Scots lawyer who submitted ‘fictitious’ legal aid claims struck off for ‘professional misconduct’

Gerard Tierney, formerly a cashroom partner of G Tierney and Co in Auchinleck and consultant at 1st Legal Limited, was found by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal to have accepted payments from the Scottish Legal Board “when he knew or at the very least ought to have known that some of the contents were fictitious or at the very least inaccurate and overstated”.

The tribunal heard that the respondent was an “experienced practitioner” who was “familiar with the obligations and regulations” that applied to a solicitor registered for both criminal legal aid and civil legal aid.

While employed as a partner of G Tierney and Co between November 2001 and August 2012 the respondent acted for a number of individuals who came before the criminal courts and who were entitled to legal aid.

He submitted and was granted legal aid for these individuals and rendered accounts to the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) in relation to alleged work carried out.

However, in around April 2012 SLAB launched an investigation after becoming concerned about the accuracy of accounts submitted by or on behalf of the respondent, as a result of which he was re-registered.

In short, 24 accounts were identified as including as “fictitious outcomes”, stating cases had been concluded when they had not been, for the purpose of eliciting payment of the fixed “core” fee prematurely and additional charges.

Of the 24 accounts analysed, eight of the cases had subsequently been transferred to another firm, meaning the respondent would only have been entitled to half the core fixed fee.

The respondent was found to have received more than £10,500 through early/premature payment of accounts.

In addition, he claimed and received £1,725 to which he was not entitled in relation to the eight cases where legal aid was subsequently transferred.

The SLAB investigation also identified seven inappropriate claims for five cases for “fabricated” or inaccurately described diets as first and/or second deferred sentences, creating an opportunity to be paid additional fees of £50 plus VAT for each and every third and subsequent deferred sentence - by which the respondent received £350 to which he was not entitled.

However, SLAB confirmed that there has been no actual “loss” to the legal aid fund as it had offset payments due to the solicitor from his outstanding accounts.

A further investigation by the board into the respondent’s claims, while he was employed as a consultant for 1st Legal between September 2012 and May 2013 to undertake civil legal aid or children’s legal aid cases, uncovered 21 files in which the entries did not correspond with the related advice and assistance account to support and justify the accounts submitted.

In addition, there were no signed client mandates for some of the files, while others included incomplete client mandates.

The respondent accepted that his conduct “fell below the standard to be expected of a solicitor” and indicated to the tribunal that he did not seek to argue that his conduct was anything other than misconduct.

The tribunal unanimously found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct and unanimously concluded that the “appropriate disposal” was to strike his name from the solicitors’ roll.

In a written decision, vice chairman of the tribunal Colin Bell said: “The conduct of the respondent described here has at its core a clear element of dishonesty. The respondent admitted that in 24 criminal legal aid accounts fictitious outcomes were created allowing accounts to be submitted.

“Additionally, on seven occasions the respondent made claims for payment for fabricated or inaccurately described diets.

“In relation to the civil accounts, on 21 files the respondent had submitted accounts to SLAB which were not in the least supported by the content of the files themselves.

“Such conduct clearly falls well below the standard to be expected of a competent and reputable solicitor and is clearly of the most serious and reprehensible character.

“Separately, the failures in relation to the requirements for client mandates in connection with online applications are themselves serious matters.”

He added: “The tribunal took the view that this conduct was at the very highest end of the scale of misconduct. It had been a course of conduct engaged in over a number of years.

“The conduct was clearly deliberate and designed to result in a financial gain to the respondent. There was a clear element of dishonesty involved,

“The respondent’s conduct was so serious and reprehensible as to be extremely damaging to the reputation of the profession. The conduct admitted by the respondent in this case is of such a nature that it indicates that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to be a solicitor.”