SSDT Decision: John David Mair

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

JOURNAL REPORT

Law Society-v-John David Mair

A Complaint was raised by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against John David Mair, Solicitor, Glasgow. The Tribunal unanimously found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct singly and in cumulo in respect of the following: (1) their actions lacked integrity to the extent that they breached Rule B1.2 of the Practice Rules 2011 by acting in a way which was misleading and reckless by failing to complete an Accounts Certificate accurately; (2) their breaches of requirements of the Accounts Rules in terms of Rule B6.2.3; (3) their failure to remedy breaches of the Accounts Rules in terms of Rule B6.4.1; (4) their failure to retain all required accounting records as required by Rule B6.7 in breach of Rule B6.7.3; (5) their failure to prepare and retain reconciliation statements in breach of Rules B6.8.1 and B6.8.2; (6) their breach of duties as Cashroom Manager in terms of Rule B6.13.2. and (7) their failure to reasonably co-operate in the conduct of a Law Society inspection(s) or investigation(s) in breach of Rule B6.18.7.

The Tribunal considered that the Respondent’s actions constituted a serious and reprehensible departure from the standards of competent and reputable solicitors. The prolonged and repeated conduct of the Respondent over a period of time was serious. It “struck at the heart” of the purpose of the Accounts Rules and caused significant risk to clients and the profession as a whole. The effect of the Respondent’s conduct was exacerbated by their failure to engage with the Complainers and rectify issues which had been identified. The Respondent had shown a clear lack of accountability or insight during proceedings and this was an aggravating factor. In all the circumstances, given the seriousness of this case, the risk to the public, the profession and the lack of any demonstrable insight on the part of the Respondent, the Tribunal concluded that it had no realistic choice but to strike off the Respondent from the Roll of Solicitors.