Tuesday 13 July 2010

Solicitor Andrew ‘Drew’ Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso, Scottish Borders : Deceived Clients, Banks, Inland Revenue & Law Society

The latest Scottish Legal Consumer Complaints alert names Solicitor Andrew ‘Drew’ P. Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, 5 The Square, Kelso, Scottish Borders who was to be prosecuted for his offences against clients, banks, the Inland Revenue and even the Law Society’s own investigator, who had to cope with file evidence which had been altered by Mr Penman & Stormonth Darling to defeat the ends of the investigation.

The Law Society investigating reporter said in his report : “The reporter was of the view that the substantial and unnecessary delays which had taken place in the executry might amount not only to an inadequate professional service on the part of Messrs. P.& J. Stormonth Darling but professional misconduct on the part of Mr Penman the solicitor dealing with the matter up until the time the complaint was lodged with the Law Society on 17th October 1994. Further the reporter was of the view that the apparent deliberate attempt to mislead the Royal Bank in regard to the Banco di Roma account may amount to professional misconduct.”

“The Committee concurred with the views of the reporter in this matter indicating that the apparent attempt to mislead the Royal Bank persuaded them that Mr Penman's acting in the matter were so serious and reprehensible as to amount to professional misconduct.”

“The reporter noted there was also evidence of what appeared to be a bungled and unsuccessful attempt to put the file into order. Correspondence of July 1990 and July 1991 had been put on the file at a point which clearly related to July 1992.“

This is what awaits potential clients of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso & Solicitor Andrew Penman :

Andrew Penman compilation 1

Andrew Penman compilation 2e

Read all about Andrew ‘Drew’ Penman’s conduct for yourself in the following Law Society of Scotland investigation report .. then consider whether you want someone like Mr Penman representing your legal interests :

Law Society of Scotland investigation into crooked lawyer Andrew Penman of Stornomth Darling Solciitors Kelso 1Law Society investigating lawyer found that Andrew Penman had tried to fake the files. The Law Society report said : “The reporter had found it extremely difficult to obtain from the file a clear picture of what had taken place in the executry. The files had not been well kept and it was noted that throughout the files there were correspondence and telephone notes which were not in chronological order. It was noted that at several points there was correspondence which appeared not to have been dealt with and not to have been put on file as it was received but to have been put on at a later date. The reporter noted a number of' instances which suggested that correspondence had simply been accumulated off the file and then dealt with in a fevered bout of activity in order to deal with matters which had long been delayed. The reporter noted there was also evidence of what appeared to be a bungled and unsuccessful attempt to put the file into order. Correspondence of July 1990 and July 1991 had been put on the file at a point which clearly related to July 1992.“

“The reporter noted that the files disclosed numerous lengthy and unexplained delays and a repeated failure to respond to correspondence. There were dozens of letters on the files apologizing to third parties for delays in dealing with executry matters. These delays in many cases amounted to several months and in the case of the capital taxes office there were several delays, one of 18 months.”

Law Society of Scotland investigation into crooked lawyer Andrew Penman of Stornomth Darling Solciitors Kelso 2Law Society investigating lawyer found Andrew Penman deliberately mislead the Royal Bank of Scotland, amounting to professional misconduct. Page two of the Law Society report said : “The reporter noted there was a complete failure on the part of Messrs. P. & J. Stormonth-Darling to deal with this matter. They completely failed to acknowledge the instructions they had received from the Royal Bank in this connection and failed to take any steps to deal with the matter. The reporter was of the view that the substantial and unnecessary delays which had taken place in the executry might amount not only to an inadequate professional service on the part of Messrs. P.& J. Stormonth Darling but professional misconduct on the part of Mr Penman the solicitor dealing with the matter up until the time the complaint was lodged with the Law Society on 17th October 1994. Further the reporter was of the view that the apparent deliberate attempt to mislead the Royal Bank in regard to the Banco di Roma account may amount to professional misconduct.”

The Law Society investigating lawyer went onto demand a prosecution of Andrew Penman, saying : “In respect of the extraordinary delays and the repeated failures to respond to correspondence and the apparent, deliberate attempt to mislead the Royal Bank the reporter was of the view that the professional misconduct was such that it would warrant prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal The reporter was or the view that there had clearly been an inadequate professional service but in the, event of a referral to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal this would be incorporated into the complaint.”

