Law Society-v-Norman Douglas Paton Cathcart
Interlocutor
Edinburgh 29 August 2014. The Tribunal having considered the Complaint as amended at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Norman Douglas Paton Cathcart, residing at “Orotava”, Knockbuckle Road, Kilmalcolm, Inverclyde; Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of his breach of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors holding practising certificates 2002 and the Solicitors (Scotland) (Standards of Conduct) Practice Rules 2008 in relation to his client, Birmingham Midshires, in that he failed to comply with the requirements of the CML Handbook in numerous respects, his failure to communicate effectively with Birmingham Midshires in relation to the transaction, his acting in a conflict or potential conflict of interest situation in the transaction and his knowingly misleading Birmingham Midshires by signing off an unqualified certificate of title; his breach of the said Code of Conduct and Practice Rules in relation to Mr D in that he failed to advise him to seek independent legal advice prior to signing the disposition in his client’s favour; his breach of Rule 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Fund Rules 2001 in connection with his failure to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and his failure to report the transaction to the Serious Organised Crime Agency in terms of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; Suspend the Respondent from practice for a period of eight years to run concurrent with his existing three year suspension; 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; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Respondent and may but has no need to include the names of anyone other than the Respondent.
Nicholas Whyte
Vice Chairman