Page 1 Dunfermline Press 09 March 1990: Headline story: Solicitor censured 

TOP Dunfermline lawyer Gifford Bruce has been found guilty of professional misconduct by 
the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. 

The tribunal decided that Mr Bruce, senior partner in W. & A. S. Bruce, solicitors and estate 
agents, had “acted in a situation where there was a conflict of interest” and had written to 
former clients “in terms which were intemperate and threatening and unbecoming of a 
solicitor.” 

Mr Bruce was censured and fined £2,000 and was ordered to pay the expenses of the Law 
Society, which brought the case against him, and of the tribunal—together believed to be 
far in excess of the fine. 

The case, which Mr Bruce contested, was the result of a complaint by Robert Dlarymple and 
Brenda Scarlett, who were directors of Dalrymple Design and Development Ltd., which 
bought and renovated homes throughout Fife. 

The “conflict of interest” arose when Mr Bruce was company secretary to both the 
development company and finance company Bandron Ltd, which provided the money to 
launch the venture.      

Following a disagreement over the security of Bandron’s loans to the development 
company, Mr Bruce wrote to Mr Dalrymple and Miss Scarlett in terms judged by the tribunal 
to be threatening. 

Mr Bruce of Prestonview, Veere Park, Culross, this week refused to comment on the affair. 

However Mr Dalrymple was delighted that the tribunal had found in his favour, although he 
could not understand why it had been decided that Mr Bruce’s name should not be released 
publicly as part of the judgement, which ordered that publicity be given to the decision. 

Mr Dalrymple, now living in Strathmiglo, said he was gravely concerned about the position 
of the company, which has not traded for two years. 

And he claimed, “There is about £356,000 in dispute.” 

A copy of the Law Society’s submission to the tribunal states that the senior partner in W. & 
A. S. Bruce, of 11 Chalmers Street, Dunfermline, had acted as company secretary and legal 
adviser to Dalrymple Design and Development from its formation in January 1986, until he 
resigned as secretary on 24th February 1988. 

Referring to the solicitor’s role in both DDD and Bandron, the Law Society claimed that “The 
respondent was accordingly acting for both the creditor and the borrower in the 
transaction. He was to receive 50 per cent of any profit made by DDD on the property 
developments. 
“The respondent then committed DDD to an undisclosed amount of accruing interest to 
Bandron Ltd., in which he himself had a major financial interest and from which he stood to 
gain personally very large sums of money. 

“There was a conflict of interest in that he was financially involved in the profitability of 
both companies, but especially the profitability of Bandron Ltd, whereas Mr Dalrymple and 
Miss Scarlett were involved only in the profitability of DDD.” 

In January 1986, Robert Dalrymple and Brenda Scarlett had consulted Mr Bruce about the 
possible purchase and renovation of two properties. 

Mr Bruce suggested that that they join him personally in a business venture and a new 
limited company was formed, which purchased Aeonash Ltd in February 1986, with its 
registered address at the solicitors’ office. 

The Law Society alleged that later, “Mr Dalrymple repeatedly asked the respondent for a 
statement of the interest due by DDD to Bandron Ltd., but the respondent refused or 
delayed to provide this.” 

A number of properties were purchased, renovated and sold, ………………………….. 

Continued on page 4         

Page 4, Solicitor Censured, From front page ……………….  But, according to the submission, Mr 
Bruce asked Mr Dalrymple to sign personal guarantees in favour of Bandron Ltd for financial 
advances. 
 
“When Mr Dalrymple refused, the respondent initiated the steps necessary to call up the standard 
securities granted by DDD to Bandron Ltd.” claimed the Law Society. 
 
 This, it was claimed included asking Mr Dalrymple to agree to dispense with the normal time for 
calling up a loan, a document the Law Society suggested was wholly in the interests of Bandron 
Ltd. 
 
 The society stated that Mr Dalrymple had refused to sign and Mr Bruce’s firm had served a notice of 
default on DDD. 
 
 The Law Society claimed that this notice stated that DDD had dispensed with the entitlement to one 
month’s notice and was only signed by Mr Bruce. 
 
 Around this time Mr Bruce resigned from DDD and on 2nd March 1988, a Court writ was served by 
Brandon against the development company at the solicitor’s address. 
 
 After Mr Dalrymple instructed other solicitors to challenge this, Mr Bruce wrote directly to Mr 
Dalrymple and Miss Scarlett, despite the knowledge that they were being represented by 
professional advisers.      
 
 
 
I.
Dunf~rmlinePress
, . ..!'
AND WEST-OF FirE AQVE~TISER '
t .
Tel. (0383) 728201. No. 7042
,FRIDAY. March9.1990
~-
.' Established 1859 25p
 IcClements . fermlinc 135261 and il' ;t~~·,·t
~~fO; quartf!fS io GlerltO ~ hl~~. ~f. ~4'
Solicitor d wc hav~ • phone,(05921 754411 .~ ...
Censured !I specific
lion.
,..-------- --- --,_...... ~.---

From front page

But, according to the sub

mission, Mr Bruce asked Mr
!ienl to be
~ next thing
Ick 1he way Solicitor'
Dalrymple to sign personal
guarantees in favour of
Bandron Ltd for financial
advances.
argue more
!!., lay·out
)ads ra1her·
,em."
of I

censured
A1ex Punier.
:ife Chamber,.. ·
"When Mr Dalrymple Industry: ''It
refused, the respondent ini I channelling
tiated the steps necessary to nd traffic on I
call up the standard securities
granted by DDD to Bandron
Ltd." claimed the law
rt. a diroctor
f said, '''TtTe''l
I
Society. ble -. as' bad
been~· if not ;

This, it was claimed

included asking Mr Dalrymple
to agree to dispense with the
normal time for calling up a ~ouncil made
loan, a document the Law :lonscs to the
Society suggested was wholly mments:
in the interests of Bandron l: "This sec·
Naiting major·
Ltd.
: and the
eon dolayed
The society stated that Mr )lic consulta .
Dalrymple had refused to sign requiroments.
and Mr Bruce's firm had J maintenance
served a notice of default on Jled to start in
DDD. !Jvit8blV cause
I

I THE· M90~
The Law Society claimed
boath Road. is
that this notice stated that
~ in II r88son·
DDD had dispensed with the part from one
entitlement to one month's cd problems
notice and was only signed by I1 U
Mr Bruce. ALLOA . (pre­
nblingwell):
Around this time Mr Bruce h·e housing
resigned from DDD and on recently went
2nd March 1988, a Court writ
an. and the
c utility works
was served by Brandon against
this ·section.
the development company at responsible
the solicitor's address. nd ire being
After Mr Dalrymple in "MljQr~ public
structed oth er solicitors to ent works IS a
)WrT ; centre
challenge this, Mr Bruce wrote
ha~v·. been
directly to Mr Dalrymple and
tre. .~d tho
Miss Scarlett, despite the
statements ara
knowledge that they were currltn~ pro·
being represented by pro
fessional advisers.