Andrew Paterson Penman

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

Andrew Paterson Penman, a former partner and cashroom partner at Stormonth Darling, was found guilty of professional misconduct singly and in cumulo. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty: he repeatedly lied to a corporate client (Company 1) over a long period, telling them court proceedings were live, hearing dates fixed, statutory notices served and Sheriff Officers instructed when none of this was true. He also misled the V Trust trustees regarding HMRC/IHT matters and a field sale. Across four executries and the V Trust he took fees without rendering fee notes to executors/trustees (no authority to intromit), and in the AC and WK executries took spurious and/or grossly excessive fees significantly in excess of subsequently audited fees, breaching the Accounts Rules and failing to maintain his client account in credit. He failed to communicate effectively, failed to act in clients' best interests, and failed to carry out instructions, resulting in HMRC penalties for the Trust. Applying Bolton, Sharma and Ivey, the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances (despite ill health and financial pressures) and ordered the Respondent struck off the Roll. He was found liable for the expenses of the Complainers and Tribunal, taxed on an agent and client basis (no fixed figure stated). Publicity directed including the Respondent's name and that of his former partner.

Duties found breached:

• Diligence and timeliness
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• Honesty
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper communication with the court
• No improper solicitation or touting
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Findings of dishonesty
• Course of misconduct over a lengthy period
• Repeated lies to a client over a long time (e.g. fake court hearings/proceedings 2005-2013)
• Conduct was a danger to the public and likely to seriously damage reputation of the profession
• Involved more than one client

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent's ill health (medical report)
• Financial and work pressures at the time (2008 recession, partner retirement, illness and death of assumed partner)
• Cooperated with the Law Society and Tribunal
• Entered into Joint Minute of Admissions
• No previous findings of misconduct
• Expressed remorse and apologised
• Attended hearing in person
• No financial gain from the dishonesty