Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal: August 2023

Graeme C Miller

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Graeme C Miller, McGregor MacLeod Ltd, Kirkintilloch. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect that he failed to act with integrity in that (a) the firm’s terms of business stated that prior to any complaint being made to the SLCC or the Society, the matter must be raised with the firm’s client relations manager and that failure to comply would result in the firm charging £500 + VAT; and (b) the firm’s terms of business stated that for any complaint made to the SLCC which was not upheld or not accepted for investigation by the SLCC, the firm would charge a levy of £2,500 per head of complaint.

The Tribunal censured the respondent and fined him £1,000. It awarded compensation of £750 to the secondary complainer.

The respondent and the secondary complainer had been in a solicitor-client relationship, but the respondent had withdrawn from acting. The secondary complainer wished to lodge a complaint about the respondent with the SLCC. The respondent’s terms of business provided that any complaint must be raised first with him and failure to do so would result in a “penalty” of £500 + VAT. With reference to complaints made to the SLCC, the terms of business also said that there would be a levy of £2,500 charged for every head of complaint which was not upheld or not accepted for investigation by that body. When the secondary complainer indicated his intention to complain, the respondent referred him to these terms. The respondent’s conduct lacked integrity.

The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 created a scheme whereby members of the public could make complaints about solicitors to the SLCC. There is a public interest in that scheme operating without impediment. The respondent, in his terms of business, attempted to prevent or make it more difficult for clients to complain to the SLCC about him. The Tribunal understands the stress and difficulties caused by complaints. However, complaints should be dealt with fairly. Part of being a professional is submitting to a regulatory scheme and participating in a complaints process. The respondent had attempted to contract out of his ethical duties. The respondent’s terms of business acted as a deterrent and impediment to the proper raising of complaints and subverted clients’ rights under the 2007 Act.