Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a petition and complaint presented by the Society of Solicitors in Aberdeen, craving to have the name of William Sim struck off the roll of enrolled law-agents.

The petitioners averred that William Sim was a law-agent who up to October 1896 practised as a solicitor and law-agent in Aberdeen, but that on or about the 9th of that month, his affairs having become embarrassed, he disappeared, “having, it is believed, left the country.”

The petition continued—“Since the disappearance of the said William Sim, it has transpired that while practising in Aberdeen he had been guilty of conduct unbecoming a solicitor, and in fact fraudulent. In course of the years 1893–95 and 1896, when he was in financial difficulties, he borrowed money from clients on the security of properties belonging to him, on representations that the properties were unencumbered, and that these loans would constitute first charges on the properties, whereas he well knew that the properties were heavily burdened and altogether inadequate as security for the loans. He also received money from clients upon the assurance that he would invest it upon first-class securities, which moneys he made no attempt to invest, but appropriated to his own uses.” Certain specific instances of such fraudulent conduct on Sim's part were then condescended on.

It was further averred that Sim's estate was wholly insufficient to meet these liabilities, that he had fled the country, that a warrant had been issued for his apprehension, and that his estates had been sequestrated.

The petitioners founded upon section 22 of the Law-Agents (Scotland) Act 1873 (36 and 37 Vict. cap. 63), which enacts that “Every enrolled law-agent shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court in any complaint which may be made against him for misconduct as a law-agent, and it shall be lawful for the Court, in either Division thereof, to deal summarily with any such complaint, and to do therein as shall be just.”

They also founded upon the enactment of section 14 of that Act, that “the name of any person shall be struck off the said rolls—(1) in obedience to the order of the Court, upon application duly made and after hearing parties, or giving them an opportunity of being heard.”

The Court ordered service upon Sim, and appointed answers to be lodged by him, if so advised, within six weeks.

The petition having been served edictally upon Sim, and no answers having been lodged within that period, counsel for the petitioners moved that the prayer of the petition be granted.

At advising—