Law Society of Scotland investigation into crooked lawyer Andrew Penman of Stornomth Darling Solciitors Kelso 3Law Society Complaints Committee said Andrew Penman mislead the Royal Bank, was a failure at handling an executry. The Committee’s consideration of the investigating lawyer’s findings revealed : “The Committee expressed grave concern at the way that this executry had been handled by Mr. Penman and the extraordinary delays and the complete failure to deal with correspondence in an adequate manner, The Committee were of the: view that there: had been very poor attention paid to the administration of this estate and that whilst the complainer's uncertainty in certain matters might have caused some confusion there was a general lack of effort on the part of the solicitors to deal with matters in a reasonable manner.. It was noted in connection with the proposed loan by the Royal Bank. to the complainer there was a complete and utter failure to deal with the matter in any way or even to acknowledge the instructions. In connection with the Banco di Roma account the Committee noted the failure on the part of Mr. Penman to deal with matters in a reasonable way. They were particularly concerned at the terms of the letter written by Mr. Penman to the Royal Bank on 29th September 1992 which appeared to be an attempt to mislead the Royal Bank into believing that matters were being actively dealt with when they were not.”

“The Committee concurred with the views of the reporter in this matter indicating that the apparent attempt to mislead the Royal Bank persuaded them that Mr Penman's acting in the matter were so serious and reprehensible as to amount to professional misconduct.”

“The Committee thereafter considered whether the professional misconduct was such that it would warrant referral to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. The Committee were of the view that the administration of the executry had been so appallingly badly done as to take the issue out of service into that of conduct and coupled with the apparent attempt to mislead the Royal Bank the conduct was such that it would warrant prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. “

Law Society Complaints Committee decided that Andrew Penman should be prosecuted : “The Committee were of the view that Mr, Penman's acting in respect of the extra-ordinary delays and failure to progress the administration of the executry and in apparently misleading the Royal Bank of Scotland were so serious and reprehensible as to amount to professional misconduct. The Committee determined to recommend to Council that Mr. Penman be prosecuted before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal in relation to the professional misconduct and the service provided and any other matter which the Fiscal feels appropriate.”

Law Society of Scotland investigation into crooked lawyer Andrew Penman of Stornomth Darling Solciitors Kelso 4Andrew Penman told the Complaints Committee not to prosecute him, citing personal humiliation in the media as an excuse, while his legal representative at the Committee, Mr James Ness used his influence among the Committee members to derail the decision to prosecute Mr Penman, as the report further revealed : “Written representations were then made as to why Mr Penman should not be prosecuted. It was pointed out that the action of the complainer in referring matters to the media prior to the complaint being considered Mr Penman's natural right to have the Tribunal or the Society decide whether the case was deemed fit for publicity had been denied. As a result of the complaint, and newspaper report Mr Penman had suffered personally and this had been a considerable punishment in itself. It was argued that a reference to the Tribunal would result in a fine and substantial cost to Mr Penman with little or no purpose beyond what the Society could achieve using its own powers given that the Society would be able to order a waiver of part or all of the substantial fee which could be charged for work done together with a compensation award of up to £1,000.00.”

james_nessLaw Society senior lawyer James Ness got Penman off the hook at the Complaints Committee by providing false evidence. A variety of further excuses were presented by Andrew Penman, through his legal agent Mr Ness, which persuaded the Committee not to prosecute, : “It was also pointed out that the complaint was from a beneficiary and not from the executor in the estate with whom Mr Penman had been working to resolve matters. The Committee considered the representations which had been made. The Committee were of the view that Mr Penman's dealings with the matter undoubtedly amounted to professional misconduct. They thereafter considered whether in light of the representations which had been made the scale of the misconduct could be said to be so serious as to justify prosecution or whether a reprimand would be more appropriate. The Committee noted that Mr Penman clearly accepted that matters had not been dealt with in a proper manner by him and that there had been delays in progressing matters.”

The Complaints Committee, arm-twisted by Penman’s representative, James Ness, and lacking any equivalent representation for my points, then changed their verdict to save Mr Penman so he could ruin some more unsuspecting clients : “Having re-considered the matter and taking into account the representations which had been made the Committee were unanimously of the view that whilst Mr Penman's acting amounted to professional misconduct they were not such that would warrant a prosecution and a reprimand would be more appropriate. The Committee therefore determined to withdraw their recommendation for prosecution and to substitute a provisional finding of professional misconduct warranting a reprimand.”

