Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Eileen Coogans

Two complaints dated 22 February 2012 (under the 2005 Rules) and 29 March 2012 (under the 2008 Rules) were made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Eileen Coogans, solicitor, Ayr.

The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo in respect of her failure to record a standard security timeously, her failure to comply on two occasions with condition 2.1 of the Council of Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook, her failure to comply on two occasions with the terms of rule 6(1) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001 by intromitting with funds from a lender when she had not fully complied with the requirements of the CML Handbook, and her failure on two occasions to comply with rule 24 of the 2001 Rules.

The Tribunal censured the respondent and restricted her practising certificate for a period of three years.

The Tribunal considered that the respondent was cavalier in the way that she dealt with lenders in the particular circumstances. The CML Handbook conditions are part of the lender’s instructions. They are there to prevent potential fraud. Failure to comply with these conditions is damaging to the reputation of the legal profession. The Tribunal considered that the respondent had shown a reckless disregard for complying with her client’s instructions.

The respondent accepted that in two transactions she did not have authority to draw down funds from the lender in circumstances where she knew that she had not fully complied with the terms of the CML Handbook, which explicitly prohibits the drawing down of funds unless there has been full compliance, and accordingly this was a breach of rule 6(1) of the Accounts Rules. The respondent also accepted that she had breached rule 24 of the Accounts Rules.

The Tribunal was of the view that the respondent’s failures, when considered together, would be viewed by competent and reputable solicitors as serious and reprehensible, and therefore were sufficient to meet the Sharp test.

Although some of the elements of misconduct on their own might not have been sufficient to amount to professional misconduct, the Tribunal made a finding in cumulo.

Due to previous findings of an analogous nature, the Tribunal was of the view that a restriction of the respondent’s practising certificate was required to protect the public and lenders.