John Athuahene and Richard Thomas Thorburn

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

In a lengthy Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal case, both John Atuahene (First Respondent) and Richard Thomas Thorburn (Second Respondent) were found guilty of professional misconduct in cumulo. The First Respondent's misconduct involved persistent failures to reply to the Law Society, failure to implement mandates, failure to respond to other solicitors, failure to register a client's title and security, and numerous breaches of the Accounts Rules (Rules 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 24), delays in recording deeds, and operating without professional indemnity insurance. The Second Respondent's misconduct involved failure to reply to the Law Society, breaches of Accounts Rules (Rules 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 24), delays in recording deeds, inadequate money laundering procedures, and operating without professional indemnity insurance. The Tribunal expressly found the First Respondent was NOT dishonest but hopelessly incompetent; no express finding of dishonesty was made against the Second Respondent either. Both were struck off the Roll of Solicitors as not fit and proper persons. Each was made liable for one half of 80% of the expenses of the Complainers and Tribunal. No fine was imposed given their financial situations.

Duties found breached:

• Keep client informed and respond promptly
• Proper termination and return of instructions
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Professional indemnity insurance
• AML and crime-prevention compliance
• No improper solicitation or touting

Aggravating factors:

• Repeated similar failings identified across multiple inspections over a prolonged period
• Respondents did not learn from previous advice or mistakes
• Lack of insight; First Respondent continued in practice even after judicial factor appointed
• Operating without professional indemnity insurance placing clients at serious risk
• Previous findings of professional misconduct against the First Respondent
• Second Respondent's reckless handling of the clients 85/86 transaction (paying over funds without concluded missives or disposition) and advising the bank an equity contribution was in place when it was not

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent's ill health (diabetes, high blood pressure exacerbated by stress), accepted by the Complainers
• Accounting and filing problems inherited from the acquired practice of Murray & Co
• No finding of dishonesty; First Respondent found incompetent rather than dishonest
• Respondents succeeded in having a number of averments deleted; Law Society's presentation contributed to overall length of proceedings (liability for expenses reduced by 20%)

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]