Former SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh found guilty of professional misconduct for second time

She also admitted six other breaches of financial rules at a hearing of the Scottish Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal in Edinburgh today.

However she was cleared of any suggestion of dishonesty or a lack of integrity, calling it a "huge relief" to her and her family.

She was previously found guilty of professional misconduct and fined £3000 by the tribunal in 2019 over the mishandling of a trust fund at Hamilton Burns.

The firm, which had suffered years of cash flow problems, went into administration in 2017. 

Ms Ahmed-Sheikh was the SNP MP for Ochil and South Perthshire from 2015 to 2017.

She is now Alex Salmond’s business partner, helping to make and present his weekly TV show on the RT channel, and is a key member of his new Alba party.

Tribunal chair Benjamin Kemp told Ms Ms Ahmed-Sheikh she had been found guilty of professional misconduct on the basis of the agreed facts and her admitted breaches but also one on the basis of one disputed allegation. 

This was under the rule that states solicitors “shall not act, or omit to act, in a manner which is dishonest, reckless or intentionally misleading” in respect of accounting records.

Making a plea in mitigation, Ms Ahmed-Sheikh’s advocate said a key moment in the case occurred when she was off work after the death of her father in 2014.

Her omission was “partly explained by a family tragedy and consequent oversight”.

Mr Kemp imposed a sanction of censure and a token two-year restriction if she returned to legal practice, although the tribunal had already heard Ms Ahmed-Sheikh, who ceased to hold a practicing certificate almost six years ago, has no intention of doing so. 

The tribunal also awarded all expenses against Ms Ahmed-Sheikh, who appeared in person for the one-day hearing and remained silent throughout.

The Tribunal heard submissions from Greg Knight, fiscal for the Law Society of Scotland, and Ms Ahmed-Sheikh’s advocate, Duncan Hamilton QC, a former SNP MSP.

The Law Society’s complaint stemmed from a medical negligence case handled by a different solicitor at Hamilton Burns and overseen by the managing partner in 2012 and 2013.

Tens of thousands of pounds in judicial expenses were credited to the case ledger which should have been remitted to the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) so that it could deduct any of its expenses, with the only remainder returned to Hamilton Burns.

However the money was never sent to the SLAB, and the firm took fees from the SLAB money, leaving a balance of just of £5,000, giving rise to inaccurate accounting records.

Ms Ahmed-Sheikh was not involved in the negligence case nor in deciding how to treat the money. 

However in early 2014, after more than a year of inaction, the SLAB contacted Hamilton Burns asking for its money, and Ms Ahmed-Sheikh was alerted to the situation when the firm’s cashier copied her into an email to the managing partner on 16 June 2014.  

At the time, Ms Ahmed-Sheikh was on leave as her father had died three days previously and she was helping to arrange the funeral. 

Mr Knight said that, despite her responsibilities as cashroom partner, Ms Ahmed-Sheikh did “absolutely nothing” about the underlying problem or the resulting inaccurate records in the 11 months after being sent the email.

She then left the firm after being elected to Westminster in May 2015, and her successor also did nothing.

When Hamilton Burns went broke, the SLAB was able to claim the ledger balance of £5,073, but that still left a shortfall of £18,113.

SLAB recovered it from the Law Society of Scotland’s Client Protection Fund, an option of last resort which pays out to those who “have lost money as a result of the dishonesty of a solicitor or their staff” and is paid for the by Scots legal profession as a whole.

Mr Knight stressed that this payment was predicated on an SLAB claim of dishonesty against the firm of Hamilton Burns, not against Ms Ahmed-Sheikh personally.

However he said she remained culpable because she had known about the problem from the 2014 email and failed to act, contributing to the subsequent chain of events.

The Law Society rules demanded “prompt action” to correct problems, the keeping of proper accounting records, and the disclosure of any breaches.

Mr Knight said the designated cashroom partner was ultimately responsible and could not “exculpate themselves on the basis that the cashier should have done this or that” for them.

Mr Knight said: “What we have in this case is an admission on the part of the respondent that she knew of the problem of monies being due to the SLAB from June 2014.

“She had that knowledge then. She admits she knew there was a problem in June 2014. 

“That’s where I say the culpability stems from.”

He said it was for the tribunal to determine whether it considered Ms Ahmed-Sheikh dishonest, lacking in integrity, negligent, incompetent or none of those things.

The tribunal heard Ms Ahmed-Sheikh had admitted six breaches of the Law Society’s rules related to its financial affairs in a joint minute agreed with the Society.

However Mr Hamilton said these were minor and technical in nature, and flowed from the actions of others which set off a “cascade” of other breaches that ultimately affected her in her role as cashroom partner.

Of the six breaches, only three arose after she received the email of June 2014.

He argued that these breaches did not amount to “serious and reprehensible” failings, the threshold which would merit a finding a professional misconduct.

He also said Ms Ahmed-Sheikh did not accept two further alleged breaches related to honesty and personal integrity.

Mr Hamilton said that, with the original file lost, and the only previous suggestion of dishonesty based on untested SLAB speculation, the case against his client was “thin”.

Indeed, it was so irrelevant and “scandalous” in the legal sense of being unsupported by evidence, that it should never have been brought in the first place.

He invited the tribunal to dismiss the alleged breaches related to honesty and integrity, as there was not the “clear and sufficient evidence” required to justify such charges. 

He also submitted that, if the tribunal did decide to consider the allegations, there was so little evidence before them - and what scraps there were pointed away from dishonesty - that it could not find Ms Ahmed-Sheikh guilty of dishonesty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The tribunal took just over an hour to consider its verdict.

Mr Knight then raised Ms Ahmed-Sheikh’s previous SSDT conviction, censure and fine, and said he would be seeking “the entire expenses in the process” be awarded against her.

Mr Hamilton said he had a “significant amount” to offer in mitigation, and gave a lengthy account of Ms Ahmed-Sheikh’s personal and professional life, and her various public works.

He said she recognised the importance of the misconduct finding, but also the importance of not being found to have acted dishonestly or without integrity.

He read out character references from Alba MP Kenny MacAskill and Tory MP David Davies, the former Brexit Secretary.

Mr Hamilton also stressed the first three admitted breaches flowed from the decisions of others, which gave rise to inaccurate records, including the ledger showing a surplus not deficit.

The other three followed on from Ms Ahmed-Sheikh receiving the email of June 2014, but he reminded the tribunal of the “intense emotions” his client was going through at the time because of her bereavement.

“If that email did not register as a priority at the time each of us can understand why,” he said.

He also noted that the managing partner to whom the email was principally addressed had replied to it quickly and without copying in Ms Ahmed-Sheikh, and there was no evidence that she had anything more to do with the matter. 

He drew attention to the dilatory way the SLAB had chased its own missing money, and said that if Hamilton Burns had paid what it owed after Ms Ahmed-Sheikh quit, it would have been left at that and there would never have been a case brought against her.

On the finding of recklessness by omission, he said: “I would respectfully submit that that is at the lowest end of the spectrum."

In a statement, Ms Ahmed-Sheikh said: “I am pleased to have been cleared by the Tribunal of any suggestion of lack of honesty or integrity.

"That is now the second time this most fundamental point has been established in proceedings brought by the Law Society. 

“The first time it was admitted by the Law Society itself. 

“This time it was established by the Tribunal hearing. This finding is a huge relief for me and my family and it vindicates the decision to challenge the Law Society at the Tribunal.

“While recognising the Tribunal decision to impose censure but no fine in this case, my legal team will study the written judgement before deciding on any future steps.”