SSDT Decision: Andrew Gerald Lingard

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCPLINE TRIBUNAL

JLSS REPORT

LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND-v-ANDREW GERALD LINGARD

A Complaint was lodged by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Andrew Lingard, Solicitor, in terms of Section 53(1)(b) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”). This provision sets out that the Tribunal shall exercise the sentencing powers contained in Section 53(2) of the 1980 Act if “a solicitor……..has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more.”

An extract sentence in respect of the Respondent was lodged with the Tribunal. It confirmed the details of the Respondent’s convictions and the sentence imposed upon him, namely a term of imprisonment of seven years. The Tribunal was satisfied that the requirements of Section 53(1)(b) were met and it had the authority to exercise its powers under Section 53(2).

The Respondent had been convicted of three serious offences and sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment. The character and gravity of those offences were not compatible with being a solicitor. The Tribunal considered it important for the profession to maintain the confidence of the public and for its members to maintain a high standard of conduct, both in their professional and private lives. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Respondent is not a fit and proper person to practise as a solicitor and decided that the only appropriate sanction was to strike his name from the Roll of Solicitors.

In relation to publicity of the decision, the Tribunal was invited to anonymise the Respondent on two bases: (1) the interests of public order and (2) the interests of juveniles and the protection of private life. The Tribunal required to balance the competing interests of the parties and gave careful consideration to the submissions made. The Respondent was concerned about possible effects of re-reporting of facts about his conviction and sentence upon his wife and child. He accepted that the proceedings did not directly concern the child but was concerned about an indirect effect.

The Respondent’s conviction and sentence were widely reported in the press and the Respondent was identified as a solicitor which brought the profession into disrepute. The proceedings were brought by the Respondent’s professional regulator. The Tribunal considered that the principle of open justice is fundamental in maintaining public confidence and it is in the interests of the public and the profession that it can be seen that appropriate steps have been taken to deal with the Respondent. On the basis of the information before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the interests of a child outweighed the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal was invited to consider that the interests of the Scottish Police and Scottish Prison Service would be, or would be likely to be, damaged by publicity. It considered that there was nothing unusual or exceptional about the conviction of the Respondent which would suggest that his case was any different to others dealt with by both organisations. Over and above that, there was no evidence before the Tribunal to allow it to reach that conclusion.

The Tribunal directed that publicity would be given to the this decision, to include the name of the Respondent but no other person need be identified.