Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Alexander Jack Morrison

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alexander Jack Morrison, solicitor, Cartys Solicitors, Hamilton. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his retention of correspondence addressed to another partner in his firm and his failure to disclose that correspondence to the said partner.

The Tribunal censured the respondent and directed in terms of s 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, that any practising certificate held or to be issued to the respondent shall be subject to such restriction as will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to (and to being supervised by) such employer or successive employers as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Society, for an aggregate period of at least three years and thereafter until such time as he satisfies the Tribunal that he is fit to hold a full practising certificate.

The Tribunal was extremely concerned by the respondent’s conduct, which put his partner at risk. The respondent’s actings in intercepting correspondence addressed to his partner were not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards of the profession, and the Tribunal considered that the respondent’s conduct would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute and amounted to professional misconduct in terms of the Sharp test.

The Tribunal was further concerned by the fact that the respondent had a previous finding of misconduct in 2006, which included the misleading of a client. This showed a common thread and suggested a systematic problem. The Tribunal, however, took account of the extensive mitigation put forward by the respondent’s solicitor. The respondent’s firm had demonstrated faith in him by taking him back on as an assistant and had put in place an effective plan of supervision.

The Tribunal was particularly impressed by the action taken by Cartys in supporting the respondent in these particular circumstances. However, if the respondent left this firm, he would at present be able to go and work for another firm without supervision, and the Tribunal considered that this might put the public at risk. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considered it necessary to impose a restriction on the respondent’s practising certificate.

Antony David Murphy

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Antony David Murphy, solicitor, Hamilton. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his knowingly permitting a client to sell heritable property to a third party when his clients were contractually bound to sell to others; his knowingly falsely representing to his professional body that his accounting records had been destroyed when they had not; and his acting recklessly by clearing monies out of his client account that he could not be sure were due to him as fees and in so doing his removing approximately £116,200 worth of clients’ monies to which he was not entitled, all in breach of article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors 2002; his failure to account to the liquidators of Glen Isla Homes Ltd and Rea Property and Developments Ltd or respond to the reasonable enquiries of the liquidators; and his breach of rule 4 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001.

The Tribunal ordered that the name of the respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.

The respondent did not enter appearance or attend the Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal heard evidence to substantiate the allegations in the complaint. The Tribunal found the facts in the complaint proved beyond reasonable doubt, subject to some deletions. The respondent was aware that his client Glen Isla Homes Ltd had concluded missives with a number of individuals in respect of the sale of units to them. Despite this knowledge, and without advising prospective purchasers or their solicitors, the respondent acted on behalf of Glen Isla Homes Ltd when it negotiated and sold its interests in the development to a third party. The Tribunal considered that the respondent had brought the profession into disrepute by knowingly committing his client to sell heritable property to a third party when his client was contractually bound to sell to others. The Tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors by knowingly falsely representing to the Society that his accounting records had been destroyed in a flood when they clearly had not been. The Tribunal was also extremely concerned by the fact that the respondent acted so recklessly in clearing money out of the clients’ account when he could not be sure that these monies were actually due to him. The Tribunal considered that this put the respondent’s personal integrity into severe doubt. It also put the respondent’s personal integrity into question when he did not answer questions from liquidators about clients’ funds. The Tribunal had no hesitation in striking the respondent’s name from the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.

Website: www.ssdt.org.uk