SSDT Decision: Wilson

SCOTTISH SOLICITORS’ DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

JOURNAL REPORT 

Law Society-v-Alan Alexander Slessor Wilson

A Complaint was lodged by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alan Alexander Slessor Wilson, solicitor, Aberdeen, which averred that the Respondent may have been guilty of professional misconduct in respect of breaches of Rules B1.10 and B1.2 of the Practice Rules 2011. The Tribunal found the Respondent not guilty of misconduct in relation to the averment of a breach of Rule B1.10 and guilty of professional misconduct in relation to his breach of Rule B1.2. The Tribunal censured the Respondent and fined him £1,000.

In 2014, the Respondent was instructed in relation to the preparation of a will. The original will was not signed by the witness, who was a long-standing secretary to the Respondent and who typed the testing clause.

In 2019, the Respondent certified a copy of the will as a true copy. That copy included the witness’s signature. The Respondent admitted that in 2019 he asked his secretary to add her signature. The testator had died three years previously.

The Tribunal noted that the testing clause was completed although the witness herself had failed to sign the document. The Tribunal did not accept that this single failure to supervise an experienced employee amounted to a breach of Rule B1.10.

With regard to the averment of Rule B1.2, the Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s explanation that he was merely attempting to cure a difficulty that had arisen. The Tribunal did not consider that the Respondent had acted dishonestly but did consider that he had allowed his integrity to be called into question. Certified copy documents are relied upon in all manner of situations to be true copies of the originals. It is imperative that solicitors take meticulous care to ensure that documents to be certified are in fact true copies. Failure to do so can have very serious consequences and is likely to bring the profession into disrepute. The Respondent’s conduct was a serious and reprehensible departure from the standards of competent and reputable solicitors and he was guilty of professional misconduct in relation to this charge.

The Tribunal noted that there were no previous findings of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct against the Respondent. The Respondent had demonstrated remorse. The conduct related to a single event. There was no obvious damage to the public, although the conduct was likely to affect the reputation of the profession.