McAuley (Appellant) v The Council of the Law Society of Scotland (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0114

Parties

Appellant(s)

Patrick Henry McAuley

Respondent(s)

Law Society of Scotland

Issue

Issue 1: Were the proceedings of the Inner House of the Court of Session compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) articles 6, 8, and 9? Issue 2: Did the Inner House err in finding that the respondent did not violate ECHR articles 6 and 14, its First Additional Protocol (“AP1”) article 2, and the Companies Act 2006 section 248?

Facts

The appellant is trained as a solicitor in Scotland. The respondent is the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. A person who wishes to practise as a solicitor in Scotland must be admitted as a solicitor, be on the roll of solicitors, and hold a practising certificate. Between 23 April 2013 and 21 April 2015, the appellant was a trainee solicitor. Since then, he has not worked with a firm of solicitors or as an in-house solicitor. In 2015 and 2016 he maintained his practising certificate subscription, but he did not renew it in 2017. On 31 October 2020, his name was removed from the roll of solicitors at his request. In July 2024, the appellant applied to the respondent to be restored to the roll of solicitors and to have a practising certificate issued to him. On 6 August 2024, the respondent restored the appellant to the roll of solicitors. On 8 August 2024, the respondent’s Practising Certificate Sub-Committee granted the appellant a practising certificate which was subject to a condition that he would not practise as a manager in a practice unit for a period of 12 months (“the respondent’s decision”). As a result, the appellant could practise as an employed solicitor, but not as a partner, sole practitioner, director, or member of an incorporated practice. The appellant appealed the respondent’s decision under section 16(2) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”). The respondent resisted the appeal. On 28 February 2025, Lord Doherty, Lady Wise and Lord Armstrong in the Inner House of the Court of Session affirmed the respondent’s decision and made an order refusing the appellant’s request to remove the 1-year supervision restriction on his practising certificate. The appellant appeals that decision to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

15 July 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top