A solicitor who sought go away to appeal two choices of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission that complaints made against him by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland weren’t completely with out benefit has been granted permission solely in respect of the second criticism by the Extra Division of the Inner House, however solely on the bottom that he was entitled to inform a Law Society Committee that he meant to make an Equality Act problem if his practising certificates was not granted unconditionally.
Patrick McAuley, who was issued a conditional practising certificates in 2024 following removing from the roll at his personal occasion in 2020, made a sequence of allegations in his software concerning the conduct of the Dean of Faculty, Roddy Dunlop KC, and the Law Society, alleging that there was a conspiracy against him on a number of fronts. On the second criticism, he argued that he was entitled to increase the chance of a problem below the Equality Act 2010 and on that foundation alone the criticism ought to have been dismissed.
The purposes had been thought-about by Lord Matthews, Lady Carmichael, and Lord Braid. The applicant represented himself, whereas McGregor KC appeared for the SLCC as first respondent in each purposes and D Blair, advocate, appeared for the Law Society in respect of the second software.
Anti-Catholic bigotry
In August 2024, the Dean of Faculty complained to the fee about Mr McAuley’s conduct. That criticism was deemed eligible and handed to the Law Society for investigation. Following that call, Mr McAuley corresponded additional with members of the Faculty and repeatedly accused them of falsifying proof within the 2024 criticism, secretly conspiring against him, together with to deny him professional bono illustration. He was additionally mentioned to have failed to act with belief and private integrity when he utilized for his practising certificates in neglecting to point out an Employment Tribunal case he had been concerned in, McAuley v Ethigen Ltd (2023) by which an employment decide described his conduct as “scandalous, vexatious, and unreasonable”.
Mr McAuley challenged the choice on the primary criticism on 14 grounds, together with that as Mr Dunlop was not seeking compensation, the worth of the criticism was nil and there was no curiosity to allow the fee to use. Mr Dunlop had improper motivations for the criticism and displayed anti-Catholic bigotry by utilizing the time period “papist” in a submit on X/Twitter. The criticism about non-disclosure of the Employment Tribunal case was “deranged” as a result of the case had been reported within the Scots Law Times, and at any fee the case was continuing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the quotes relating to his conduct could be faraway from the general public area.
Delivering the opinion of the courtroom, Lord Matthews mentioned of the relative worth of the criticism: “This argument proceeds on an erroneous equivalence between the legal principles applicable to inter partes litigation and those applicable to the discharge of functions by a statutory regulator. The commission was established by statute as a gateway body to sift complaints. Concepts such as ‘standing’, ‘title’ and ‘interest’ are inapplicable to the discharge of functions by a statutory body.”
He added on different grounds: “The allegation that the Dean’s complaint was motivated by sectarianism is conspicuously unsupported by evidence. The social media exchange which is referred to speaks for itself, as does the context in which it appears, but it does not, on the face of it, affect the substance of the complaint, which lies in communications from Mr McAuley himself. In any event such matters may be taken into account, if considered relevant, and if evidence emerges to support them, by the Law Society. For our own part, it seems plain that in using the words complained of by Mr McAuley, the Dean was quoting with disapproval words used in the Claim of Right.”
Lord Matthews concluded on this software: “The proposed appeal fails to engage properly with any of the section 21(4) grounds [of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007] and, for the reasons outlined above, has no prospects of success, realistic or otherwise. Leave to appeal is refused.”
Not illegal menace
In respect of the second criticism, the Law Society referred to Mr McAuley’s submissions to its Practising Certificate Sub-Committee in August 2024 by which he threatened to increase proceedings below the Equality Act he was not granted an unconditional practising certificates. Ultimately, he was granted a conditional practising certificates, with the Inner House refusing an appeal against this determination in February 2025. The criticism additionally referred to correspondence between Mr McAuley and employees of the Law Society and the SLCC mentioned to be apt to draw the career into disrepute.
Mr McAuley argued {that a} menace to invoke Equality Act provisions was not an illegal menace succesful of amounting to misconduct. Drawing consideration to the chance of an appeal below these provisions was one thing he was entitled to do, and consequently the entire criticism ought to have been categorised as being with out benefit.
Considering whether or not Mr McAuley was entitled to refer to the Equality Act as he did, Lady Carmichael mentioned: “The question for us is whether there is a real prospect of Mr McAuley’s arguing successfully on appeal that the Commission erred in law or acted irrationally in failing to conclude that correspondence in the terms quoted could never amount to a departure from the standards of conduct, such that it would be a waste of time for the Law Society to consider it. We are satisfied that there is such a prospect and therefore grant permission to appeal.”
On the opposite grounds of appeal, Lady Carmichael mentioned: “Issue one proceeds on the basis that Mr McAuley’s correspondence includes unfounded allegations of serious wrongdoing, including racism, sectarian bigotry and malice. By way of example, the correspondence includes a description of a judge as a ‘racist beast’, and a description of the Law Society’s agent and of the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates as a ‘pair of racist and bigoted shysters’.”
She concluded: “The specification in issue three includes allegations that Mr McAuley attempted to mimic the employment judge’s voice or accent in a sarcastic and mocking manner, and that he used the noun ‘cheat’ to refer to the employment judge. There is no real prospect of Mr McAuley’s demonstrating that the conduct averred in issues one and three could never amount to a departure from the standards of conduct.”
Leave to appeal within the second criticism was due to this fact solely granted with respect to the argument on the Equality Act.
