Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

Alasdair James Goodban

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alasdair James Goodban, formerly Perth and now Edinburgh. The Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to comply with the common law standard applicable to a solicitor acting for a lender in a conveyancing transaction and to comply with the requirements of the CML Handbook for Scotland, his failure to act with absolute propriety and to protect the interests of his lender client in a number of transactions, his failure to comply with rules 6 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001, and regs 5 and 14 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, his failure to implement an irrevocable mandate contrary to the Standard of Conduct Practice Rules 2008, and his failure to act with integrity and candour in correspondence with the party in whose favour the mandate had been drawn, in breach of rules 1 and 9 of the same rules.

The Tribunal censured the respondent and directed in terms of s 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that any practising certificate held or to be issued to him shall be subject to such restriction as will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to (and to being supervised by) such employer or successive employers as may be approved by the Council or its Practising Certificate Subcommittee, for a period of five years.

The Tribunal has frequently made it clear that solicitors have an obligation to comply with the CML Handbook and to report to the lender any suspicious or unusual circumstances in relation to the transaction. A solicitor when acting for both lender and borrower in a conveyancing transaction requires to act with absolute propriety and to protect the interests of the lender, with the same degree of care and responsibility as a purchaser. In a number of instances the respondent did report matters to the lender but then settled the transactions without having received any confirmation that he could proceed. There were nine transactions involved in this case over an eight-month period. The Tribunal took into account that the respondent admitted his culpability at an early stage and had been suffering health difficulties at the time. It also considered that he had shown insight into what had happened and realised that being a principal in private practice was not for him. Considering the protection of the public, the Tribunal concluded that if the respondent worked for an aggregate period of five years under supervision, this could provide more protection than merely suspending his practising certificate for a period, given the valuable experience he would gain.

Michael Fyfe Wright

A complaint was made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Michael Fyfe Wright, solicitor, Bridge of Allan. The Tribunal found that the respondent had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment following conviction and that accordingly s 53(1)(b) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 applied. The Tribunal struck the respondent’s name from the Roll of Solicitors.

The Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had been convicted of a charge of attempted extortion (of a person he claimed had sexually abused him as a child) and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. It considered having such a conviction to be incompatible with being a solicitor. Letters written by the respondent did not demonstrate any real insight into the seriousness of a solicitor being involved in this kind of conduct. The tribunal concluded that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to be on the roll.