Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal
Edward Lindsay Acton
A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Edward Lindsay Acton, solicitor, 24 Shore Street MacDuff (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to reply to correspondence from a fellow solicitor, failure to reply to the reasonable enquiries of the Society and failure to comply with the notices served upon him by the Society. The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined him the in sum of £2,000.
The Tribunal was satisfied on the evidence led that the respondent had failed to respond to correspondence from another firm of solicitors over a period of time. The respondent had not explained his failure and the Tribunal considered that he was under a duty to respond to his fellow solicitor. The respondent had then failed to respond to the reasonable enquiries of the Society and failed to respond to the notice from it asking for a response. In the circumstances the Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct, with the exception of the statutory notice sent by the Society requiring him to deliver a file when he did not have the consent of the client to do so. The Tribunal noted the previous findings against the respondent and his partner issued in July 2006. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had not attempted to explain why he failed to respond, apart from indicating that he did not wish to actively participate in a process that would inevitably mean giving information which would be confidential to the client. While the Tribunal accepted that there could be a problem with the respondent producing the file due to client confidentiality, the Tribunal did not see why the respondent could not explain his failure to reply. The Tribunal felt that a censure plus a fine of £2,000 would be an appropriate penalty.
Angela Margaret Baillie
A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Angela Margaret Baillie, solicitor, 8 Birnam Place, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal having considered the complaint regarding a conviction of the respondent on two charges of contraventions of s 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in respect of which the respondent was, on 20 April 2006, sentenced to terms of imprisonment for periods of 32 months and eight months respectively, to run concurrently, the respondent having voluntarily had her name removed from the Roll, censured the respondent.
In respect of a former solicitor, the only powers which the Tribunal has are those conferred on it by the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, s 53 (2)(c), (d) and (e), which read short are the power to fine, censure or fine and censure. The power to fine is restricted by subs (3), which read with subs (1)(b) provides that the Tribunal shall not impose a fine in respect of a solicitor who has (whether before or after enrolment as a solicitor) been convicted by any court of an act involving dishonesty, or been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than two years. As the respondent had voluntarily had her name removed from the Roll, the Tribunal was deprived of the power to impose any sanction other than a censure. This was conceded by the fiscal for the Society. The Tribunal was concerned with regard to its lack of power to impose on the respondent a penalty which it would regard as appropriate in the circumstances. The offences to which the respondent pled guilty before the High Court strike at the very heart of the obligations of honesty and integrity which are incumbent upon every solicitor. It is difficult to imagine conduct more calculated to damage the reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public.
Alan Desmond Baxter
A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alan Desmond Baxter, solicitor, of 10 Emsdorf Crescent, Lundin Links, Fife (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to comply with his obligation in terms of the Solicitors (Scotland)(Continuing Professional Development) Regulations 1993 by failing to submit a record for the practice years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and his failure to reply timeously, openly and accurately to the reasonable enquiries made of him by the Society. The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined him £2,000.
The Tribunal was of the view that compliance with the Continuing Professional Development Regulations is essential to ensure that solicitors keep abreast of developments in the law and to maintain public confidence in the profession. In this case it appeared that the respondent had completed some of the hours but could not provide evidence of his compliance to the Society over a period of two consecutive years. As a consequence of this the Society’s ability to regulate compliance with the regulations was hampered and impeded. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had also failed to answer 12 letters from the Society regarding his training record during a period when he was in practice. The Tribunal considered that the respondent had had plenty of opportunity to comply with his obligation as the Society had given him additional time to do so. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considered that a fine of £2,000 should be imposed in addition to the censure.
In this issue
- Discounting justice
- Common sense prevails
- Common sense prevails (1)
- Shaping the future
- Working in a one-stop shop
- Christmas lesson
- Games City
- OFT-related FAQs
- Sea change around the globe
- Covering the money gap
- Pre-trial priorities
- Personal touch
- Keeping money clean
- The lions sleep tonight
- Conversion course
- Family law risk management
- Too well known to challenge
- Temp sheriffs immune after all
- Camels and common sense
- Tough at the TUPE
- Are bloggers fair game?
- "This ain't tiddlywinks, mate"
- Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal
- Website reviews
- Book reviews
- Defining moment
- Clear view
- Joint conference success