THE law firm operated by former Glasgow Lord Provost Peter McCann has been ordered to pay #1000 - the maximum amount - for letting down a client.
Because of the firm's failure to deal adequately with the case of Mrs A, her wages were arrested and her elderly mother suffered ''considerable distress'' when sheriff officers called at the house when she was on her own.
The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal rejected an appeal by Mr McCann that the finding of inadequate professional services should have been made against a former partner who mainly handled the case.
In a written decision, the tribunal stated that Mrs A consulted Mr Brian Moreland in July 1994 about her liability for community charge and council tax after a demand from sheriff officers.
She eventually became unhappy with his efforts and complained to the Law Society, which decided inadequate professional services had been provided and #1000 compensation should be paid.
Mr McCann appealed to the discipline tribunal, arguing that the finding and compensation order should be made against Mr Moreland rather than the firm, Peter T McCann and Co, of Mitchell Street, Glasgow.
The tribunal was told that each time Mrs A received demands from the council, she immediately consulted Mr Moreland, who assured her she had nothing to worry about. Frequently, her meetings with him were cancelled - three times in one week on one occasion - and her anxiety drove
her to write to the solicitor, asking him what was happening.
In another letter, about a month later, she asked Mr Moreland for an evening appointment because she had no annual leave left and added: ''I have used up every single day of my entitlement in futile visits to your office.''
The tribunal was informed that, towards the end of 1995, sheriff officers called twice on Mrs A while her elderly mother was at home alone and served a notice of poinding (an inventory of her household goods) despite Mr Moreland's assertions he was dealing with the problem.
When Mrs A received a warning her wages were to be arrested, he assured her he had been to court and a stop had been placed on the arrestment. Despite his assurances, money was deducted from her pay.
The Law Society described Mr Moreland's conduct as reprehensible and reprimanded him. It also decided the firm had provided Mrs A with inadequate professional services and ordered it to pay her #1000 compensation.
The tribunal accepted that at the initial stages Mr McCann appeared to have known little about Mrs A's case but decided it was the law firm, not merely Mr Moreland who had been Mrs A's solicitors and that it was proper to make a finding of inadequate professional services against the firm.
''There was ample evidence of the distress caused to Mrs A and that she repeatedly communicated with the firm and conveyed her concern. There was also evidence Mrs A was told positive action was being taken whereas the only action was a series of ineffectual letters to the council and sheriff officers.
''There was not even the initial step of preparing a legal aid application and matters were allowed to drift, to the continued embarrassment of Mrs A.
''The tribunal is satisfied the Law Society acted fairly and reasonably in making a finding of inadequate professional services.''
As far as the amount of compensation was concerned, it was apparent the law firm could have given Mrs A proper advice or taken appropriate action at a much earlier stage.
In a separate case, the tribunal fined solicitor Nigel Duncan, of Newhaven Road, Edinburgh, #1000 for professional misconduct for misleading a client and the Law Society.
Mr Duncan was also ordered to pay #500 for providing inadequate professional services to the client.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article