Court ruling creates ‘uncertainty’ over handling of serious allegations of misconduct against lawyers
A court ruling has created uncertainty over how serious allegations of misconduct against lawyers can be considered if no individual or organisation is prepared to make a complaint, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has said.
Glasgow lawyer Francis Cannon, a solicitor for over 50 years, has succeeded in judicial review proceedings raised against the SLCC after it decided to make a complaint against him over his involvement in a series of transactions in 2008 and 2009.
A judge in the Court of Session ruled that the watchdog, which decided ex proprio motu to make a complaint in its own name for investigation and determination, had acted “contrary to the rules of natural justice”.
Commenting on the ruling, SLCC CEO Neil Stevenson said: “We were passed detailed information by the police, but after further discussions they were unwilling to make a formal complaint.
“There was a serious allegation with evidence available, and potential public protection issues. After discussions with the Law Society of Scotland, we believed raising a complaint in our own name was the only remaining option to ensure the matter could be investigated. Our only role would have been to perform initial ‘eligibility’ assessment. As it was an allegation of misconduct we would have then passed the complaint to the Law Society of Scotland for investigation, if we had accepted it as eligible.
“We will now carefully consider the detail of the court’s decision and the implications. We are concerned that this decision leaves a situation whereby it is unclear how serious allegations of misconduct against lawyers can be considered in terms of public protection if no individual or organisation is prepared to make a complaint in such cases.
“This case has highlighted again that the system for legal regulation and complaints is complex and unwieldy and we will continue to make the case for reform.”