Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Christopher Martin Campbell

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Christopher Martin Campbell of Campbells, 49 London Road, Edinburgh. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of his failure to comply with the terms of the common law standard applicable to a solicitor acting on behalf of a lender in a conveyancing transaction and in particular his failure to report to his client an unusual circumstance; his failure to comply with the explicit instructions provided to him by his client, being the obligations imposed on him as provided for within the CML Lenders’ Handbook applicable to Scotland; his failure to act with absolute propriety and to protect the interest of his client being the lender in respect of each transaction; his failure to comply with rules 6 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001; and his delay in registering conveyancing documentation on behalf of his client.

The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined him in the sum of £1,000.

Condition 5/1/1 of the CML Handbook in 2009 clearly states that the respondent had an obligation to report to the lender if the proprietor had owned the property for less than six months or the person selling to the borrower was not the proprietor. The Tribunal considered that the terms of condition 5/1/1 are quite clear and that the respondent should have known that he had to report matters to the lender. There was also the issue of deposits not coming from the purchaser and proper money laundering checks not having been carried out. The Tribunal accordingly considered that the respondent was cavalier in the way he dealt with the lender in these particular circumstances, and that his conduct would be viewed by competent and reputable solicitors as serious and reprehensible. When a solicitor takes instructions from a lender, the solicitor owes the lender a duty to ensure that they receive a valid title over the subjects and that he complies with the terms of their instructions. The CML Handbook conditions are part of the lender’s instructions. They are there to prevent potential fraud. Failure to comply with the conditions is damaging to the reputation of the legal profession. The Tribunal considered that in this case the respondent had shown a reckless disregard for complying with his client’s instructions. The respondent should have been aware of the potential risk of failing to report the unusual aspects of these transactions.

The Tribunal further considered that the respondent could not have had an understanding that he had authority to draw down and intromit with the funds in circumstances where he knew that he had not complied with the terms of the CML Handbook, and had accordingly not complied with the lender’s instructions. The Tribunal accordingly found that there was a breach of rule 6 of the Accounts Rules. The Tribunal also found a breach of rule 24 of the Accounts Rules in respect of the respondent’s failure to identify adequately the source of funds utilised by clients to settle the balance of the purchase price in the transactions. The Tribunal found that these breaches in cumulo amounted to professional misconduct when taken with the failure to comply with the CML Handbook.

The respondent also delayed on one occasion in recording the standard security to protect the lender’s interests. Although this one incident on its own would not be sufficient to amount to professional misconduct, the Tribunal made a finding in cumulo.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent’s misconduct was at the lower end of the scale of professional misconduct and noted that the respondent had fully co-operated and tendered a plea of guilty.