SSDT Decision: Nicola Cannon and a Court of Session appeal

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

JLSS REPORT

COURT OF SESSION APPEAL BY NICOLA SIMONE CANNON

An appeal in terms of Section 42ZA(9) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 was made by Nicola Cannon (“the Appellant”) against the Determination of the Law Society of Scotland (“the Respondent”) dated 8 August 2024 upholding a complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct made by the Respondent against the Appellant, censuring the Appellant and directing that she pay a fine of £800.00.

The determination was made following the investigation of a complaint which the Respondent lodged with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commissions (“the SLCC”) in respect of the Appellants failure to fulfil her responsibilities as money laundering reporting officer of Cannons Law Practice LLP. The SLCC then referred the matter back to the Respondent for investigation and determination. The Appellant accepted her failures and apologised for them. She provided an explanation of events leading to the failures in mitigation.

The decision of the Respondent was detailed in its determination dated 8 August 2024. The Appellant appealed to the Tribunal which concluded that there was no de facto unfairness in the decision making process; the Respondent’s determination was clear, made sense and had regard to the representations made on behalf of the Appellant. The Tribunal considered the guidance laid down in Hood v Council of the Law Society of Scotland 2017 SC 386 and identified no sound basis for interference with the Respondent’s determination. The Tribunal refused the appeal.

The Appellant then petitioned the Court of Session arguing inter alia that the Tribunal’s decision was unreasonable. In terms of Hood (supra), the court can interfere with a decision of the Tribunal if it has erred in law; has made a finding unsupported by evidence; has fundamentally erred in its approach to the case; or has arrived at a decision which no reasonable Tribunal could properly reach. In all the circumstances, the court saw no reason to interfere with the decision of a body exercising professional expertise and experience when evaluating the expected conduct of someone in the Appellant’s position. The court did not identify any unreasonableness or flaw in the decisions complained of. It concluded that the Tribunal was fully entitled to uphold the Respondent’s determination in its entirety. The court refused the petition with effect that the Tribunal’s decision stands.