Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Mohammed Aamer Anwar, Aamer Anwar & Co, Glasgow.

The complaint raised the issue of communication under two headings: (1) rule B1.9.1, and (2) rule B4.2(e) and (f). The Tribunal concluded that the conduct proved did not amount to a breach of rule B4.2(e) and (f). However, the Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had failed to communicate effectively with his client in terms of rule B1.9.1. The plain reading of clause 8 of the terms of business was to exclude the client’s right to taxation and to make a complaint to the SLCC. That was not what was intended by the respondent.

Thereafter, the Tribunal required to determine whether this breach amounted to professional misconduct. The Tribunal found the respondent to be a credible witness and accepted his explanation. There could therefore be no issues of honesty or integrity (rule B1.2), no issue of failing to give independent advice (rule B1.3), and no issue of the respondent putting his interests before his client’s (rule B1.4.2).

The Tribunal was clear that terms of business are significant documents, as they form the contract between solicitor and client and solicitors have an obligation to draft these clearly and accurately. Solicitors should not include clauses in their terms of business that attempt to restrict or remove the client’s rights inappropriately. However, the Tribunal accepted that clause 8 was carelessly worded by the respondent and this was an honest mistake on his part. Of significance was the fact that he had not attempted to use this clause to prevent the secondary complainer from complaining to the SLCC, and also his solicitor flagged up to her the right to have the fee reviewed by taxation. As a result, the Tribunal determined that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the respondent’s conduct did not meet the Sharp test and found him not guilty of professional misconduct.

The conduct fell just short of the test for unsatisfactory professional conduct, and it was therefore not appropriate to remit the complaint to the Council of the Society in terms of s 53ZA of the 1980 Act.

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Douglas Lamond, solicitor, Perth. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of his contraventions of rules B1.9.1 and B1.16 of the Law Society of Scotland Practice Rules 2011.

The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined him £750.

The respondent failed to respond to correspondence or statutory notices received from the Society in respect of its regulatory function and impeded the Council in its statutory obligation to investigate complaints. The Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent’s conduct in breaching rules B1.9 and B1.16 represented a serious and reprehensible departure from the standards of competent and reputable solicitors. The respondent’s behaviour amounted to a course of conduct of failing to cooperate with his regulator. It is essential in the public interest that solicitors cooperate with the Society exercising its role as a regulatory body. The Society cannot properly exercise its function to protect the public without the cooperation of solicitors. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct.

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Stephen McGuire, Hennessey, Bowie & Co, Bishopbriggs. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of his breaches of rules B6.2.3, B6.4.1, B6.5.1, B6.7, B6.13 and B6.23 of the Law Society of Scotland Practice Rules 2011.

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

The admitted conduct related to a number of significant breaches of the accounts rules, including those in relation to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. The respondent failed to properly identify clients and failed to rectify breaches. He failed to ensure that the firm had proper systems in place. He failed to train his staff. As designated cashroom manager, he allowed payments to be made to individuals who were not clients, without appropriate identification, due diligence and written authority. He failed to keep accurate records. He did not supervise his partner properly as designated cashroom manager and money laundering reporting officer. He failed to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations. The risk monitoring was insufficient. Although he formulated risk management policies following a 2013 inspection, he did not monitor the firm’s compliance with those policies. He did not keep proper records. He was given a number of opportunities to rectify the situation. He knew there was a problem, and created procedures, but failed to implement them.

Designated cashroom managers must retain responsibility for the books and records. Money laundering reporting officers must ensure compliance with anti-money laundering procedures. This includes documenting compliance. It is essential that the public can have confidence that the profession can be trusted to comply with the accounts rules and the money laundering provisions. The Money Laundering Regulations exist to protect society against criminal acts. Documentation of anti-money laundering procedures allows the solicitor to demonstrate compliance with the rules. Problems were drawn to the respondent’s attention in 2013. These persisted in 2016. The respondent’s conduct in relation to a wide variety of breaches over a significant period of time fell below the standards of conduct to be expected of a competent and reputable solicitor to a serious and reprehensible degree. He was therefore guilty, in cumulo, of professional misconduct.

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Thomas Cunningham Steel, Brunton Miller, Glasgow. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect that (a) he failed to communicate with the secondary complainer following his receipt on or about 18 October 2018 of the sum due to her, and (b) he delayed unduly in remitting the sum to the secondary complainer.

The Tribunal censured the respondent and ordained him to make payment of £3,992.26 to the secondary complainer.

On 18 October 2018, the respondent received a sum due to the secondary complainer. He did not communicate with her. He did not remit the sum to her until 10 June 2019. He therefore failed to communicate effectively with the secondary complainer (rule B1.9.1). He failed to return money held for a client promptly as soon as there was no longer any reason to retain it (rule 6.11.1). The respondent’s conduct represented a serious and reprehensible departure from the standards of competent and reputable solicitors. A competent and reputable solicitor on receipt of the cheque would have created a ledger entry and paid the money to the secondary complainer as soon as possible. The respondent’s delay, in this case, was unconscionable, as was his lack of communication. Other solicitors had reminded him about the problem. The secondary complainer was without her money for eight months. Members of the public entrust their money to solicitors. An eight month delay in forwarding clients’ funds when there was no impediment to doing so undermines the public’s trust in the profession and is likely to affect the reputation of the profession. The respondent was therefore guilty of professional misconduct.