Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Campbell Dinsmore Joss

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Campbell Dinsmore Joss, Unit 4, 1987 Maryhill Road, Glasgow. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of: his breach of the Code of Conduct 2002 and Practice Rules 2008 in relation to institutional lenders, in regard to his failure to report to the lenders relevant circumstances and in particular those circumstances as required by the lenders’ explicit instructions as set out in the Council of Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook applicable to Scotland, and his misleading a lender; his breach of the Code of Conduct 2002 and Practice Rules 2008 in relation to individual clients in that he had little or no communication with said clients, provided no advice to said clients, and acted in potential conflict situations in relation to these clients; his breach of the Practice Rules 2008 and Code of Conduct 2002 in relation to other solicitors in that he knowingly misled solicitors representing other parties in three transactions; his failure to comply with rules 6 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001; his failure to comply with s 30 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; his failure to comply with the Solicitors (Scotland) (Client Communications) Practice Rules 2005; and his failure to comply with the Solicitors (Scotland) Practice Rules 1986 by acting in conflict of interest situations.

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

The Tribunal had particular concerns with regard to the lack of any report to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It was difficult to see how any man of business exercising the normal standards of care required by a professional could not see that there were issues in these cases that required to be reported. The respondent clearly knew or ought to have known the difficulties with these transactions. The action or lack of action on his part was so bad that it was clearly beyond the conduct expected of any competent and reputable solicitor. He had exercised reckless conduct towards all of his clients. He appeared to be unconcerned as to the effect his conduct could have on his clients and other members of the profession.Although there was no evidence of any particular fraudulent conduct, his complete and utter disregard for any standard of care had made it possible. Given the large number of breaches of many duties, the repeated nature of the course of conduct, the clear danger presented to the public as a result, the clear risk to the reputation of the legal profession, and the respondent’s complete and utter disregard for the duties of care he owed to clients 

www.ssdt.org.uk