Eric John Scott

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Eric John Scott, an experienced family law solicitor, acted for FP in family proceedings raised by JS. After the Sheriff issued a judgment finding that JS had deliberately alienated the children from their father and that a psychologist should assist in re-establishing contact, the Respondent wrote a 'strictly private and confidential' letter dated 17 March 2022 to SA, an employee of the charity Children 1st, stating that the purpose of involving a psychologist was to assist the boys in recovering from 'the abuse and trauma that they have suffered as a result of the alienating behaviour on the part of their mother.' The Sheriff had made no express finding of abuse or trauma. The Law Society alleged professional misconduct through breach of Rules B1.2 and B1.9.1, arguing the Respondent misrepresented/embellished the Sheriff's findings and showed a lack of integrity. The Tribunal found the Respondent to be a credible and reliable witness who had given careful consideration to the letter and, based on the Sheriff's findings of deliberate alienation, the psychologist's (JF's) reports, and his own expertise in triangulation cases, had a reasonable basis for describing the children's experience as abuse and trauma. Distinguishing the case from McGeechan, the Tribunal held the Sharp test was not met and found the Respondent NOT GUILTY of professional misconduct. No dishonesty was found. The Tribunal concluded the prosecution was misconceived and, departing from the Baxendale-Walker default, awarded expenses in favour of the Respondent (to be taxed at a £18.00 unit rate).

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]