Law Society of Scotland report on solicitor Andrew Penman Stormonth Darling Kelso Page 5 & 6Complaints Committee accused Andrew Penman of Professional Misconduct, and did nothing after Law Society intervention. The Complaints Committee in the lead up to their decision, began to excuse their change of mind over prosecution, stating : “It was noted that written representations had been received from the complainer dated 5th and 20th July. Representations had been received from Messrs. P & J Stormonth Darling dated 25th July and the Committee Secretary advised that Mr Penman had confirmed that he accepted the Committee's preliminary view on matters i.e. that he be reprimanded in respect of the professional misconduct. Having considered the written representations the Committee found no reason to depart from its previous view and, therefore, confirmed their previous findings.”

Would you do business with Stormonth Darling after reading this ?

Tuesday 6 July 2010

Solicitor Catriona MacFarlane of Hasties Solicitors, Lynedock Crescent, Glasgow : Guilty of Professional Misconduct over husband’s Mortgage scam

Mortgage Man Nigel MacFarlane stole my 27k

CATRIONA MACFARLANE, 49, of Hasties Solicitors, Glasgow, has been found guilty by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal of professional misconduct while covering up a scam by her mortgage broker husband, but allowed to continue working as a solicitor. Clients should proceed with caution and read the following :

The findings reported by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT), said that Catriona Macfarlane’s actions had left her client in a vulnerable position and left them exposed to an unacceptable risk after it had been revealed she covered up her own husband's theft of £24,150 from a client who had approached Mrs Macfarlane to act for him in a house purchase deal.

Law Society of Scotland v Catriona Macfarlane 1aSSDT heard lawyer covered up husband’s massive theft from client after cash was handed over for mortgage. In August 2006, Mr. A approached a mortgage broker, identified as Ideal Mortgages, to arrange a mortgage, giving Mr Nigel Macfarlane £24,150 to be used as a deposit on a property, and approached Catriona Macfarlane of Glasgow Law Firm Messrs Hasties to act for him in the purchase. The client, Mr A, was not aware at this time, that Catriona Macfarlane was married to his mortgage broker, Mr Nigel Macfarlane, nor did Macfarlane disclose this relationship to her client. Problems with the mortgage caused the house purchase to be delayed, which prompted the client to call his solicitor, Mrs Macfarlane, informing her he had handed £24,150 to the mortgage broker, who Mrs Macfarlane had still not disclosed was her husband. The SSDT judgement reported that Mrs Macfarlane's only reply to her client's telephone call was "She said only that she would call him back"

The Tribunal decision further reported : "She (Mrs Macfarlane) called back a short time later. She said that, having spoken to the broker, she was able to confirm that Mr A's money was safe and could be returned to him at any time. By this stage, she was aware that her husband had misappropriated Mr A's money. On 19 February, Mr Macfarlane came to Mr A's house and confessed … that he had spent his money. He promised to 'sort things out'."

“Mr. A and his wife were by this time suspicious. Although Mr. MacFarlane and the Respondent referred to each other respectively as “the broker” and “the solicitor” they shared the same surname. Mr. A and his wife confronted the Respondent on 19 February 2007. She confirmed that she and Mr. Macfarlane were married. She said that she “would sort things out”.

“On 26th February 2007 the Respondent advised Mr. A that she could no longer act for him and that he should seek separate representation. Mr. A was thereafter represented by new Solicitors. The transaction was completed in April 2007. All additional costs including penalty interest due to the sellers of the property were recovered from Nigel Macfarlane. The sums misappropriated by him were repaid in full."

The SSDT’s verdict : availabe for download in pdf, here: Law Society v Catriona Margaret Macfarlane

Solicitor Catriona Macfarlane, of Loganswell, Newton Mearns, Glasgow, and employed by Glasgow Law Firm Messrs Hasties Solicitors of Lynedoch Crescent, Glasgow, who was enrolled as a solicitor on 4 October 1982 was found guilty by the SSDT of Professional Misconduct in respect of her failure to disclose to her client the extent of her knowledge of her husband’s actings and her failure to timeously advise her client to seek separate independent advice and her failure to withdraw from acting for her client, all in breach of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors 2002.

The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal issued punishment, censuring Mrs MacFarlane, and issued a fine of £2500 to be forfeit to Her Majesty and Direct in terms of Section 53 (5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

Further, Mrs Macfarlane was informed that for a period of 3 years, her practising certificate shall be subject to such restriction as will limit her to acting as a qualified assistant to and to being supervised by such employer as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. Mrs Macfarlane was also found liable in the expenses of the Complainers and of the Tribunal.

The Sunday Mail reported the scandal as follows :

MORTGAGE MAN STOLE MY £24K

A STUNNED home-buyer's £24,000 deposit was swiped by a mortgage broker whose lawyer wife then covered it up.

