Law Society-v-Alan David Susskind and Cameron Stuart Fyfe

Perth 27 September 2016.  The Tribunal having considered the amended Complaint at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alan David Susskind, The Ca’d’Oro, 45 Gordon Street, Glasgow and Cameron Stuart Fyfe, 65 Bath Street, Glasgow; Find the First Respondent not guilty of professional misconduct in respect that he as an experienced court and family law Practitioner and Notary Public, countersigned and notarised an Affidavit of his client, that he ought to have known contained statements that were false, which he would have known had he verified each answer to the questions on the Form SP5 prior to placing the Applicant on oath, thereby enabling false information to be given to the Court by his client and Remit this matter to the Council of the Law Society of Scotland in terms of Section 53ZA of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980; Find the First Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of him during his tenure as a Partner and principal in the former firm of Ross Harper and in particular during the period of 4^th April 2008 to 31 March 2010 managing a policy whereby the business of the former firm was improperly funded by payments due to third parties and that by virtue of his status as a Partner or principal of the firm and in his capacity as Designated Cashroom Partner and Managing Partner, he knowingly contributed to the operation of that policy of funding and, in particular sums received from the Scottish Legal Aid Board were deposited in the firm  bank account and cheques were thereafter drawn on those accounts and the purported payment of third parties’ outlays made which had been incurred on the former firm’s clients, said policy resulting in the sums validly due to third parties not being timeously paid. Corresponding entries were reflected in individual client ledgers but the cheques drawn on the firm’s account were not issued to the appropriate parties at the relevant time with the funds thereby remaining in the firm account all in breach of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc. Rules 2001, the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors, and the Solicitors (Scotland)(Standards of Conduct) Practice Rules 2008; Find the First Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of his submission to the Law Society of Scotland Accounts Certificates on two occasions, namely 26 October 2009 and 10 May 2010 which he knew or ought to have known were inaccurate thereby the true financial position of the firm was not evident to the Law Society of Scotland; Find the Second Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect that he during his tenure as a Partner and principal in the said former firm of Ross Harper and, in particular, during the period from 4^th April 2008 to 6 May 2011 permitted to be operated or acquiesced in a policy whereby the business of the former firm was improperly funded by payments due to third parties, and that by virtue of his status as a Partner or principal of the former firm, he by his acquiescence contributed to the operation of that policy of funding and, in particular, sums received from the Scottish Legal Aid Board were deposited in the firm’s bank accounts and cheques were thereafter drawn on those accounts and the purported payment of third parties’ outlays made which had been incurred on behalf of the former firm’s clients.  Said policy resulted in sums validly due to third parties not being timeously paid. Corresponding entries were reflected in individual client ledgers but the cheques drawn on the firm’s account were not issued to the appropriate parties at the relevant time with the funds thereby remaining in the firm account all in breach of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc. Rules 2001, the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors, and the Solicitors (Scotland)(Standards of Conduct) Practice Rules 2008; Find the Second Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of his submission to the Law Society of Scotland an Accounts Certificate, dated 10 May 2010, which he knew or ought to have known was inaccurate, thereby the true financial position of the firm was not evident to the Law Society of Scotland.  Order that the name of the First Respondent be Struck Off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland; Order that the name of the Second Respondent be Struck Off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland; Direct in terms of Section 53(6) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that this order shall take effect on the date on which the written findings are intimated to the Respondents; Find the Respondents jointly and severally liable in the expenses of the Complainers and of the Tribunal including expenses of the Clerk, chargeable on a time and line basis as the same may be taxed by the Auditor of the Court of Session on an agent and client, client paying basis in terms of Chapter Three of the last published Law Society’s Table of Fees for general business with a unit rate of £14.00 excluding expenses incurred solely in relation to the matter which has been remitted to the Council of the Law Society of Scotland under section 53ZA of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Respondents but that such publicity should be deferred until the conclusion of proceedings in the related complaint against four of the Respondents’ former partners.

 Alistair Cockburn

  Vice Chairman

Mr Fyfe appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Court of Session. The Court's decision can be found on its website here.