PETITION BY THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION AGAINST JANE ELIZABETH ROBISON AND ANOTHER

Factual and Procedural Background

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (the Commission) petitioned the court to compel a solicitor, referred to as the Respondent, to comply with an order to produce documents relevant to an investigation into a complaint about the administration of an executry estate. The Commission initiated proceedings after the Respondent failed to provide requested files and responses despite multiple demands and a statutory notice under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The court had previously found the Respondent in contempt of court for similar failures in May 2023 but had imposed no penalty beyond the finding, hoping for improved compliance.

The complaint concerned alleged undue delays, lack of diligence, and poor communication relating to the administration of a deceased person's estate. After the Commission served a notice requiring production of files by 19 July 2023, the Respondent failed to comply, prompting the Commission to petition the court. The court ordered compliance within 21 days of service of the interlocutor on 6 December 2023, with a deadline of 27 December 2023. The Respondent provided a large volume of material on 10 January 2024, 14 days late, leading to a hearing on whether this delay constituted contempt of court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent's admitted failure to comply with the court's order within the specified deadline amounts to a contempt of court.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The delay in compliance was not a deliberate defiance of the court's authority but caused by unforeseen circumstances, specifically the closure of the offsite storage facility holding essential files over the Christmas period.
• The Respondent acknowledged the failure to meet the 21-day deadline and unreservedly apologized for it.
• Initial identification and partial transmission of files before the deadline demonstrated an intention to comply.
• Other pressures, including urgent client matters, staff shortages, a banking scam aftermath, and personal family health issues, contributed to the delay.
• The Respondent did not inform the Commission of the storage facility closure, which might have mitigated the situation.
• The delay was purged by subsequent substantial compliance when the files were provided on 10 January 2024.

Commission's Arguments

• The Commission was neutral on whether the delay constituted contempt, focusing primarily on obtaining the necessary material for its investigation.
• The Commission confirmed that substantial compliance had been achieved with the statutory notice and the court's order following receipt of the files.
• The Commission noted that active engagement by the Respondent could have avoided court proceedings and the need for a final order.
• The Commission sought expenses on an indemnity basis due to the Respondent's failure to comply and the consequent proceedings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
AB and CD v AT 2015 SC 545	Definition of contempt requiring deliberate defiance or lack of respect for the court's authority.	The court referenced this precedent to assess whether the Respondent's failure to comply was wilful and deliberate, concluding it was not despite the delay.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the importance of upholding its orders to ensure the proper administration of justice and the professional obligations of solicitors to cooperate with regulatory bodies. It noted that the Respondent had previously been found in contempt for similar conduct, highlighting a pattern of casual indifference to professional responsibilities. However, the court accepted the Respondent's explanation that the delay was caused by unforeseen circumstances, specifically the closure of the storage facility during the Christmas period, which prevented timely access to necessary files.

The court emphasized that while the Respondent's conduct was cavalier and fraught with risk, there was no evidence of deliberate defiance or disrespect towards the court's authority. The Respondent's intention to comply was evident from earlier efforts to identify and provide files, and the eventual substantial compliance purged the contempt. The court expressed concern about the Respondent's overall professional conduct but limited its role to determining contempt, leaving broader disciplinary matters to the Law Society of Scotland.

Regarding expenses, the court found the Respondent responsible for the costs incurred due to her failure to comply, including two hearings, despite no contempt finding being made.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Respondent's failure to comply with the order within the 21-day deadline did not constitute contempt of court.

The decision means that although the Respondent was found not to have wilfully disobeyed the court, she remains liable for the expenses arising from the proceedings. The court's ruling underscores the necessity for solicitors to comply promptly with regulatory investigations and court orders, warning that future failures may attract harsher consequences. No new precedent was established; rather, the court applied established principles of contempt requiring deliberate non-compliance.