Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Alexander Jack Morrison

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alexander Jack Morrison, solicitor, 14 Montgomery Street, Larkhall (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to progress an action of divorce on behalf of his client and his misleading his client by assuring her that he was progressing an action of divorce on her behalf when in fact he was not. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s failure to progress his client’s divorce action coupled with his misleading of his client with regard to the progress did amount to professional misconduct. The Tribunal however felt that this fell at the lower end of the scale. The Tribunal took account of the fact that the respondent’s actions had clearly caused his client a great deal of distress. The respondent was however obviously remorseful with regard to this. The Tribunal took account of the fact that he was a solicitor of almost 20 years standing and this appeared to be an isolated incident. The respondent had co-operated with the fiscal from an early stage and had produced very good references and the Tribunal considered that a censure would be a sufficient penalty.

Brian James Abbot

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Brian James Abbot, 9 Dorset Square, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his acting in a dishonest fashion by wrongfully executing formal conveyancing documentation by wrongfully executing the signature of his client on two separate significant conveyancing deeds and allowing the deeds to be presented to the Land Register of Scotland as authentic, and his failure in his office as a notary public to ensure that the matrimonial homes affidavit was properly signed by his client and notarised by him prior to the dispatch of the deed to the Land Register of Scotland. The Tribunal suspended the respondent from practice for a period of two years.

In this case the respondent admitted the facts, averments of duty and averments of professional misconduct in the complaint. However it was necessary to have a proof in mitigation. Given the evidence of the two witnesses led on behalf of the respondent, the Tribunal was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s client had intended to sign the documents and the respondent had merely assisted with the signatures. Even accepting this explanation it was clear that the respondent had wrongfully executed the signature of his client on two separate significant conveyancing deeds and thereafter allowed the deeds to be presented to the Land Register of Scotland as authentic. This is contrary to the principles of honesty, truthfulness and integrity expected of members of the solicitors’ profession. For the public to have confidence in the profession it is essential that solicitors do not act in this manner. It is also crucial to the administration of justice that the public should have faith in deeds authenticated by a notary public. When a solicitor acts as a notary he has a duty to ensure that his conduct is beyond reproach. The respondent wrongfully wrote the signature of his client on a formal affidavit. His conduct fell far short of what is required. The Tribunal however took into account the fact that there was no fraud involved and that no-one lost or gained by the respondent’s conduct. The Tribunal also took into account that the difficulties would have been circumvented by the respondent complying with the technicalities of notarial execution. The Tribunal took into account the respondent’s health difficulties. In the whole circumstances the Tribunal considered that a two year period of suspension would be sufficient penalty.

John Knox Aitken

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against John Knox Aitken, solicitor of Thomas & Caplan, Solicitors, 365 Victoria Road, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his unreasonable delay in having corrective dispositions to two commercial properties registered in the Land Register and his failure to respond timeously, openly and accurately to the enquiries made of him by the Land Register of Scotland. The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined him in the sum of £2,500.

The Tribunal had grave concerns with regard to the respondent’s actions in this matter. The respondent was the partner involved and had to take responsibility for what had happened. In this case the first dispositions were defective and did not reflect the instructions of the client. The respondent, in failing to ensure that the corrective dispositions were recorded as soon as possible, exposed his clients to an unacceptable risk. If one of the partners had died in the intervening period considerable expenditure would have been required to rectify the situation. The respondent allowed a perilous state of affairs to continue for an unacceptable length of time. It appeared to the Tribunal that the respondent was indifferent to the problem and the severe risks to the interests of his clients. The Tribunal did however take account of the fact that the respondent had had no previous problems and had co-operated with the fiscal in connection with the complaint. In the whole circumstances, the Tribunal considered that a censure together with a fine of £2,500 was an appropriate penalty.