SSDT Decision: Jade Dupont

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCPLINE TRIBUNAL

JLSS REPORT

LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND-v-JADE DUPONT

A Complaint was lodged by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Jade Dupont, Solicitor, Glasgow. The Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct (1) singly, in that she, on accepting and acting on instructions for TM to seek his appointment as Executor Qua Creditor to the estate of JO, failed to make sufficient and adequate investigations to confirm TM’s legal right to be appointed qua Creditor, there being an Executor already confirmed to the estate, in contravention of Rule B1.10 of the Practice Rules 2011; (2) In cumulo with (1), in that she, having only noted and returned the “principal” extract death certificate provided to her by TM, failed to make reasonable investigation as to the validity of same, in contravention of Rule B1.10 of the Practice Rules 2011; (3) In cumulo with (1), in that she advised TM that he could be appointed as Executor Qua Creditor to the estate of JO on the grounds of the Promissory Note dated 2003, without taking any intermediate action, the debt having prescribed, in contravention of Rule B1.10 of the Practice Rules 2011; (4) Singly, in that she made reckless, misleading averments in the petition to have TM appointed as Executory Qua Creditor in contravention of Rules B1.2 (restricted to lack of integrity), B1.10 and B1.13.1 of the Practice Rules 2011; and (5) Singly, in that she acted for both the transferor and transferee when preparing, witnessing and submitting the disposition of the subjects from TM as Executor to JO’s estate to Company A (a Company wholly owned and controlled by TM), (a) without a professional valuation of the land, (b) at prima facie undervalue, the debt being £40,000 and the value of the land noted as £50,000 in the Confirmation and (c) without ensuring the executor retained sums equivalent to the balance between the purported/true valuation and the purported debt in contravention of Rules B1.5.1, B1.10 and B2.1.2.

The Tribunal noted that this was an extremely unusual set of instructions. It did not accept that mistakes made by others along the way relieved the Respondent of her duties and obligations as a solicitor. The Tribunal considered that the Respondent’s actions constituted a serious and reprehensible departure from the standards of competent and reputable solicitors and considered her conduct to be at the more serious end of the scale of misconduct. There had been a number of failings on her part, over a period of 14 months. The Tribunal considered that the Respondent’s conduct was likely to damage the reputation of the profession and she had put the public at risk. The Respondent’s failure to take the appropriate steps at various stages had allowed TM to perpetuate a fraud. However, the Tribunal also had regard to the Respondent’s insight and remorse, demonstrated by he cooperation with proceedings and the Joint Minute. The Respondent had been in practice for more than 20 years without any other incident. Given that there was no averment of dishonesty, the Tribunal considered that it was not necessary to consider strike off or suspension. However, the Tribunal was concerned that the public should be protected and that the seriousness of the misconduct should be appropriately marked. The Tribunal determined to censure the Respondent, impose a fine of £1,000 and restrict her practising certificate for an aggregate period of two years so that she would be appropriately under supervision.