Struck-off solicitor Cameron Fyfe launches claims company

Cameron Fyfe, who was struck off the roll of solicitors in September 2016 for breaches of accounting practices, is back in business with the launch of his new firm Cameron Fyfe Claims.

The former Ross Harper partner, whose appeal to have the SSDT judgment overturned failed last year, is operating from two premises in Glasgow.

The company website offers a no-win, no-fee service and describes Cameron Fyfe as “one of Scotland’s most prominent lawyers”.

It adds: “He is regarded as Scotland’s expert lawyer in cases of historical sexual or physical abuse and has been involved in the conduct of such cases over the past 30 years.”

Mr. Fyfe’s track record is also given and the website states: “Cameron has conducted some of the country’s most famous and important cases including –

Last year the appeal judges upheld the decision of the SSDT after observing that the essential qualities of a solicitor are “honesty, truthfulness and integrity” and that the petitioner “seriously compromised his integrity” by “acquiescing in a deceitful course of conduct designed to conceal the true financial situation of the firm”.

Delivering the opinion of the court, the Lord Justice Clerk said: “Acquiescence requires knowledge. In our view the argument that the tribunal was not entitled to proceed on the basis that the petitioner’s knowledge extended to the general operation of the scheme and its consequences is not tenable.”

“In our view the tribunal’s approach reflects that it understood, and was entitled to understand, that there was no suggestion of dishonesty in any criminal sense. That accords with the reference to the absence of personal gain, namely that there was no question of individual misappropriation of property for personal financial benefit.”

He added: “However, the tribunal found that the petitioner had taken part in a deceitful course of conduct over a period of years. We are satisfied that the facts as known and admitted by the petitioner justified such findings.

“Acquiescing in the practice in question could not in our view be described as anything but deceitful. The fact that the tribunal did not make, and were not asked to make, a finding of dishonesty does not prevent a conclusion that the conduct was deceitful.”