Page 1 Dunfermline Press 09 March 1990: Headline story: Solicitor censured 

TOP Dunfermline lawyer Gifford Bruce has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. 

The tribunal decided that Mr Bruce, senior partner in W. & A. S. Bruce, solicitors and estate agents, had “acted in a situation where there was a conflict of interest” and had written to former clients “in terms which were intemperate and threatening and unbecoming of a solicitor.” 

Mr Bruce was censured and fined £2,000 and was ordered to pay the expenses of the Law Society, which brought the case against him, and of the tribunal—together believed to be far in excess of the fine. 

The case, which Mr Bruce contested, was the result of a complaint by Robert Dlarymple and Brenda Scarlett, who were directors of Dalrymple Design and Development Ltd., which bought and renovated homes throughout Fife. 

The “conflict of interest” arose when Mr Bruce was company secretary to both the development company and finance company Bandron Ltd, which provided the money to launch the venture.      

Following a disagreement over the security of Bandron’s loans to the development company, Mr Bruce wrote to Mr Dalrymple and Miss Scarlett in terms judged by the tribunal to be threatening. 

Mr Bruce of Prestonview, Veere Park, Culross, this week refused to comment on the affair. 

However Mr Dalrymple was delighted that the tribunal had found in his favour, although he could not understand why it had been decided that Mr Bruce’s name should not be released publicly as part of the judgement, which ordered that publicity be given to the decision. 

Mr Dalrymple, now living in Strathmiglo, said he was gravely concerned about the position of the company, which has not traded for two years. 

And he claimed, “There is about £356,000 in dispute.” 

A copy of the Law Society’s submission to the tribunal states that the senior partner in W. & A. S. Bruce, of 11 Chalmers Street, Dunfermline, had acted as company secretary and legal adviser to Dalrymple Design and Development from its formation in January 1986, until he resigned as secretary on 24th February 1988. 

Referring to the solicitor’s role in both DDD and Bandron, the Law Society claimed that “The respondent was accordingly acting for both the creditor and the borrower in the transaction. He was to receive 50 per cent of any profit made by DDD on the property developments. 

“The respondent then committed DDD to an undisclosed amount of accruing interest to Bandron Ltd., in which he himself had a major financial interest and from which he stood to gain personally very large sums of money. 

“There was a conflict of interest in that he was financially involved in the profitability of both companies, but especially the profitability of Bandron Ltd, whereas Mr Dalrymple and Miss Scarlett were involved only in the profitability of DDD.” 

In January 1986, Robert Dalrymple and Brenda Scarlett had consulted Mr Bruce about the possible purchase and renovation of two properties. 

Mr Bruce suggested that that they join him personally in a business venture and a new limited company was formed, which purchased Aeonash Ltd in February 1986, with its registered address at the solicitors’ office. 

The Law Society alleged that later, “Mr Dalrymple repeatedly asked the respondent for a statement of the interest due by DDD to Bandron Ltd., but the respondent refused or delayed to provide this.” 

A number of properties were purchased, renovated and sold, ………………………….. 

Continued on page 4         

Page 4, Solicitor Censured, From front page ……………….  But, according to the submission, Mr Bruce asked Mr Dalrymple to sign personal guarantees in favour of Bandron Ltd for financial advances.  “When Mr Dalrymple refused, the respondent initiated the steps necessary to call up the standard securities granted by DDD to Bandron Ltd.” claimed the Law Society.   This, it was claimed included asking Mr Dalrymple to agree to dispense with the normal time for calling up a loan, a document the Law Society suggested was wholly in the interests of Bandron Ltd.   The society stated that Mr Dalrymple had refused to sign and Mr Bruce’s firm had served a notice of default on DDD.   The Law Society claimed that this notice stated that DDD had dispensed with the entitlement to one month’s notice and was only signed by Mr Bruce.   Around this time Mr Bruce resigned from DDD and on 2nd March 1988, a Court writ was served by Brandon against the development company at the solicitor’s address.   After Mr Dalrymple instructed other solicitors to challenge this, Mr Bruce wrote directly to Mr Dalrymple and Miss Scarlett, despite the knowledge that they were being represented by professional advisers.         

25pEstablished 1859.'No. 7042Tel. (0383) 728201.

Dunf~rmlinePress ', . ..!AND WEST-OF FirE AQVE~TISER '

t .FRIDAY. March9.1990, ~-

I.

Solicitor Censured From front page

But, according to the sub mission, Mr Bruce asked Mr Dalrymple to sign personal guarantees in favour of Bandron Ltd for financial advances.

"When Mr Dalrymple refused, the respondent ini tiated the steps necessary to call up the standard securities granted by DDD to Bandron Ltd." claimed the law Society.

This, it was claimed included asking Mr Dalrymple to agree to dispense with the normal time for calling up a loan, a document the Law Society suggested was wholly in the interests of Bandron Ltd.

The society stated that Mr Dalrymple had refused to sign and Mr Bruce's firm had served a notice of default on DDD.

The Law Society claimed that this notice stated that DDD had dispensed with the entitlement to one month's notice and was only signed by Mr Bruce.

Around this time Mr Bruce resigned from DDD and on 2nd March 1988, a Court writ was served by Brandon against the development company at the solicitor's address.

After Mr Dalrymple in structed other solicitors to challenge this, Mr Bruce wrote directly to Mr Dalrymple and Miss Scarlett, despite the knowledge that they were being represented by pro fessional advisers.

IcClements .. fermlinc 135261 and il' ;t~~·,·t

~~fO; quartf!fS io GlerltO ~ hl~~. ~f. ~4'

d wc hav~ • phone,(05921 754411 .~ ... !I specific ,..----------- --,_...... ~.---lion. !ienl to be ~ next thing Solicitor'Ick 1he way

argue more !!., lay·out of I censured)ads ra1her· ,em." A1ex Punier. :ife Chamber,.. · Industry: ''It

I channelling nd traffic on I rt. a diroctor I f said, '''TtTe''l ble -. as' bad been~· if not ;

~ouncil made :lonscs to the mments: l: "This sec· Naiting major· : and the eon dolayed )lic consulta .. requiroments. J maintenance Jled to start in !Jvit8blV cause I

I THE· M90~

boath Road. is ~ in II r88son· part from one cd problemsI U

1

ALLOA . (pre­nblingwell): h·e housing recently went an. and the c utility works

this ·section. responsible

nd ire being

"MljQr~ public ent works IS a )WrT ; centre

ha~v·. been tre. .~d tho statements ara currltn~ pro·