Solicitor Approved to Appeal Dismissal of Faculty, Law Society Complaints
A solicitor has won limited leave to appeal a regulatory finding against him. The Extra Division of the Inner House allowed one narrow ground of appeal. Filmogaz.com reports the court’s reasoning and next steps.
Background
Patrick McAuley applied for permission to appeal two SLCC decisions. The complaints were made by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland. Both had been found not to be totally without merit by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
Mr McAuley had been removed from the roll at his own instance in 2020. He was issued a conditional practising certificate in 2024. He had earlier challenged that certificate decision and lost on appeal in February 2025.
Allegations and complaints
In August 2024 the Dean of Faculty, Roddy Dunlop KC, complained to the SLCC about Mr McAuley. The commission found that complaint eligible and passed it to the Law Society for investigation.
Mr McAuley then exchanged further correspondence with members of the Faculty. He accused them of falsifying evidence and conspiring to deny him pro bono representation.
Employment tribunal matter
The Law Society also raised non-disclosure of an Employment Tribunal case. The case was McAuley v Ethigen Ltd (2023). An employment judge described Mr McAuley’s conduct in that hearing as “scandalous, vexatious, and unreasonable”.
First appeal: no leave granted
Mr McAuley advanced 14 grounds in his challenge to the first SLCC decision. One argument said the Dean sought no compensation, so the complaint lacked value or interest.
The court rejected that submission. Lord Matthews said statutory regulators do not apply inter partes concepts like standing or title. He found the SLCC acts as a statutory gateway to sift complaints.
The court also dismissed allegations that the Dean’s motives were sectarian. The judges found no evidence to support claims of anti-Catholic bigotry.
Leave to appeal the first complaint was refused as having no realistic prospects.
Second appeal: limited permission granted
The Law Society’s second complaint focused on Mr McAuley’s submissions to its Practising Certificate Sub-Committee. In August 2024 he said he might bring proceedings under the Equality Act 2010 if he did not receive an unconditional certificate.
Mr McAuley argued mentioning the Equality Act could not amount to an unlawful threat. He said the Law Society should have dismissed that complaint as without merit.
The Extra Division granted leave to appeal solely on that point. Lady Carmichael said there was a real prospect of showing the commission erred in law or acted irrationally. She limited permission to whether raising the Equality Act could never, as a matter of law, amount to misconduct.
Other allegations rejected for appeal
Permission was refused for the remaining grounds. The court noted several examples of inflammatory correspondence. That included descriptions of a judge as a “racist beast” and other abusive language aimed at the Dean and Law Society staff.
The judges concluded those parts of Mr McAuley’s conduct could plausibly amount to departures from professional standards. There was no realistic prospect of succeeding on those points.
Legal team and hearing
The applications were considered by Lord Matthews, Lady Carmichael, and Lord Braid. Mr McAuley represented himself. McGregor KC acted for the SLCC in both applications. D Blair, advocate, appeared for the Law Society in the second application.
The Extra Division limited the appeal to a single legal question. The narrow permission leaves the substantive disciplinary inquiries to continue.
The matter may now be framed in public coverage under labels such as Solicitor Approved to Appeal Dismissal of Faculty, Law Society Complaints, but the court confined the granted appeal to the Equality Act issue only.
