APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY JENNIFER CHINWO AGAINST SLCC

Factual and Procedural Background

In February 2023, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint against a solicitor, referred to as the Defendant, with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ("SLCC"). The complaint was categorised as a "services" complaint comprising five distinct issues concerning the Defendant's professional conduct, including allegations of failure to identify fraudulent title deeds, improper use of email accounts, failure to send invoices and letters of demand, failure to provide proof of sending such documents, and misstatements regarding accusations of fraud.

The SLCC conducted a sifting procedure, accepting only the first issue for investigation and dismissing the remaining four as totally without merit, meaning even if proven, they would not constitute unprofessional service. A case investigator was appointed to investigate Issue 1, concluding that there was no evidence of professional misconduct by the Defendant and recommending that the complaint not be upheld.

The Plaintiff disagreed and the case was referred to a Determination Committee, which reviewed all materials, including allegations that the Defendant had lied during the investigation. The Committee upheld the investigator's recommendation and decided not to uphold the complaint, thereby closing the case.

The Plaintiff then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Session against the SLCC's decisions on all five issues under section 21 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the SLCC erred in law, acted with procedural impropriety, acted irrationally, or made a decision unsupported by established facts in relation to the complaint against the Defendant.
2. Whether the SLCC's decision to reject four of the five issues as totally without merit was correct.
3. Whether the SLCC properly investigated and determined Issue 1 concerning the Defendant's alleged failure to identify fraudulent title deeds.
4. Whether the Defendant's alleged lie during the investigation affected the fairness and correctness of the SLCC's decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant committed perjury by falsely denying knowledge that the Plaintiff had engaged a new solicitor after terminating his services, which undermined the investigation.
• The SLCC, including the case investigator and Determination Committee, acted irrationally and with bias, dismissing serious complaints without proper investigation.
• The Defendant's continued use of the Plaintiff's daughter's email account and failure to send invoices and letters to the Plaintiff or her solicitor constituted misconduct.
• The SLCC failed to properly consider evidence and treated perjury as acceptable, thereby undermining the rule of law.
• The Plaintiff contended that the investigation was one-sided and flawed, and that the SLCC showed discrimination against her.

Respondent's Arguments

• The SLCC complied fully with statutory procedures, including eligibility determination, investigation, and final decision by the Determination Committee.
• The issues 2 to 5 were correctly found to be totally without merit as even if proven, they would not amount to professional misconduct.
• The SLCC applied the correct legal tests and no error of law was demonstrated by the Plaintiff.
• The Determination Committee had all relevant evidence, including allegations of dishonesty, and was entitled to reach its conclusions.
• The Plaintiff failed to show any real prospects of success on appeal under the statutory grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the statutory framework under section 21 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which permits appeal from SLCC decisions only on limited grounds: error of law, procedural impropriety, irrationality, or decisions unsupported by established facts.

In relation to Issue 1, the court noted that the SLCC had received all relevant evidence, including the Plaintiff's allegations of dishonesty by the Defendant, and was entitled to assess credibility and reliability. The court found no error in the SLCC's conclusion that the Defendant did not provide inadequate professional service regarding the alleged fraudulent title deeds.

For Issues 2 to 5, the SLCC had correctly applied the legal test for eligibility and found these issues to be totally without merit. The court found no flaw in this determination.

The court also found no procedural impropriety in the SLCC's conduct of the investigation or hearings, no irrational exercise of discretion, and no decision unsupported by the facts established by the SLCC.

Accordingly, the court concluded that none of the statutory grounds for appeal were established and the Plaintiff had not demonstrated real prospects of success.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL the SLCC's decisions on all five issues.

This decision effectively ends the Plaintiff's challenge to the SLCC's handling of her complaint. The court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed the limited scope of appeals from SLCC decisions and the deference owed to the Commission's assessment of evidence and procedural conduct.