SSDT Decision: Martine Germaine Bisiaux

The latest SSDT decision covers a complaint made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Martine Germaine Bisiaux.

A Complaint was lodged by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Martine Germaine Bisiaux, Solicitor, Glasgow, that the Respondent may have been guilty of professional misconduct. There were two averments of misconduct within the Complaint:-

• The Respondent failed, or, at least unduly delayed in the period between October 2019 and 12 November 2021 in ensuring that all money held for or on account of the practice unit’s clients was returned to those clients as soon as there was no longer any reason to retain that money, in breach of Rule B6.11.1 of the Law Society of Scotland Practice Rules 2011.

• The Respondent in the period 1 November 2018 and 12 November 2021, failed to use reasonable endeavours to acquire and maintain the skills necessary to discharge her responsibilities as the practice unit’s designated Cashroom Manager, as illustrated by the large client balance and her failure to rectify the same in breach of Rule B6.13.2 of the said Practice Rules.

The averments of fact were agreed by Joint Minute. The Tribunal was asked not to treat the averments of misconduct as agreed by the Joint Minute. There were some inconsistencies between the averments of fact, documents produced and some of the submissions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that it had little, if any, information from which it could draw the inference that credit balances were inappropriately held, particular given the number and nature of transactions dealt with the Respondent’s firm.

With regard to Rule B6.13.2, the Tribunal noted the distinction between “acquiring” necessary skills and putting these skills into practice. The Tribunal was unable to draw inferences from the alleged breaches of the Accounts Rules that the Respondent lacked the appropriate skills.

In all of the circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Complainers had established breaches of Rules B6.11.1 and B6.13.2. It found the Respondent not guilty of professional misconduct and declined to remit the Complaint in terms of Section 53ZA of the 1980 Act. Expenses were awarded to the Respondent and the usual order for publicity was made.