§ discipline
‹ Back

Malcolm John Colin Mackillop

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number12769/2025
Date11/02/2026
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Code of Conduct for Solicitors, REL's & RFL's 2019, Recklessness, SRA Principles 2019

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

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 14,923
Dishonesty foundYes

Malcolm John Colin Mackillop, a sole practitioner and COLP/COFA at Archdeacon Russell & Co, was found (via an approved Agreed Outcome) to have committed two acts of dishonesty. First, in December 2021, he misled lender Santander by stating completion would take place on 15 December 2021 and altering the Certificate of Title's completion date, when completion had already occurred on 15 October 2021, to conceal his failure to secure mortgage funds. Second, on 28 April 2023, he provided inaccurate/misleading information on the Firm's PII proposal form by falsely answering 'No' to whether the Firm was subject to an SRA Forensic Investigation visit/enquiry. The Tribunal expressly found dishonesty and deemed the misconduct to be of the highest level with no exceptional circumstances, ordering strike-off and costs of £14,923.03.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonesty
  • Deliberate misconduct
  • Concealment of wrongdoing
  • Misconduct comprised two separate acts of dishonesty, not an isolated incident or momentary lapse
  • Recklessness alleged as aggravating feature of Allegation 1.2
  • Experienced solicitor (admitted 1975) holding COLP and COFA roles in a position of trust

Mitigating factors:

  • 50-year hitherto unblemished career (non-agreed)
  • No benefit to the Respondent (non-agreed)
  • No financial or other harm to Client A or Santander (non-agreed)
  • No indication of current or ongoing risk to clients (non-agreed)
  • Engaged with the process and admitted dishonesty at an early stage

Codes & rules applied

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/12769/