Jeremy James Cram

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

Jeremy James Cram, a sole practitioner, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal on 17 September 2018. The misconduct involved instructing three advocates (through Faculty Services) and then failing to pay their fees - in some cases having received payment from SLAB earmarked for counsel - together with persistent failure to respond to and cooperate with Faculty Services, the Dean of Faculty, the Law Society's regulatory correspondence and statutory Notices, and the Law Society's Financial Compliance Department's requests for the firm's books. His practising certificate had been suspended under s40 in October 2015 and a Judicial Factor appointed. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and ordered that his name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, found him liable for expenses, and directed publicity. No express finding of dishonesty was made. At a subsequent hearing on 26 November 2018, the Tribunal ordered him to pay the Secondary Complainer (Mr A, Advocate) the statutory maximum compensation of £5,000 (the unpaid fees actually exceeding £12,000) with 8% interest, and liability for Tribunal expenses.

Duties found breached:

• Complaints procedure and handling
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Diligence and timeliness
• Cooperate openly with regulators

Aggravating factors:

• Sustained misconduct over a long period from October 2014 onwards
• Multiple advocates left unpaid (Mr A, Mr E, Ms F) and significant time/cost incurred by Faculty Services in pursuing him
• Took funds paid by SLAB for counsel's fees and failed to pass them on
• Faculty of Advocates imposed sanctions against the practice unit for unpaid fees
• Persistent failure to engage meaningfully with the regulator and to attend hearings

Mitigating factors:

• Acknowledged in correspondence that he had made mistakes and would be liable for some fees
• Expressed regret and offered sincere apologies, including a personal apology to the Secondary Complainer
• Stated he had no intention of returning to the profession
• Limited financial means (earning under £20,000, few assets)