Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Audrey Perella

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Audrey Perella, solicitor, formerly of 9 Strathmore House, Princes Square, East Kilbride, Glasgow and now at 4 Ardencaple Drive, Helensburgh (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of her embezzlement of clients’ funds and her breach of rule 4 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules 1997. The Tribunal ordered that the name of the respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.

The respondent did not appear and was not represented at the Tribunal. The Tribunal heard the evidence of a witness for the complainers and was referred to various documentation. It was clear from the evidence that the respondent had breached the Accounts Rules and had embezzled £25,546.74 of clients’ money. The Tribunal found the respondent’s conduct in embezzling money from clients a complete breach of trust. The respondent’s conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable and brings the legal profession into disrepute. The Tribunal had no hesitation in striking the respondent’s name from the Roll of Solicitors. The Tribunal ordered that publicity be deferred until after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings against the respondent so as to avoid prejudice to any such criminal proceedings.

Michael Gerald Rourke

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Michael Gerald Rourke of Messrs Robert Thomas & Caplan, Solicitors, 365 Victoria Road, Glasgow (“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. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal considered that this was a very unfortunate case and wondered if it was really necessary for the matter to have been brought to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has however stated on numerous occasions that failure to respond to the Society hampers them in the performance of their statutory duty and amounts to professional misconduct. In this case the respondent accepted that his failure to respond was not inadvertent and there were a number of letters which he ignored. The Tribunal considered there was no alternative but to find the respondent guilty of professional misconduct. The Tribunal considered that this matter fell at the lower end of the scale of professional misconduct and that a censure was more than sufficient penalty.

Mark John Stalker

A complaint was made by 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 misleading his client by advising him that he was seeking information from other hospitals when he was in fact making no such enquiries, and his continuing to make no such enquiries up to the conclusion of the proceedings on 30 January 2003; his failure between 12 May 1999 and 30 January 2003 in his representation of his client by his failure to keep his client adequately informed of the progress of his court action, and his agreeing to the court action against Argyll & Clyde Health Board being dismissed and the defenders assoilized with expenses against his client without his client’s knowledge or instructions; and his failure between 4 March 2005 and 7 October 2005 to respond to the reasonable enquiries of the Society or comply with the notices served upon him. The Tribunal censured the respondent.
The Tribunal noted that the matters in this complaint arose during the same timescale as those which had already been dealt with by the Tribunal in November 2005. The Tribunal were concerned that the respondent had not kept his client informed and not dealt properly with the court action on his behalf. He had also failed to respond to the Society, which brings the profession into disrepute. The Tribunal however noted that the public was already protected by the five year aggregate restriction imposed by the Tribunal in November 2005 and the Tribunal saw no purpose in extending this restriction or imposing any penalty other than a censure.