Law Society issues statement on staff member linked to Michelle Thomson row

The Law Society of Scotland has issued a statement after it emerged a staff member linked to scrutiny of Michelle Thomson MP’s property dealings was a leading pro-independence activist.

Lorna Jack, chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, said she was “confident there was no conflict of interest” as a result of Sheila Kirkwood’s involvement with Lawyers for Yes, a group set up ahead of last year’s referendum.

Ms Thomson was heavily involved with a pro-independence group called Business for Scotland before becoming an SNP MP this year.

She has been drawn into a political row after solicitor Christopher Hales was struck off following an investigation into 13 property deals carried out on behalf of her and her business partner.

Ms Kirkwood was secretary to the Society’s Guarantee Fund sub-committee when it decided to contact the Crown Office about Mr Hales. Her minute of the meeting in July 2015 has been published online.

However, Ms Jack defended Ms Kirkwood’s right to hold “personal political views” while working for the Law Society.

In a prepared statement, Ms Jack said: “I want to stress that Law Society employee Sheila Kirkwood has not acted unprofessionally or inappropriately at any time.

“Sheila is a hard-working, dedicated colleague. She had no involvement in taking papers on the Christopher Hales case to the Law Society Guarantee Fund sub-committee and in no way delayed these papers being taken to the committee. Sheila’s role as secretary to the committee is to write the minute.

“The names of Christopher Hales’s clients were not included in any Law Society papers that Sheila handled. The first time Sheila realised Michelle Thomson was involved in the Christopher Hales case was from recent media reports.

“Sheila is entitled to her personal political views. The Law Society is a non-partisan organisation. However, we do not stop our staff from holding or expressing their own views in their personal lives. People in Scotland are legally entitled to express their personal opinions.

“I am confident there was no conflict of interest in relation to Sheila’s role at the Law Society.”