Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Eileen Agnes Coogans

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Eileen Agnes Coogans, solicitor, E Coogans & Co, Solicitors, 669 Cathcart Road, Glasgow  (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of her breach of rules 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001 and her failure or unreasonable delay in recording title deeds. The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined her in the sum of £4,000.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s conduct clearly amounted to professional misconduct. The Accounts Rules are in place to ensure that the public are protected and that solicitors put systems in place to ensure that their businesses are properly run. The Tribunal was most concerned that the respondent in this case started up in business without having the proper systems in place and continued in business for a two year period whilst still not having proper systems. Solicitors who set up in business on their own have a responsibility to ensure that the necessary systems are in place before they start trading. The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s method of operating for a period of two years did put the public at risk. The Tribunal, however, noted that the respondent had now resolved all matters and had put proper systems in place. The Tribunal wished to make clear that it is not good enough for a solicitor to start out in practice without proper systems in place and then sort matters out later. Accordingly, a censure plus a fine of £4,000 was imposed.

Zosia Marion Elizabeth Fraser

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Zosia Marion Elizabeth Fraser, solicitor, Flat 1x3, 83 Magdalen Yard Road, Dundee (“the respondent”) under s 53(1)(b) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. The Tribunal found that the respondent had been convicted of an act involving dishonesty. The Tribunal ordered that the name of the respondent be struck from the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.

The essential qualities of a solicitor are honesty, truthfulness and integrity. The respondent’s conduct in this case was regrettably disgraceful and dishonourable and totally contrary to the ethical standards expected of the legal profession. The Tribunal noted the financial pressures that the respondent was under, but many solicitors starting out in practice will have student debts and financial problems, and this cannot be used as an excuse to commit embezzlement. The Tribunal had some sympathy for the respondent’s individual position but did not consider that her medical condition was such that she had lost a sense of social responsibility. The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s conduct brought the profession into such disrepute that she could not continue as a lawyer and she was not a fit and proper person to be on the Roll of Solicitors.

Annaline Webster

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Annaline Webster, independent qualified conveyancer, 8 South Bridge, Cupar  (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of her operating a general client account despite having been advised by the complainers that she should desist from doing so, her failure to maintain adequate records, her failure to maintain and reconcile the cash book, her failure to retain records for the required period, her failure to account for interest, her making inter-account transfers between clients and payments to third parties without written authority, her failure to lodge an accountant’s certificate timeously, her operating with a shortage on the client account, her failure to obtain the necessary proof of identity and evidence as to the source of funds, all contrary to regs 23(3), 24(1) and (6), 25(4), 26, 28(2), and 30(1) of the Independent Qualified Conveyancers (Scotland) Regulations 1997 and the Money Laundering Regulations 1993, her failure to record deeds timeously, and her witnessing et separatim notarising a signature which she knew had to have to been added to a document whilst she was not present and misleading the solicitors acting for her client’s lender. The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined her in the sum of £3,000.

The Tribunal was concerned by the respondent’s conduct. The 1997 Regulations were set up to ensure that independent qualified conveyancers ran their businesses in an appropriate manner. The respondent breached a large number of these regulations which are in place to protect the public. The Tribunal however noted that when the respondent became a conveyancing practitioner, this was under a scheme whereby the Conveyancing and Executry Services Board was there to deal with conveyancing and executry practitioners. Due to the low number of conveyancing and executry practitioners setting up in business the Board was disbanded in 2003. While the respondent was being inspected by the Board it was clear from the productions lodged that there were only minor issues with her bookkeeping. However when the Society took over the regulation of conveyancing and executry practitioners, they found serious deficiencies in the respondent’s bookkeeping and found that the respondent was failing to comply with the 1997 Regulations. The Tribunal recognised that the respondent was in the unique and unfortunate position of being one of two or three conveyancing and executry practitioners in Scotland. She therefore did not have a support network of colleagues. The Tribunal’s main concern was with regard to the respondent witnessing and notarising a signature which she knew had been added to a document whilst she was not present and her sending the documents to the solicitors acting for the lender, leading them to believe that she had witnessed her client’s signature. This is completely contrary to the duties on conveyancing and executry practitioners. If conveyancing and executry practitioners are to act in such a way, it will undermine public confidence in them. It was not possible for the Tribunal to attach a condition to the respondent’s registration to the effect that she should be employed and supervised by another conveyancing and executry practitioner given that there are only one or two others in Scotland. In the circumstances, the Tribunal felt that a censure plus a fine of £3,000 would be sufficient penalty.

Ian Samuel Gerard Donnelly

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Ian Samuel Gerard Donnelly, solicitor, residing at 158 Stonelaw Road, Rutherglen, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his committing serious criminal offences all of which had a sexual context to them and some of which related to children of tender years, for which he was made the subject of a probation order for a period of three years with additional conditions. Given that the respondent’s name had already been administratively removed from the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland, the Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable. A solicitor has a duty to maintain the same standard of propriety in his private life as would be expected of him in his professional life. The respondent’s conduct in this case was extremely damaging to the reputation of the legal profession. Had the respondent’s name still been on the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland, the Tribunal would have had no hesitation in ordering his name to be struck from the roll. The Tribunal however did not have the power to order that his name be struck off the roll. The Tribunal considered whether a fine should be imposed in addition to a censure. Had the Tribunal been in a position to order the respondent’s name to be struck from the Roll of Solicitors, no fine could have been imposed. The Tribunal however considered that if a fine were to be appropriate, the fine imposed would have to be the maximum fine to signal how seriously the Tribunal regarded this particular case. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had not asked to have his name removed from the Roll; this had been done administratively by the Society. The Tribunal further noted that in terms of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, s 53(1)(b), if a solicitor is found guilty of dishonesty or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two years a sanction of fine is not available to the Tribunal on the basis that this would be double jeopardy. The Tribunal was concerned that it should be noted that, as in previous recent cases where the name of the respondent appearing before the Tribunal was no longer on the Roll of Solicitors, the limitation on the sanction imposed in this case should not be taken as an indication that the Tribunal did not consider to be extremely grave, the offences of which the respondent had been found guilty. The Tribunal considered that imposing a fine on the respondent could be construed as oppressive, therefore the Tribunal determined to impose a censure on the respondent.

Mark David Sheppard

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Mark David Sheppard, residing at 91 Coillesdene Avenue, Edinburgh (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his misappropriation of funds, misrepresentations to his client, lenders and another firm of solicitors and his breaches of rule 8(1) and (4) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts, Accounts Certificate, Professional Practice and Guarantee Fund Rules 2001 by cashing various cheques which represented payments of judicial expenses and crediting them against the wrong client accounts. Given that the respondent’s name had been removed from the Roll of Solicitors, the Tribunal censured the respondent.

The essential and absolute qualities of a solicitor are honesty, truthfulness and integrity. It is essential for the public to have confidence in the legal profession that solicitors act with integrity. The respondent’s conduct in misappropriating funds and misleading his client had brought the legal profession into disrepute. The Tribunal had regard to all the productions in this case and in particular to the details of the respondent’s medical condition which he was suffering from at the time that these failures occurred. The Tribunal noted that the respondent did not benefit personally from the misappropriation of funds and in fact had lost a significant amount of money due to his conduct. In considering sanction, the Tribunal noted that the respondent’s name had already been removed from the Roll of Solicitors by the Society under an administrative process. The Tribunal noted that the respondent was not in a position to pay a fine and considered a censure to be the appropriate sanction in this case having regard to the restricted sanctions available.