Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal

John Taylor

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against John Taylor, solicitor, 15a Moray Place, Edinburgh (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his unreasonable delay in responding to the reasonable enquiries of the Society for information, his failure to record timeously dispositions, standard securities and discharges and his breach of rules 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001. The Tribunal censured the respondent, fined him in the sum of £5,000 and imposed a restriction on his practising certificate for a period of five years from 1 March 2006 and thereafter until he satisfies the Tribunal that he is fit to hold a full practising certificate.

The Tribunal was extremely concerned by the number of instances of late recording of deeds. A solicitor acting for a purchaser in a conveyancing transaction has a duty to prepare and record or register within a reasonable time after payment of the price, a valid disposition in favour of the client. The respondent’s failure on numerous occasions to record deeds within a reasonable time exposed both his clients and the lenders to a substantial risk. In addition the respondent breached a number of the Accounts Rules and failed to reply to the reasonable enquiries made of him by the Society. The respondent’s history as narrated by him reflected repeated bad management and judgment. The Tribunal was of a view that in order to protect the public it was essential that the respondent worked under supervision. The Tribunal accordingly ordered a restriction on his practising certificate for a period of five years and until such time as he satisfies the Tribunal that he is fit to hold a full practising certificate. In order to reflect the serious view the Tribunal takes of numerous non-recording of deeds, the Tribunal also imposed a fine of £5,000.

Douglas Andrew Logie Winchester

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Douglas Andrew Logie Winchester, solicitor, 57 Station Road, Ellon, Aberdeenshire (“the respondent”). The Tribunal made no finding of professional misconduct against the respondent.

The Tribunal heard evidence over two days. The Tribunal found that the respondent delayed in replying to correspondence from the Society, but the delay had been explained by the respondent and the Tribunal did not consider that the delay involved was sufficient to amount to professional misconduct. The respondent had sent various replies during the period of the investigation. The Tribunal was also not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had falsely represented to another firm of solicitors, a state of affairs which he knew to be untrue. In this case the respondent’s client’s change of instructions put the respondent in a difficult situation. When it became apparent to the respondent that there was a real problem, the more prudent course of action for the respondent might have been to withdraw from acting. The Tribunal however, in the whole circumstances of this particular case, did not find that his actings amounted to professional misconduct. The Tribunal found it proved that the respondent had made payments in contravention of a mandate. The Tribunal however accepted that the respondent realised that he would be personally liable for the payments in the event that there were insufficient monies to cover them. The Tribunal found that the respondent’s actions in this regard were misguided and considered his conduct unsatisfactory. The Tribunal however did not find it serious and reprehensible enough to amount to professional misconduct. The Tribunal also found that the respondent made contact with a client of another firm of solicitors in response to a telephone message to do so. The Tribunal considered that this was not good practice, but no prejudice was caused and the Tribunal did not find it sufficiently serious and reprehensible so as to amount to professional misconduct. 

William James Mackay

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against William James Mackay, solicitor, c/o The Procurator Fiscal Service, 10 Ballater Street, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to reply to the reasonable requests of the Law Society of Scotland for information. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal has made it clear on numerous occasions that failure to respond to the Society hampers the Society in the performance of its statutory duty and amounts to professional misconduct. The Tribunal however noted that the failure to respond in this case related to only one client. The respondent had also explained in his answers that he did not receive some of the correspondence because he had started working from home and was away from the office. The Tribunal considered that the case fell at the very lower end of the scale of professional misconduct and that the censure was a sufficient penalty.