the breaches of the Accounts Rules were technical in nature but was satisfied that in cumulo the number of breaches of the Rules amounted to professional misconduct. The Accounts Rules are in place in order to protect clients’ money and ensure that business is operated in a proper manner. The Tribunal was however impressed that the respondent had sorted all matters out with her new accountant. The Tribunal also noted that at no time had clients’ money been at risk. The Tribunal further took into account the fact that the respondent was carrying out specialist immigration work which was meeting a legal need for this type of service. The respondent had had an unfortunate experience with two accountants. She now had a good system in place and the Tribunal was satisfied that the problems were unlikely to recur. The Tribunal accordingly considered that a censure would be sufficient penalty.

THOMAS HUGH MURRAY

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Thomas Hugh Murray, solicitor, 100 Pendeen Road, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his misrepresentation, deception and misleading of his client in relation to his status by failing to advise his client that he was sequestrated and that his practising certificate had been suspended. The Tribunal suspended the respondent from practice for a period of five years.

The respondent did not appear at the Tribunal and the Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of the affidavit evidence and productions lodged, that the respondent had deceived and misled his client by failing to advise his client that he was no longer a solicitor. Being a solicitor provides a client with the protection of regulation by the Society and cover under the professional indemnity insurance policy. The respondent’s failure to advise his client that he was no longer a solicitor and accordingly no longer covered by these protections, denied his client the opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether or not to continue to instruct the respondent. The respondent holding himself out as being a practising solicitor when this was not the case is damaging to the reputation of the legal profession. The Tribunal noted a previous finding of professional misconduct against the respondent only eight months previously where the respondent had been found guilty of deceiving another client. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had not seen fit to lodge answers to the complaint or to attend the Tribunal to explain his actions. The Tribunal accordingly considered that the respondent should be suspended from practice for a period of five years.

MARK JOHN STALKER

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Mark John Stalker, solicitor, Flat 1C Nicolson Court, 36 Nicolson Street, Greenock (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his repeatedly misleading clients, his failure to progress business on behalf of clients, his failure in his representation of clients, his acting without clients’ instructions, his deceiving his employer, his misleading a fellow solicitor and his failure to reply to the reasonable enquiries made of him by the Society. The Tribunal censured the respondent and imposed a restriction on his practising certificate for an aggregate period of at least five years and thereafter until such time as he satisfies the Tribunal that he is fit to hold a full practising certificate.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s conduct clearly amounted to professional misconduct. There is a duty upon solicitors to take reasonable steps to undertake the business of their clients. The essential and absolute qualities of a solicitor are honesty, truthfulness and integrity. The respondent fell short of this by misleading his clients which brings the legal profession into disrepute. The respondent let his clients down badly in a number of different cases and his catalogue of misleading and acting without instructions, the Tribunal considered to be totally unacceptable. The respondent clearly caused his clients considerable distress but did seem genuinely contrite. The respondent also breached mutual trust between solicitors by misleading a fellow solicitor and failing to respond to the enquiries of the Society, which hampers the Society in the performance of its statutory duties. The Tribunal considered it unfortunate that the respondent had worked in a number of firms where there had been a lack of supervision. The Tribunal took account of the numerous references lodged on the respondent’s behalf and was also impressed by the fact that the respondent had since worked for a year at another firm with no apparent problems. The Tribunal accordingly stopped short of striking the respondent’s name from the roll or suspending him from practice and considered that a restriction on his practising certificate for an aggregate period of five years would be sufficient to protect the public.