OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY LORD DRUMMOND YOUNG IN THE APPEAL BY MICHAEL LOUIS KARUS AGAINST SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION AND LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND [2014] ScotCS CSIH_59 (04 July 2014)

OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY LORD DRUMMOND YOUNG IN THE APPEAL BY MICHAEL LOUIS KARUS AGAINST SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION AND LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND [2014] ScotCS CSIH_59 (04 July 2014)

The appellant was on the roll of solicitors at the time of the conduct complained of, so jurisdiction existed for disciplinary proceedings. The gravity of the embezzlement and the need to maintain public trust in the profession constituted exceptional circumstances justifying acceptance of the complaint out of time. The first respondent gave adequate reasons, and no material error of law or irrationality was established.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_59
Parties
Appellant: Michael Louis Karus; First Respondent: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission; Second Respondent: Law Society of Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Decision to Accept Complaint for Investigation
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Solicitor Disciplinary Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Regulatory Bodies, Time Bar and Exceptional Circumstances, Removal From Roll of Solicitors
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Solicitor Disciplinary Proceedings Jurisdiction of Regulatory Bodies Time Bar and Exceptional Circumstances Removal From Roll of Solicitors

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Louis Karus

Appellant

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

First Respondent

Law Society of Scotland

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Decision to Accept Complaint for Investigation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant remained subject to the jurisdiction of the Law Society and SLCC for disciplinary proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the complaint was time-barred or exceptional circumstances justified late acceptance
  3. 3 Whether adequate reasons were given for the decision to accept the complaint

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was on the roll of solicitors at the time of the conduct complained of, so jurisdiction existed for disciplinary proceedings. The gravity of the embezzlement and the need to maintain public trust in the profession constituted exceptional circumstances justifying acceptance of the complaint out of time. The first respondent gave adequate reasons, and no material error of law or irrationality was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal is refused.