Case adjourned...for 12 years: Lawyer fined for doing nothing
Senior partner punished for years of delay and inaction on client’s file
Asenior lawyer has been fined for repeatedly failing to deal with a client’s case – for 12 years.
Quinton Muir, a senior court partner at D&J Dunlop Solicitors in Ayr, was found guilty of professional misconduct over his treatment of a client in an employment case.
He was fined £7,500 by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal in a just-released judgment, following a hearing in September. Furthermore, the tribunal recommended that the client could apply for compensation.
The tribunal found that Muir had “failed to act in his client’s best interests” but stopped short of restricting his practising certificate.
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 that clients’ interests are protected should things go wrong, as in this case.”
The complaint was raised by Muir’s former client – who wasn’t named – and the Law Society of Scotland.
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 told the tribunal that he 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. The tribunal said Muir had then got into a “deadlock or pickle” and that he ought to have told the client to seek secondary advice.