Charlotte Joy Platt

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

The Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal found solicitor Charlotte Joy Platt guilty of professional misconduct. She signed as a witness to a Standard Security and Matrimonial Homes Act Declaration in July 2016 when she had not in fact witnessed the client's signature, which the Tribunal found to be dishonest (applying Ivey v Genting Casinos) and a breach of Rule B1.2. In cumulo she also breached Rules B1.4 and B1.9 by failing to ensure the Disposition was registered timeously, failing to advise the client of registration delays, failing to explain the reason for requesting her National Insurance number, and permitting fraudulently signed documents to be sent for registration, exposing both the client and lender to risk. Allegations that she knew or ought to have known the signatures were forged were not established. Although dishonesty normally leads to strike-off, the Tribunal found exceptional circumstances (chaotic and under-resourced workplace, effect on her health, junior status, cooperation and good character). It censured her and restricted her practising certificate for an aggregate two years to acting only as a qualified assistant with an approved employer, and found her liable in expenses of the Complainers and Tribunal (taxed, unit rate £14.00). Publicity was directed naming the Respondent and firm partners only.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• Cease acting on client perjury or disobedience
• No conflict between current clients
• Comply with rules of foreign jurisdictions

Aggravating factors:

• Finding of dishonesty at the top end of the spectrum of gravity
• Conduct more than momentary - she had a weekend to reflect before sending deeds for registration
• Exposed the Secondary Complainer to risk by failing to ensure timeous registration
• Exposed the lender/heritable creditor to risk as Standard Security was open to reduction
• Failures extended over a significant period of time

Mitigating factors:

• Working in a difficult, unpleasant and chaotic office atmosphere due to partnership breakdown
• Office greatly under-resourced
• Effect on the Respondent's mental and physical health
• Treated as a senior member of staff when newly qualified and poorly supported
• Full cooperation from the outset, including providing handwriting samples
• Otherwise good character and professionalism
• Expression of remorse
• Isolated incident with no evidence of repetition and low risk of recurrence
• No premeditation - described as a 'moment of madness'
• No actual proven prejudice/benefit; LBTT penalty paid by the firm