DISCIPLINARY proceedings by the Law Society of Scotland against former MP and National columnist Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and her former business partner Niall Mickel began yesterday in Edinburgh and were immediately postponed for four months.
The Law Society’s action is not connected to the collapse of Hamilton Burns, the law firm that went bust in May last year, two years after Ahmed-Sheikh resigned from it when she became MP for Ochil and South Perthshire. Instead the case concerns the operation of the Niall Mickel trust fund, which was previously administered by Hamilton Burns.
Some of the case will centre on how private information that Ahmed-Sheikh was to face the disciplinary process was leaked to the press shortly before last year’s General Election.
She has told friends that her political opponents made false statements about her because of that leak, and this contributed to her losing her seat.
The National has seen a copy of a leaflet distributed in the constituency by the Labour Party, which states that “Tasmina is under investigation by the Law Society and could face expulsion as an MP if found guilty.”
It was revealed at the Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Hearing yesterday that part of the delay was due to the Law Society not yet releasing crucial items to Ahmed-Sheik’s legal team, which includes solicitor Frank Gill.
Dorothy Bain, QC for Ahmed-Sheikh, told the hearing: “Some of the material held by the administrators and the Law Society has not yet reached Mr Gill.”
William Macreath, solicitor for Mickel, told the hearing he had only been able to see material held by the administrators –including six boxes each containing a minimum of four lever-arch files dating back to 2012 – on Friday.
The tribunal, chaired by Nicholas Whyte, ordered that all information and answers should be submitted by July 31 and said the next hearing would be on August 17.
The National can reveal that part of the case for Ahmed-Sheikh and Mickel will be that their former legal company, Hamilton Burns, was twice inspected by the Law Society and given a clean bill of health.
The Law Society refused to answer questions about its own investigation into Mickel and Ahmed-Sheikh, and whether or not this inquiry by Lindsey Roberton recommended that the case should not be referred to the tribunal.
The Law Society also would not comment on reports that an investigation had taken place into the leak of information regarding Ahmed-Sheikh, which The National understands was carried out by a firm of chartered accountants and concluded the Law Society was not at fault.
A Law Society spokeswoman told The National: “We are not able to comment on this matter as it is an ongoing case.”
Ahmed-Sheikh did not attend the hearing in person yesterday as there was no requirement for her to do so.
Instead she issued a brief statement saying that she would be defending herself against charges brought against her by the Law Society. Any such charges will not be made public until the full formal hearing takes place, if such a hearing is deemed necessary.
Ahmed-Sheikh said: “I will be defending myself to the hilt and any action against me will be vigorously defended.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here