Jim Wilson gave the money to Nigel MacFarlane, of Ideal Mortgages, but the adviser stole it and spent it. It then took 19 days for Jim's solicitor Catriona MacFarlane, 49 to tell him that the thief was actually her husband. Despite the deception, MacFarlane was not struck off by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal. Instead she was fined £2,500 for professional misconduct.

Jim, from East Kilbride, said : "She had her knuckles rapped. Yet for almost three weeks, she hid the fact her husband had taken our money." MacFarlane referred to her husband as "the broker: during the property purchase.

The SSDT found that MacFarlane's delay in revealing the truth deprived her client of independent legal advice. They also ruled that MacFarlane, a solicitor for 27 years, had acted "very irresponsibly" and that her actions were "contrary to the standards of conduct expected".

Suspicious Jim found out the truth when he confronted MacFarlane at her then employers, Glasgow firm Hasties. Jim said : "She put her head in her hands and admitted it. I had to take out an emergency loan." Nigel MacFarlane visited Jim at his home and vowed to repay the cash, which he did.

The Sunday Mail recently reported on another victim of the MacFarlanes, here :

Mum Louise caught up in £220k mortgage swindle

Apr 4 2010 Sunday Mail

MUM Louise Hashim was shocked to discover she owned a £220,000 flat despite pulling out of the deal.

She told mortgage broker Nigel MacFarlane and his lawyer wife Catriona she'd changed her mind about buying the apartment in Admiral's Gate, Glasgow. So she was stunned when an £1110 mortgage payment came out of her bank account in 2005.

Louise contacted police when she discovered that despite saying she did not want to go ahead with the purchase the flat was bought in her name. Louise, 32, said: "The flat was repossessed and the debt is in my name so my credit record is ruined."

The loan was obtained by Nigel's employers, Ideal Mortgages, and Catriona, 49, was the solicitor. When Louise contacted the MacFarlanes, they claimed it was an error but she called in the police. She said: "The fiscal said that the evidence wasn't strong enough to proceed."

The Crown Office confirmed that no further proceedings would be taken over the matter.

Louise's ordeal echoes that of Jim Wilson, who gave a £24,000 deposit to Mr MacFarlane only for him to steal and spend it. It took 19 days for Jim's solicitor, Catriona MacFarlane, to reveal that the thief was her husband. She was fined £2500 for professional misconduct by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal.

The MacFarlanes couldn't be reached for comment.

Here’s how the Herald Newspaper reported the scandal :

Lawyer fined for keeping quiet while husband took cash

Brian Horne

Published on 12 Nov 2009

A lawyer who kept quiet when her mortgage broker husband misappropriated a client’s cash has been fined £2500 for professional misconduct.

The independent Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal heard the man did not know that Catriona Macfarlane and Nigel Macfarlane were married. In conversations with the man, identified only as Mr A, she simply referred to her husband as “the broker”.

The tribunal ruled that Mrs Macfarlane, 49, of Loganswell, Newton Mearns, should have been more honest earlier, told the client to seek independent advice and withdrawn from acting.

The case was brought by the Law Society of Scotland, which regulates the professional conduct of the country’s solicitors.

It told the tribunal that in May 2006, Mr A wanted to buy a house and contacted Ideal Mortgages, where Mr Macfarlane worked. Between then and November that year, he handed over a total of £24,150 to be used as a deposit.

Soon afterwards, Mr A went to Hasties Solicitors in Glasgow’s Lynedoch Crescent where Mrs Macfarlane works. She acted for him during the purchase of a property and, when it emerged that there were problems with the loan, phoned her husband.

Mrs Macfarlane also got the settlement date put back a month to February 8, 2007, but, the day before the deal was due to be concluded, she phoned the seller to say that her client “had been badly let down by his broker” and was unable to complete the transaction.

By this time, Mrs Macfarlane knew that her husband had misappropriated the money he had received from Mr A, said the tribunal in its written ruling.

Two weeks later, Mr Macfarlane visited Mr A, confessed what he had done, and promised to sort things out.

By this time, Mr A had become suspicious because solicitor and broker shared the same surname and confronted, Mrs Macfarlane who admitted they were married.

The tribunal heard that a new solicitor took over acting for Mr A and the property purchase was successfully completed in April 2007. Mr Macfarlane paid back what he had taken and also paid the additional costs caused by the delay.

But they decided that Mrs Macfarlane, who has been a solicitor for 27 years, had acted “very irresponsibly” and that what she had done was “completely contrary to the standards of conduct expected of a solicitor”.

