Scottish Court of Session Decisions

On 26th December 1879, A B, a law-agent in Glasgow, was convicted of having embezzled a sum of £600, which he had obtained for clients as a loan over subjects belonging to them, and was sentenced to a term of three months' imprisonment. After his liberation, on 30th May 1880, A B, by letter addressed to the Registrar of Enrolled Law-Agents in Scotland, instructed the withdrawal of his name from the roll, and this was done. On 4th June 1895, A B presented a petition craving the Court “to re-admit the petitioner as a law-agent,… and to decern and ordain the Registrar of Law-Agents to restore the name of the petitioner to the Register of Enrolled Law-Agents.”

The petitioner stated, inter alia, that, after obtaining the loan and pending the settlement of the transaction, he had instructed one of his clerks to place the amount in a separate account with his bankers; that, as he afterwards discovered, his clerk had paid the money to his general bank account; that at the time he believed himself to be solvent; that, owing to losses occasioned by the unprecedented depression which followed the collapse of the City of Glasgow Bank, he had become insolvent, and his estates had been sequestrated in July 1879; that the amount of the said loan being immixed with his own funds was, after his sequestration, not available to the borrowers, who laid an information with the Fiscal, upon which the petitioner had been charged with embezzlement, and after trial convicted; that since his release he had endeavoured to earn an honest livelihood in Glasgow, that he had acted as a clerk in the employment of a Glasgow firm of writers, and was now managing and conveyancing clerk to another firm, and that on 3rd December 1894 he had presented a petition for discharge under the Bankruptcy Acts, which had been granted. He produced numerous certificates in his favour, including one signed by nearly one hundred law-agents and conveyancers, which spoke highly of his ability and integrity.

On 5th June the petition was ordered to be intimated to the Incorporated Society of Law-Agents, and answers were lodged by the Society, in which they averred that their Council had examined the proceedings in the petitioner's bankruptcy with reference to his allegations regarding the circumstances leading to his trial, and they begged to refer the Court to these proceedings should their Lordships think these allegations material; that they had ascertained that there was precedent in the practice of the English courts for restoring to the roll solicitors who had been convicted of such a crime as this; that they understood the Glasgow Faculty of Procurators had had notice of the petition, and did not oppose it; and that in the circumstances “the respondents are content to leave in the hands of the Court the question which they respectfully submit falls to be decided, viz., whether, without detriment to the interests of the profession and of the public, the petitioner can be restored to the Roll of Law-Agents?”

Argued for the petitioner—The formal answer given by the Incorporated Society of Law-Agents left the matter to the discretion of the Court. No answer had been made by the Society of Procurators, and individually they had written certificates in his favour. There were English precedents for granting the petition, which showed that great weight was attached by the Court to evidence in the petitioner's favour such as was produced here. Each case was decided according to its circumstances, and no general principles need be laid down. The case of Unwin, March 28, 1882, 72 Law Times (O.S.), 388, was very similar to the present one. In the case of Robins, 1865, 34 L.J.Q.B. 121, re-admission was granted after only six years' probation. In “ Anonymous,” 1853, 17 Beav. 475, it was granted after ten years. In Pyke, 1865, 34 L.J.Q.B. 121, re-admission was only refused because no affidavits as to conduct were produced.

At advising—