Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Iain Stuart Catto

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Iain Stuart Catto, solicitor, Craigisla, 6 Park Street, Dingwall (“the respondent”). The Tribunal considered the complaint regarding a conviction of the respondent of theft in respect of which the respondent was on 26 September 2006, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of a period of 27 months. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal noted that as the respondent had had his name removed from the roll, the Tribunal was unable to strike the respondent’s name from the roll or impose a restriction. The Tribunal was also unable to fine as the complaint was one under s 53(1)(b) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. The Tribunal accordingly had no option but to merely censure the respondent.

Stuart Fraser Wilson

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Stuart Fraser Wilson, solicitor, S F Wilson & Co, 28 Moss Street, Paisley (“the respondent”).  The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of his failure to reply timeously, openly and accurately to the enquiries made of him by the Society and to statutory notices served by them, and in respect of his failure to implement an agreement reached with a firm of solicitors and his failure to reply to repeated requests to implement that agreement. The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined him £2,500.

The Tribunal noted that not only did the respondent fail to implement an agreement with another firm of solicitors but he also failed to reply to numerous and repeated correspondence over a three year period requesting implementation of the agreement. He also failed to respond to the Society, which prevents the Society from properly investigating complaints and can bring the whole profession in disrepute. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had two previous recent findings of misconduct against him. The Tribunal accordingly considered that this was a continuing course of conduct and therefore regarded the present case as more serious in light of the previous findings.

Alexander Ritchie Robertson

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alexander Ritchie Robertson, solicitor, Messrs Robertson Smith Solicitors, 148 Nethergate, Dundee (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his acting in a situation where multiple potential conflicts of interests existed as between his firm’s clients and one of its partners and his failure to advise his clients of the conflicting interests and failure to recommend separate advice, his failure to issue the letters required by the Solicitors (Scotland) Practice Rules 1986, his continuing to act for his client after a clear conflict had arisen arising from the failure of another client to pay the price under the second level missives and his failure to tender appropriate advice, his continuing to act for a number of clients and the bank at that stage and his exposing two of his clients and the bank to a significant risk by drawing down loan funds and effecting partial settlement of one client’s purchase with neither a marketable title nor a valid security available, his failure to credit the sums borrowed from the bank by two of his clients to a ledger account in their name and instead making payment to the ledger account in the name of his partner and his partner’s wife in breach of rules 4 and 6 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Etc Rules 1989, and his misleading the bank as to the status of its security. The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined him £2,500.

The Tribunal was concerned with regard to the clear conflict of interest situation in this case. All solicitors should know that a solicitor should not act for more than one party whose interests conflict, subject to certain exceptions. In this case the respondent not only failed to give his client the necessary advice with regard to a potential conflict of interest, he continued to act when a clear conflict had arisen. The Tribunal however was sympathetic to the respondent’s position, being a junior partner who had just joined the firm after an amalgamation. The Tribunal considered that the two senior partners must have been fully appraised as to what was going on, as one had a personal interest and the other was acting on the other side of the transaction. In the Tribunal’s view, any firm acting when a partner has a direct interest in the transaction is exposing itself to extreme risks. The Tribunal found it particularly significant that the respondent had worked for 17 years since the incident with no adverse consequences and the public clearly had not required protection from the respondent in the intervening period. The Tribunal however considered that the respondent must accept personal responsibility in connection with the misleading of the bank as to the status of its security.