Skip to main content
discipline 4 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Stephen Harper

JurisdictionScotland
BodyScottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal (SSDT)
Professionsolicitor — Stephen Andrew Harper, c/o 37 Seaforth Avenue, Wick, Caithness
Date22nd Jun 2023
AppealNo Appeal

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

SanctionReprimand
Suspension36.024 months
Fine 1
Dishonesty foundNo

Stephen Andrew Harper, sole principal of Antons Solicitors, was found guilty of professional misconduct in connection with his handling of the A J Stuart Trust. Following the death of the life tenant in January 2015, he failed to finalise the Trust's tax compliance work (leading to repeated HMRC late-filing penalties), delayed unconscionably in winding up the Trust over roughly four years, failed to inform the Secondary Complainer that he had ceased to practise while still engaged on the matter, and accepted instructions beyond his professional competence. He breached Rules B1.4, B1.9 and B1.10. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence based on a Joint Minute of agreed facts. The Tribunal censured him and directed that any practising certificate be restricted for an aggregate period of three years, limiting him to acting as a qualified assistant under an approved employer, and found him liable for the expenses of the Complainers and Tribunal on a taxed agent and client basis. No dishonesty was found; the conduct concerned diligence and competence failures. At a subsequent compensation hearing on 10 November 2023, the Secondary Complainer (on behalf of the A J Stuart Trust) sought the maximum £5,000 award, but the Tribunal made no award of compensation, finding that losses could not be established as attributable to the Respondent and that the Trust's standing to claim was uncertain, with no award of expenses in that hearing.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Misconduct persisted for approximately four years despite repeated opportunities to remedy the situation
  • Failed to inform client he had ceased to practise while engaged in an ongoing matter
  • Conduct likely to damage the reputation of the profession
  • Conduct could be a danger to the public

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous conduct findings on record
  • Cooperated with the Fiscal
  • Entered into a Joint Minute agreeing the facts
  • Conduct not at the most serious end of the spectrum

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/law-society-v-stephen-harper/