Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Steven Angus Anderson

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Steven Angus Anderson, solicitor, Messrs Andersons Solicitors & Notaries, 2 Hillkirk Street Lane, Springburn, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to respond to correspondence and statutory notices from the Society. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The respondent had failed to respond to a number of letters and notices sent by the Society. The Tribunal accordingly found that his conduct was serious and reprehensible enough to amount to professional misconduct. If solicitors do not reply to the Society it hampers the Society in the performance of its statutory duty and brings the profession into disrepute. The Tribunal noted however that in this case the failure to reply related only to one client and occurred over a relatively short period of time. The Tribunal also took account of the fact that the respondent had entered into a joint minute and had apologised for his failure to respond. It was also clear to the Tribunal that the respondent now realised how important it was to reply to enquiries from the Society. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considered that the respondent’s conduct fell at the lower end of the scale of professional misconduct and that a censure was a sufficient penalty.

Kenneth MacQueen Hill

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Kenneth MacQueen Hill, solicitor, Messrs Stevenson & Johnstone, Bank of Scotland Buildings, Langholm (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his carrying on practice with Richard Hill despite Richard Hill not holding a practising certificate, his employing Richard Hill as a consultant without obtaining the requisite authority from the Council of the Law Society of Scotland, contrary to the decision reached by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal on 23 June 2006, his designation of Richard Hill’s name on the firm’s professional stationery to infer that he was a partner in the firm and his allowing Richard Hill to be named in the firm’s professional stationery latterly as a consultant, despite Richard Hill being restricted to practising as an assistant solicitor by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal on 23 June 2006 and having no practising certificate in force at the time, and in relation to his employment of Richard Hill despite the fact that Richard Hill did not have a valid practising certificate. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal noted the respondent’s agent’s submissions that the respondent had been unaware that his father had been before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took account of the respondent’s unblemished career in the profession and had sympathy for the difficult position which the respondent had found himself in. However the Tribunal considered that it was the respondent’s responsibility as a partner of the firm to ensure that all solicitors providing legal services on behalf of the firm had practising certificates and were complying with any conditions imposed by the Tribunal on their practising certificate. The Tribunal was aware that the publicity arising from the case would have a negative impact on the respondent’s practice and considered that accordingly a censure would be sufficient penalty.

Jacqueline Marie Johnston

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Jacqueline Marie Johnston, solicitor of Messrs Currie Johnston & Co, 18 Grampian Court, Beveridge Square, Livingston (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of her breach of rules 4, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 14 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 £1,000.

The Tribunal was extremely concerned that the respondent’s books were in such a state of disarray for a period of three years. Difficulties in a solicitor’s personal life are not an excuse for failure to deal with professional responsibilities. The Tribunal was also concerned that the respondent sent in certificates to the Society that were inaccurate. The Tribunal was of the view that the respondent took on too much work and she had a professional responsibility to ensure that her firm operated properly. Her records were in an unacceptable state for a three year period and she also put clients at risk by delay in recording deeds. The Tribunal considered that there was no evidence of the respondent having a cavalier attitude to her problems. The Tribunal was pleased to note that the Society was continuing to carry out regular inspections of the respondent’s firm and noted that the respondent would have to bear the costs of a further inspection in January 2009. The Tribunal recognised that the respondent had engaged appropriate assistance to enable matters to be sorted out and that she had made very real progress in having everything rectified. The Tribunal considered a censure plus a fine of £1,000 to be an appropriate penalty.

James Joseph McGinley and Anne-Marie McGinley

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against James Joseph McGinley, solicitor, Unit 10, 355 Byres Road, Glasgow (“the first respondent”) and Anne-Marie McGinley, solicitor, Unit 10, 355 Byres Road, Glasgow (“the second respondent”). The Tribunal found the first respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of his repeated failure to respond to correspondence from his fellow solicitors; his delay and at times failure to respond to the reasonable enquiries of the Society in the course of their investigation and to complaints made against him; his repeated failure to make timeous and in some cases any payment in respect of counsel’s fees instructed by him or through his firm and his failure to comply with the scheme of accounting for and recovery of counsel’s fees; and his failure to comply with statutory notices served by the Society and to deliver files as required of him. The Tribunal found the second respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of her repeated failure to make timeous and in some cases any payment in respect of counsel’s fees instructed by her or through her firm and her failure to comply with the scheme of accounting for and recovery of counsel’s fees; her delay and at times failure to respond to the reasonable enquiries of the Society in relation to the investigation of complaints against her; and her failure to comply with statutory notices issued by the Society and to deliver files as required of her. The Tribunal also found that both respondents had failed to comply fully with the determination and direction given by the Council of the Society under s 42A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 within the period specified and resolved to make an order under s 53C. The Tribunal ensured the respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents’ failures had arisen not in the course of running their practice but in the course of winding up their practice after they had accepted that they had overstretched themselves financially and administratively. The Tribunal also noted that the respondents acknowledged this fact and had contacted the Society for advice on the closure of their business as early as July 2005. The Tribunal took into account that the respondents had not adopted an irresponsible attitude to their business affairs and had made significant payments towards the monies outstanding to the Faculty of Advocates and to their former clients and were still working with the Society towards resolving all outstanding issues. The Tribunal also noted that both respondents were pursuing careers outwith the legal profession and had no desire to return to practice. For these reasons the Tribunal considered that fines would not be appropriate in the circumstances. The Tribunal considered a censure for both respondents to be sufficient.

Graeme Crombie Miller

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Graeme Crombie Miller, solicitor, Miller Stewart Limited Solicitors, 1252 Shettleston Road, Shettleston, Glasgow (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure adequately to supervise the conduct of his employees acting on his behalf, in particular in relation to the deliberate vandalism of issues of the GSPC magazine to the detriment of competitor solicitors and their clients. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal had regard to the unusual circumstances of this case. The Tribunal noted the authorities quoted by the fiscal and considered that the respondent had a duty to oversee the actings of his staff. The Tribunal considered that the fact that the respondent’s offices were some distance apart did not have any effect on that duty. The Tribunal noted that the actions of the respondent’s employees caused distress and were to the detriment of another firm of solicitors and the interests of their clients. However, the Tribunal noted that the defacement of the magazines stopped instantly when the matter was drawn to the respondent’s attention. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had an unblemished record within the profession. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered that the appropriate sanction was a censure.

Taco Frank Nolf

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Taco Frank Nolf, Solicitor, 34c Marischal Street, Aberdeen (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of his failure to respond to the reasonable enquiries of the Society and to statutory notices served by it. The Tribunal censured the respondent.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent was well aware that the Society has a duty to investigate any complaint, from any source, regarding the conduct of a solicitor, and that solicitors have a duty to respond to enquiries made by the Society in this regard. Failure to respond to the Society prevents it from properly investigating complaints and can bring the whole profession into disrepute. However, the Tribunal took into account the fact that the respondent had entered into a joint minute and noted the respondent’s previously unblemished record and the fact that these failures, over a relatively short period of time, were at the lower end of the scale of professional misconduct. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered that the appropriate sanction was a censure.