Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Appeal under s42A: Malcolm

Keith Macaulay Cameron

Two appeals under s 42A were made by Malcolm Keith MacAulay Cameron, solicitor, Glasgow (“the appellant”). The Tribunal having considered preliminary pleas, found that the members of the Tribunal who sat on a previous appeal in January 2008 should not be excluded from any future hearing in relation to the appellant; quashed the determination and direction of the Law Society of Scotland in respect of one of the appeals; and adjourned the remaining appeal to a substantive hearing on a future date.

The Tribunal decided, applying the test in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, that there was nothing in the decision or record of proceedings of the previous Tribunal which would cause a fair minded and well informed observer to conclude that there was any real possibility that members of the Tribunal would be biased in any future case.

In respect of the determination and direction made by the Society on 4 September 2008, the Tribunal noted that the Society was unable to state whether or not it was in possession of all the documents originally sent to it by the appellant in connection with the complaint by the lay complainer. Given the nature of the heads of complaint, the Tribunal was of the view that without a categorical assurance that all the missing papers were held by the Society, the appellant could not be certain whether he had recovered the entire original file and was therefore prevented from preparing properly for the appeal. The Tribunal accordingly quashed the determination and direction of the Society.

Daniel Cohen

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Daniel Cohen, solicitor, formerly of 19 Rubislaw Terrace, Aberdeen (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of, between 27 February and 13 April 2007, his instructing the Britannia Building Society to have funds which he held with them in trust for third parties or as a signatory on the account of a third party, transferred to him for his own use as an individual and his attempt to misappropriate the sum of £3,104.24.

The Tribunal censured the respondent, fined him in the sum of £7,500 and directed in terms of s 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for a period of five years, any practising certificate held or issued to the respondent shall be subject to such restriction as will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to such employer as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council.

The Tribunal was extremely concerned by the respondent’s conduct. It is imperative that solicitors act with honesty and integrity at all times. For someone in the respondent’s position to attempt to misappropriate money is regrettably disgraceful and dishonourable and very damaging to the reputation of the legal profession. The Tribunal however took into account the fact that there was no actual gain to the respondent and no actual loss to anyone. In the circumstances the Tribunal stopped short of striking the respondent’s name from the roll or suspending him from practice. The Tribunal however considered that in order to ensure the protection of the public, a restriction on the respondent’s practising certificate was required. The Tribunal also considered, given the dishonesty involved, that a fine should be imposed in addition. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had been fined £5,000 in respect of previous findings and considered that a fine of £7,500 was appropriate.

William Pirie Rennie

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against William Pirie Rennie, solicitor, Kilmarnock (“the respondent”). The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his breach of rules 4(1)(a) and 6(1) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts, Accounts Certificate, Professional Practice and Guarantee Fund Rules 2001 by having a significant shortage on his client account and in respect of his failure to respond timeously, openly and accurately to the reasonable enquiries made of him by the Society and to the statutory notices served on him by the Society concerning complaints made against him. The Tribunal ordered that the respondent’s name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland. The Tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to comply with a determination and direction by the Council under s 42A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 within the period specified.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent’s actions had continued over a considerable period of time. The respondent had misappropriated clients’ money for his own personal gain in order to maintain his business. The Tribunal considered the respondent’s conduct regrettably disgraceful and dishonourable. The Tribunal acknowledged that the respondent was remorseful and had co-operated in tendering pleas to both complaints. The Tribunal also noted the medical report from the respondent’s doctor and the respondent’s explanation for his conduct. However, given the number of deliberate acts of dishonesty over a prolonged period of time, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to strike the respondent’s name from the Roll of Solicitors. Publicity was deferred until the conclusion of criminal proceedings.