Kevin Frederick MacPherson

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

Kevin Frederick MacPherson, a solicitor and principal of a firm in Stornoway, was found guilty of professional misconduct. Between March 2011 and August 2013 he engaged in an improper course of conduct towards a trainee solicitor, including exchanging sexually explicit emails referencing her with a female employee of another firm, sending 136 text messages outwith office hours, and making repeated unwanted requests to socialise. This amounted to harassment and abuse of his position of authority. On 22 June 2012 he also referenced a child complainer's statement in a sexual abuse case in terms showing he found it titillating or sexually gratifying, breaching client confidentiality. The emails were discovered on his unprotected work computer by the office manager; the Tribunal rejected the Respondent's preliminary pleas that the emails were improperly obtained or that their use breached his Article 8 rights. The Tribunal found no reasonable expectation of privacy and that any interference was justified to protect others. The Tribunal did not make an express finding of dishonesty, but found his integrity was drawn into question. Given the danger to the public and lack of insight, strike-off was the only appropriate sanction. He was struck off and found liable for expenses.

Duties found breached:

• No improper questioning of witnesses
• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Uphold public trust in the profession
• No unlawful discrimination or harassment
• No acting against a former client
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Predatory assessment and betrayal of the trust of a junior employee/trainee
• Escalating course of conduct sustained over more than two years
• Using the circumstances of an alleged sexual crime against a child to further a sexual conversation
• Failure to remove pornographic material from his work computer even after being warned about it
• Demonstrated no insight into his conduct or how he would deal with such a situation differently in future
• Tribunal considered him a danger to the public, placing employees, colleagues and clients at risk

Mitigating factors:

• Full and frank admissions and entering into a Joint Minute of Admissions
• Attended the hearing in person and cooperated with the process
• Expressed remorse and apology for any distress caused
• No physical element to the misconduct and no threat made to the trainee
• No evidence of lasting effect on the trainee, who completed her traineeship and became a solicitor
• No previous conduct findings against the Respondent
• Appeared to have practised satisfactorily for around eight years without repetition
• No criminal prosecution arose from the conduct
• Significant financial losses already suffered (loss of partnership and SLAB registration)