Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Paul Robert Anderson

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Paul Robert Anderson, solicitor, Braeside Farmhouse, Collessie, Cupar, Fife (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to reply to the reasonable enquiries of the Society in respect of complaints by a number of clients. The Tribunal censured the respondent and also directed that orders be issued under s 53C(2) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 in respect of the respondent’s failure to comply with the determinations and directions made by the Society in respect of two clients.

Failure to respond to the Society hampers the Society in the performance of its statutory duty and brings the profession into disrepute. In this case there were numerous letters sent to the respondent over a period of time to which he failed to reply. The Tribunal noted however that the respondent had been out of the profession for four and a half years. The respondent was in a difficult situation. He was no longer practising when the complaints came in and had no access to secretarial facilities or filing. In the whole circumstances the Tribunal considered that a censure would be sufficient penalty. The Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had failed to comply with the determinations and directions of the Society and the Tribunal considered it appropriate to make two orders in respect of the outstanding compensation.

Carl Alexander Crone

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Carl Alexander Crone, solicitor, Queens Court House, 39 Sandgate, Ayr (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his misleading the Royal Bank of Scotland as to the purpose of bridging finance, thereby obtaining loan funds from the bank on the basis that they were required to purchase a property in Scotland when the truth was that they were required to purchase a property in Italy. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s conduct did amount to professional misconduct. The respondent misled a lending institution which is contrary to the central and absolute qualities of a solicitor being honesty, integrity and truthfulness. The Tribunal, however, considered that in the respondent’s case, this was a one off stupid error of judgment which was done to avoid inconvenience to a client. The Tribunal also considered that the respondent’s actions did not result in any material risk and noted that the bridging funds had been repaid to the bank. The Tribunal was particularly impressed by the fact that the respondent had voluntarily taken steps to change his situation. He had ceased to be a partner and is now only an assistant in the firm. It was clear to the Tribunal that the respondent was genuinely contrite. The Tribunal considered it unlikely that anything similar would happen again in future and considered that a censure was sufficient penalty.

Hamish Louden Melrose

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Hamish Louden Melrose of Melrose, Queen Anne House, 111 High Street, Fort William  (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his passing a mobile telephone to a prisoner in custody contrary to article 6 of the 2001 Code of Conduct for Criminal Work. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent ought to have known that by passing a mobile telephone to a prisoner, he was breaching the 2001 Code of Conduct for Criminal Work. The client was in custody and the respondent had a duty to observe the statutory provisions governing persons in custody and the Code of Conduct. It is important that police and custodial authorities can have trust and confidence in solicitors whilst they attend prisoners in custody. The Tribunal considered it unfortunate that there appeared to be a laissez-faire attitude going on at this particular court at this time. The Tribunal accepted that this was a one-off stupid mistake made by the respondent on a busy day. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had shown remorse for this from the outset. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had fully co-operated with the fiscal, took account of the references lodged and considered it extremely unlikely that anything similar would occur in future. The Tribunal accordingly considered that a censure would be a sufficient penalty.

Neil Iain Woodrow

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Neil Iain Woodrow, solicitor of Macbeth and Maclagan, Solicitors, 34 Castle Street, Rothesay (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his breach of rules 10, 11 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001, his repeatedly acting in breach of the Accounts Rules despite his shortcomings being brought to his attention and his unreasonable delay in recording and registering dispositions and standard securities and discharges. The Tribunal censured the respondent, fined him in the sum of £2,000 and directed in terms of s 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for a period of five years with effect from 1 April 2007, the respondent shall be subject to such restriction on his practising certificate as will limit him to acting as a partner or as a qualified assistant to such solicitor, firm or other employer as may be approved by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council (declaring that such solicitor or at least one partner in such firm shall have held a full practising certificate for at least five years). The Tribunal findings were appealed to the Court of Session who issued an interlocutor deleting the words “1 April 2007” and substituting the words “1 July 2007”, and deleting the words “partner or as a qualified assistant to such solicitor, firm or other employer” and substituting the words “partner of, member in or qualified assistant to such solicitor, firm, limited liability partnership or other employer”.

The Tribunal was of the view that the respondent had exhibited an inability to cope when he was working as a sole practitioner, albeit that his personal circumstances during a particularly stressful period of time had aggravated his difficulties. The Tribunal was concerned by the number of breaches of the Accounts Rules and delay in recording of deeds over a period of time. It is imperative that solicitors deal with conveyancing in a proper manner to ensure that the interests of clients and lenders are safeguarded. It is also essential that solicitors should have regard to the obligations expected of them in terms of the Accounts Rules. The Tribunal took account of the testimonials lodged on behalf of the respondent and the fact that a merger of the respondent’s firm had been planned. The Tribunal noted that the three inspections had identified failures by the respondent before these failures were addressed. In view of this the Tribunal felt that a financial penalty should be imposed. The Tribunal was also of the view that it was necessary to restrict the respondent’s practising certificate for a period of five years to prevent him from carrying on business as a sole practitioner.