Andrew Paterson Penman

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

Andrew Paterson Penman, former partner and cashroom partner at Stormonth Darling WS, was found guilty of professional misconduct singly and in cumulo. He acted dishonestly by repeatedly telling Company 1 he had raised court proceedings (against Scottish Water and to evict tenants) when he had not, fabricating hearing dates over a lengthy period. He misled the V Trust trustees about dealing with HMRC/IHT and the sale of a field. In four executries and the V Trust he took fees without rendering fee notes to executors/trustees, having no authority to intromit with funds, and in the AC and WK executries took fees grossly in excess (650% and 140%) of subsequently audited fees. He breached the Accounts Rules, failed to communicate effectively (resulting in HMRC penalties for the Trust), failed to act in clients' best interests and failed to carry out instructions. The Tribunal applied Ivey and found express dishonesty. Despite mitigation regarding ill health and financial/work pressures, the Tribunal held there were no exceptional circumstances to justify a lesser sanction and ordered strike off. The Respondent was found liable for the expenses of the Complainers and the Tribunal (to be taxed) and publicity was directed including his name and that of his former partner.

Duties found breached:

• Avoid wasting the court's time
• No improper communication with the court
• Honesty
• Fair, reasonable and lawful fees
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Findings of dishonesty
• Course of misconduct over a lengthy period (repeated lies to a client over nine months/2005-2013)
• Conduct was a danger to the public
• Conduct likely to seriously damage the reputation of the profession
• Multiple clients affected
• Took spurious and/or grossly excessive fees; client incurred financial penalties due to failures

Mitigating factors:

• Respondent's ill health at the time of misconduct
• Financial and work pressures (2008 recession, retirement/illness/death of partners)
• Cooperation with the Law Society and Tribunal
• Entered into Joint Minute of Admissions
• No previous findings of misconduct
• Expressed remorse and apologised
• Attended the hearing in person
• No financial gain to the Respondent from the dishonesty