Firm sorry after lawyer guilty of misconduct
A solicitors firm has apologised after one of their lawyers was fined £10,000 for failing to raise and proceed with a woman’s divorce actionfor four years.
D&J Dunlop, based in Barns Street, Ayr, has said ‘sorry’ over the actions of one of their ‘legal eagles’, Quinton Muir, who was found guilty of professional misconduct.
It is the second time in three years Muir has been hauled over the coals by his peers.
Last week the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal found Muir guilty of professional misconduct over delays in acting on his client’s instructions within a reasonable time and failing to communicate with her during part of the period.
Muir, 54, told the tribunal that he wanted to make a full and unreserved apology to the woman and was genuinely sorry for any distress caused.
He accepted that there was no excuse for the delay that took place and said the best explanation he could provide was that he was swamped by the volume of business at the time.
The tribunal said: “The respondent (Muir) appeared to have insight into his conduct.
He indicated, and was not contradicted, that he had no other outstanding matters and has been peer reviewed on several occasions and no issues raised.
“Following the matter before the tribunal his firm had employed additional staff and introduced file management systems to prevent any recurrence,” it said in a ruling.
But it said that failure to make progress with the unnamed woman’s case was “extensive” and included a period in excess of two years where no action of any kind was taken by Muir.
The tribunal said: “A solicitor is expected to carry out instructions adequately and competently within a reasonable time. The relevant time is from instruction to the termination of engagement.”
Muir was consulted by the woman in April 2013 as she sought advice on divorcing her husband, whom she separated from in 2010.
She withdrew her instructions to Muir in October 2017 and contacted fresh agents the same day. The tribunal held that Muir failed in his obligation to proceed with the woman’s instructions within a reasonable time by delaying and acting upon her wishes to raise and proceed with a divorce action from October 2013 to October 2017.
It found that he had failed to communicate with her from January 2015 to February 2017.
However, in 2018, we can reveal that Muir was fined £7500 by the Scottish Solicitors Tribunal for repeatedly failing to deal with a client’s case for 12 years. At the time Muir was found guilty of professional misconduct over his treatment of a client in an employment case. The tribunal found that Muir had “failed to act in his client’s best interests” but stopped short of restricting his practising certificate. At the time chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, Lorna Jack, said: “It is vital that people can continue to place their trust in Scottish solicitors and clients’ interests are protected should things go wrong, as in this case.”
The tribunal heard that Muir was first instructed to act for his client in March 2002, in connection with issues arising from a redundancy. However, negotiations with the client’s employer were unsuccessful and the lawyer was then asked to take the matter to an employment tribunal or pursue court action.
A year later, it was established that the client was eligible for legal aid. But the tribunal noted that Muir “did not apply for legal aid and did no work on the file”.
In 2005, a writ was finally lodged but this was paused so that Muir could apply for legal aid for his client. The tribunal found that the client then repeatedly contacted Muir over several years seeking information on his case but said that the lawyer had failed to communicate effectively with him.In 2016 the client lodged a complaint with the law society “after 12 years of inactivity”.
But by then the client’s employer had gone out of business, rendering any future court action “pointless”.
Muir initially accepted instructions from the client because he was asked to do so by another local solicitor who was the client’s best friend. He had wanted to help the solicitor and at that stage was looking to negotiate a compromise agreement with the client’s former employer. Muir had then got into a “deadlock or pickle” and that he ought to have told the client to seek secondary advice.
A D&J Dunlop spokesperson told the Post: “We are sorry that in relation to these two Court cases our aim to provide an excellent professional service fell below what we would expect and want for our clients.”