The tribunal also made an order that for the next three years Mrs Macfarlane could work only as an assistant, supervised by another solicitor.

Mrs Macfarlane did not contest the facts and was not present at the hearing.

Monday 28 June 2010

Scottish Legal Consumer Complaints Alert : Solicitor John G. O’Donnell & Co, 15 Clarkston Road. Glasgow. G44 4EF

John G O Donnell Sunday Mail 19 April 2009 2
REVEALED - Top Lawyer at the centre of 12 negligence claims
EXCLUSIVE Lawyer sued for 1million

Findings against John G.O’Donnell by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal :
http://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/finding_item.asp?LTfindingID=465

Solicitor(s) JOHN GERARD O’DONNELL, 15 Clarkston Road, Glasgow
Tribunal Date : 25/01/2010
Appeal Status : No Appeal

Full Download of complaint findings (pdf)

Interlocutor

Edinburgh 25 January 2010. The Tribunal having considered the substitute Complaint dated 16 October 2009 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against John Gerard O’Donnell, 15 Clarkston Road, Glasgow; Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of his permitting his own personal interest to influence his acting on behalf of a client, his failure to act on his client’s irrevocable instructions and in direct conflict with those irrevocable instructions by his borrowing £60,000 from his client rather than paying the sum to the brother of the client in terms of the mandate and his borrowing £60,000 from his client in breach of rule 21 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts, etc Fund Rules 2001; Direct that Orders be issued under Section 53C(2) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 in respect of Mr C, Ms D, Abbey National, Mr F and Ms G and Mr I; Censure the Respondent and Direct in terms of Section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for a period of five years any practising certificate held or issued to the 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, said restriction to run concurrent with his existing restriction; Find the Respondent 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.

Findings against John G.O’Donnell by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal :
Solicitor(s) JOHN GERARD O’DONNELL, Solicitor, 15 Clarkston Road, Glasgow
Tribunal Date : 16/01/2008
Appeal Status : No Appeal

Full Download of complaint findings (pdf)

Interlocutor

Edinburgh 16 January 2008. The Tribunal having considered the Complaints dated 18 June and 21 June 2007 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against John Gerard O’Donnell, Solicitor, 15 Clarkston Road, Glasgow; Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in cumulo in respect of his repeated failure between 14 July 2000 and 22 March 2007 to settle Counsel’s fees, his delay and/or failure to record heritable deeds with the Registers of Scotland on behalf of his clients, his breach of rules 6, 8 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Funds Rules 2001 and his unreasonable delay in responding to the reasonable enquiries of the Complainers; Censure the Respondent; Fine him in the sum of £500 to be forfeit to Her Majesty and Direct in terms of Section 53(5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that the Respondent’s practising certificate be subject to a condition that the books and records of the Respondent’s practice be inspected by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland no later than 30 June 2008 and thereafter at nine monthly intervals on two further occasions, the last of which to take place no later than 31 December 2009, all such inspections to be at the expense of the Respondent; Find the Respondent 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 an agent 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; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Respondent.

Scottish Consumers : Publish your complaint against your solicitor on Scottish Legal Consumer Complaints

If you wish your complaint against your solicitors published on this website, please send details of your complaint along with details of the solicitor & law firm involved, acknowledgements of receipt of your complaint from either the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates, and a letter authorising publication to us at : lawcomplaints@gmail.com 

If you are a client and have experienced other kinds of poor treatment at the hands of solicitors or advocates, such as unjustified expensive fees, or perhaps your solicitor made a mountain out of a molehill on your case and strung it out for a couple of years, with an unsatisfactory end result, or you may have been involved in a will or executry dispute with a solicitor or law firm and wish to publish a ‘rating’ of how good or bad you were treated, please send further details along with supportive evidence for publication to us at : lawcomplaints@gmail.com

Clients who have registered complaints against their solicitors should indicate whether or not they wish their own names published. If clients do not wish their names published, they will be referred to as "the client" and any identifying information or location details from material provided to us for publication will be removed. The solicitor's identity and the identity of their law firm will remain for all to see.

Publication of complaints information may benefit consumers by adding public scrutiny to the actions of members of the legal profession who are the subject of complaints by clients.

Scottish Legal Consumer Complaints is thankfully in no way affiliated to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who carry no such register of complaints against solicitors nor will they disclose the regulatory records of solicitors to potential clients.

Scottish Legal Consumer Complaints is a not for profit group and publishes all information submitted to it free of charge.