Misconduct finding follows failure to hand file to SLCC
A solicitor who failed to deliver a client file to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission until Court of Session proceedings were taken, has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal.
John Fraser Tait of Tait Macleod, Falkirk, was censured and fined £1,500 by the tribunal having admitted professional misconduct in failing over a six month period in 2021 to provide a file in an executry matter that was the subject of a complaint to the SLCC. The file was delivered after the court action was raised, the solicitor paying the expenses of the action.
In its decision the tribunal stated: “It is a source of professional embarrassment to the respondent and the profession that an action had to be commenced at the Court of Session before the respondent cooperated with his regulator. Resolution of complaints is delayed when respondents fail to communicate with the SLCC. This is contrary to the public interest as well as the interests of the individual complainers.”
The tribunal also noted references provided for the respondent, difficulties he had faced as a sole practitioner during the pandemic and his cooperation with the fiscal and the tribunal.
Commenting on the ruling, SLCC CEO Neil Stevenson said: “This is a lose-lose situation for everyone, but one which is all too common. In this case, it took as long for us to secure the file as it took to investigate the complaint. Had the practitioner responded when our request was made, this complaint could have been resolved or determined swiftly. As it was, the complainer waited six months for us to confirm we could even start to investigate the complaint as we spent unnecessary staff time, legal fees and court costs pursuing the file.
“Not only that, but the practitioner found themselves not just responding to a service complaint but facing a conduct investigation by the Law Society of Scotland, followed by prosecution in front of the tribunal. Ultimately, their lack of timely compliance led to the complaint hanging over them for two and half years and ended in a censure, fine, expenses and a published disciplinary decision. That’s not a situation anyone wants to find themselves in.
“We’d urge practitioners to treat a statutory request from us with the importance and urgency it requires. We’re happy to discuss any concerns about providing the requested information, but ignoring a regulatory request doesn’t help anyone. This case highlights the very serious implications that failing to respond can have for practitioners’ own disciplinary records and should provide a cautionary tale for the profession about the seriousness with which non-cooperation will be treated.”