Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Reports relating to Patrick John Angus; Ajaz Mohammed Hussain; David Richard Blair Lyons

The Journal, December 2004, page 48

PATRICK JOHN ANGUS

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Patrick John Angus, Solicitor, 9 The Square, Huntly, Aberdeenshire (“the Respondent”). The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his charging grossly excessive fees in respect of a number of trust and a number of executry estates, his producing inaccurate and misleading information with regard to the financial position of a number of executry estates and his breach of rules 6 and 12 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules 1997. The Tribunal Censured the Respondent, fined him the sum of £10,000 and Directed in terms of section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for a period of four years any practising certificate held or issued to the Respondent shall be subject to such restriction as will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to such employer as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland.

The Tribunal accepts that it can be difficult to know what fees will be in an executry estate. There can be a wide variety and range of fees and the margin for error in relation to fees can be greater in executries. However a solicitor has a duty to be especially careful in an executry, particularly where they are the sole executor. The best course of action is to have the account taxed. The Tribunal were concerned that the Respondent had omitted certain items from the executry accounts. The Respondent explained this by stating that he had not thought it was necessary to include these in the inventory as he already had control of the funds and there was no evidence that these figures had been omitted with dishonest intent. The Tribunal had concerns with regard to the number of executries where the Respondent overcharged fees. The Tribunal was however not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent acted with dishonest intent. Despite this the Tribunal viewed the case very seriously given the number of instances of grossly excessive fees taken together with the inaccurate and misleading information regarding the financial position in a number of estates. The Respondent’s actions were reckless and stupid and the Tribunal was particularly  concerned with regard to vulnerable clients. The Tribunal however noted that the Respondent had sorted matters out quickly and repaid all the overcharged fees immediately. There had been no further inspections by the Society since 2002 and no further problems had been identified. The Respondent had co-operated and entered into a joint minute. In the circumstances the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to strike the Respondent’s name from the Roll or impose a period of suspension; however due to the serious nature of the offences and to ensure the protection of the public the Tribunal Censured the Respondent, imposed a fine of £10,000 and imposed a restriction on the Respondent’s practising certificate for a period of four years.

AJAZ MOHAMMED HUSSAIN

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Ajaz Mohammed Hussain, Solicitor, 12 Albany Terrace, Dundee (“the Respondent”).  The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his breach of Rule 3(1) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Certificate Rules 1997 and Rules 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts, Accounts Certificate, Professional Practice and Guarantee Fund Rules 2001; his carrying on in practice without having in force professional indemnity insurance and practising certificate and his appropriation of fees paid in cash without making any record thereof.  The Tribunal Censured the Respondent and Directed in terms of section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that any practising certificate held or issued to the Respondent shall be subject to such restriction as will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to such employer or successive employers as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland and that for an aggregate period of at least five years and thereafter until such time as he satisfies the Tribunal that he is fit to hold a full practising certificate. 

The Tribunal were concerned by the number of breaches of the Accounts Rules and the Respondent’s obvious ignorance of the Accounts Rules when he set up in practice on his own.  The Respondent’s way of working as a sole practitioner was totally unacceptable.  The Tribunal were concerned that the Respondent practised for five weeks without a practising certificate or indemnity insurance.  The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent had been driven to setting up on his own due to his unfortunate employment history when he was not ready or capable of doing this.  The Tribunal were of the view that the Respondent had been very naive and foolish in his actions.  The Tribunal was however satisfied that the Respondent’s basic integrity was not in question.  The Respondent was clearly not fit to continue in practice as a principal and the Tribunal accordingly imposed a restriction on his practising certificate.  

DAVID RICHARD BLAIR LYONS

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against David Richard Blair Lyons, Solicitor, 5 George Square, Greenock (“the Respondent”). The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of his persistent failure to deal with correspondence from the Law Society in relation to three clients and Faculty Services Ltd, his failure to obtemper a statutory notice and his breach of rule 6(1) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules 1997. The Tribunal Censured the Respondent and fined him in the sum of £1,000 to be forfeit to her Majesty.

The Tribunal has made it clear on numerous occasions that failure to respond to the Society hampers the Society in performance of its statutory duty and brings the profession into disrepute. In this case the Respondent failed to respond in connection with a number of matters and over a prolonged period. The Tribunal however took into account the fact that the Respondent had sorted out all the substantive matters and fully co-operated with the Society since the service of the Complaint and had entered into a joint minute. The Tribunal also took into account the medical evidence and the references provided. In connection with the breach of rule 6 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules 1997 by intromission with funds and taking of fees from an executry before an executor had been appointed, the Tribunal made an in cumulo finding as the Tribunal would not necessarily find that this breach of rule 6 on its own would amount to professional misconduct.