(unnamed respondent)

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

Robert Kidd appealed against the Law Society of Scotland's decision not to uphold his complaint (head 3) that solicitor Scott Allan had failed to act in his best interests by not informing him that a partner (Kenneth Gordon) was advising/acting for the counterparty (Lime Rock Partners) in a corporate transaction. At a preliminary hearing the Tribunal rejected the 'constructive knowledge' argument but allowed the appeal to proceed on actual knowledge. After a full hearing, the Tribunal found the Sub Committee's decision was contrary to the evidence: the contemporaneous emails (Inventory Z) showed the Second Respondent knew Gordon's involvement went far beyond a legitimate handover and vendor due diligence and amounted to acting/advising for LRP in a conflict of interest. The Tribunal upheld the appeal, quashed the determination and found unsatisfactory professional conduct (no dishonesty found). No compensation was sought or awarded. Each Respondent was found liable for one-half of the Appellant's and the Tribunal's expenses from the date of the preliminary hearing (on the agent and client, client paying scale, to be taxed), with no expenses due up to that hearing; Senior Counsel certified. Publicity ordered including the names of the parties.

Duties found breached:

• No conflict between current clients
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Appellant noted the Second Respondent's continuing lack of insight and consequent risk of recurrence (raised in submissions)

Mitigating factors:

• Had Kenneth Gordon's role been limited to a genuine handover and proper vendor due diligence, knowledge of that involvement alone would likely not have amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct
• The Second Respondent was not party to the emails demonstrating the worst of Gordon's conduct and may not have been aware of everything Gordon was doing