Law Society-v-Paul Francis Belton, Shahid Sattar Pervez & Celine Bell
Interlocutor
Edinburgh 14th December 2005. The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 23rd August 2005 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Paul Francis Belton, Solicitor, 430 Victoria Road, Glasgow (First Respondent), Shahid Sattar Pervez, Solicitor, 430 Victoria Road, Glasgow (Second Respondent) and Celine Bell, Solicitor, 430 Victoria Road, Glasgow (Third Respondent); Find the First and Second Respondents guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of their breach of Rules 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Fund Rules 2001, their persistent failure to stamp and record dispositions and relative standard securities timeously and their failure to adequately supervise the Third Respondent; Find the Third Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of her failure to respond to the reasonable enquiries made of her by fellow agents and the Law Society and failure to respond to statutory notices from the Law Society and her failure to timeously implement a mandate; Find the First Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to respond to the reasonable requests of the Law Society for information and failure to respond to statutory notices; Censure the First Respondent, Fine him in the sum of £5000 to be forfeit to her Majesty and Direct in terms of Section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for a period of ten years with effect from 6 March 2006 any practising certificate held or issued to the First Respondent shall be subject to such Restriction as will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to such employer as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland; Censure the Second Respondent, Fine him in the sum of £7500 to be forfeit to her Majesty and Direct in terms of Section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for a period of ten years any practising certificate held or issued to the Second Respondent shall be subject to such Restriction as will limit him to acting as a qualified assistant to such employer as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland; and Censure the Third Respondent; Find the First and Second Respondents jointly and severally liable in the expenses of the Complainers and in the expenses of the Tribunal as the same may be taxed by the auditor of the Court of Session on a solicitor and client indemnity basis in terms of Chapter Three of the last published Law Society’s Table of Fees for general business with a unit rate of £11.85; Find no expenses due to or by the Third Respondent; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of all three Respondents.
Chairman