SSDT Decision: Gordon Scot Watson

Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal

Law Society of Scotland-v- Gordon Scot Watson

JLSS Report

11 June 2026

A Complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Gordon Scot Watson, Solicitor, Glasgow. The Tribunal had no hesitation in finding the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct singly and in cumulo in respect of his breaches of Rules B9.2(b), B9.3(a) and (b) and B9.4 of the Law Society of Scotland Practice Rules 2011. The Tribunal censured the Respondent and directed that his practising certificate be restricted for an aggregate period of 5 years to the extent that (1) he is only permitted to practise as a qualified assistant employed by another solicitor(s) as approved by the Law Society of Scotland and (2) he is limited to carrying out legal services which are not within the scope of any applicable AML legislation or regulations.

A financial compliance inspection revealed that the Respondent was carrying out work beyond the scope of an AML Exempt Disclosure form which he had signed and submitted to the Law Society of Scotland. In particular, the Respondent had registered deeds for non-solicitor businesses in 60 transactions. His practice unit did not have a client account for receiving funds. The Respondent had not conducted customer due diligence or enhanced due diligence in relation to the relevant transactions. Neither had he carried out a practice-wide risk assessment or put in place fully documented AML policies and procedures. The Respondent admitted the allegations, facts and breaches of practice rules in the Complaint.

It was clear to the Tribunal that the Respondent had significantly exceeded his responsibilities and failed to identify who his clients were. Although the Respondent had engaged with the financial compliance investigation process and conceded his failures at an early stage, his lack of insight about the potential consequences of his conduct and the seriousness of it was of great concern to the Tribunal. The Tribunal unanimously concluded that the Respondent’s conduct fell below the standards expected by competent and reputable solicitors who would find it to be serious and reprehensible.