Under the public gaze

The Law Society of Scotland is involved in its share of controversies, but few have quite the political edge of the one that has blown up around the property dealings of Michelle Thomson MP and her now struck-off solicitor, Christopher Hales.

Conspiracy theorists have had a field day, even if the point at which matters were or could have been reported to the Crown for investigation may turn out to depend after all on the working of the Society’s internal procedures, and workloads meaning these were not completed as quickly as they might have been. Those involved within the Society (we are assured) were unaware of any political connections at the time.
It is only right, and indeed necessary, however that this should be open to scrutiny, and that the Society should, as promised, re-examine its procedures as a result. If ever there was a lesson in the need for transparency in governance, it is this case. That should be the standard for any actions taken in the public interest; the fact that this case has taken on a new and unexpected dimension only underlines that you never know when you are going to be held to account for decisions made.

Another aspect of the public interest that has been raised is whether a professional regulatory body should be taking further action on behalf of the original sellers to Ms Thomson’s company, whose properties were quickly resold by it at a large markup. The alleged conflict of interest through the Society’s dual role has been cited as an obstacle to achieving redress.

Assuming for the sake of argument that action would be justified (not, of course, as yet established), if the powers were available, the two issues are not necessarily connected. Solicitors would not in general, I believe, regard the Society as lenient in its regulatory approach, and a body that prosecutes its members with a view to their complete exclusion from practice in appropriate cases is not in principle unsuited to being entrusted with the role.

But public protection where the profession is concerned has to be viewed in the round, including what is offered by the Master Policy, the Client Protection Fund (ex-Guarantee Fund), and the SLCC, within its powers.

It is understood that there may be a legislative window to update the Solicitors (Scotland) Act before too long. The opportunity should be taken to review the adequacy of the public protection regime in all its aspects.