David Richard Blair Lyons & Duncan Hugh Drummond

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

Two partners of Lyons Laing & Co faced a Law Society complaint. The First Respondent (cashroom partner, Greenock) failed to answer correspondence and statutory notices, failed to implement letters of obligation, grossly overcharged executry fees, breached the Accounts Rules, took fees to which he was not entitled, and embezzled £1,040,000 of Bank of Ireland loan funds intended to redeem Cumberland Building Society securities. The Tribunal expressly found his conduct 'clearly dishonest.' The Second Respondent (Glasgow office) was found guilty of professional misconduct for complicity in the excessive executry fees/failure to render fee notes and breaches of the Accounts Rules (knowing for about a year his partner was misappropriating client funds while continuing to draw excessive funds), and for failing to supervise a restricted-certificate assistant (Manus Tolland) who committed 13 CML mortgage-fraud-related conveyancing breaches, in breach of his undertaking. Both were struck off the Roll and found jointly and severally liable for expenses.

Duties found breached:

• Full disclosure on ex parte applications
• No improper communication with the court
• Keep client informed and respond promptly
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Advise on alternatives, settlement and outcome
• Costs and fee transparency to client
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Diligence and timeliness
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• Report serious misconduct of others

Aggravating factors:

• First Respondent had three previous findings of professional misconduct; Second Respondent had one previous finding (fined £10,000, the maximum)
• Protracted course of dishonest conduct by First Respondent
• No remorse or insight shown by First Respondent
• Second Respondent knew for about 12 months that his partner was misappropriating client funds yet took no real steps to protect clients
• Second Respondent continued to draw funds (approx £100,000/year) financed by misappropriation while firm was insolvent
• Second Respondent's delay in reporting occurred against a background of Law Society already investigating irregularities

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent eventually acted as a 'whistle blower' by disclosing matters to the Law Society
• Second Respondent was geographically and administratively distant from the Greenock cashroom controlled by the First Respondent
• Second Respondent cooperated fully with the Law Society and gave evidence before the Tribunal
• Second Respondent showed some degree of insight and regret
• Second Respondent suffered severe consequences (bankruptcy, loss of home, loss of career)
• Any excessive fees taken directly by the Second Respondent were accepted to have been inadvertent