Court Overturns Faculty of Advocates Misconduct Findings Against Andrew Smith KC on Procedural Grounds

Lord Colbeck at the Court of Session reduced the Faculty of Advocates disciplinary tribunal decision of 18 July 2025 that had upheld findings of professional misconduct against Andrew Smith KC. The judge sustained the third plea-in-law for the petitioner and ruled that the findings could not stand.

He concluded that both the complaints committee and the disciplinary tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting an earlier investigating committee finding that Smith had been acting as counsel rather than becoming personally involved in his clients' business affairs.

Smith had been found guilty in 2024 by the Faculty of Advocates complaints committee of three counts of professional misconduct following a complaint by Steven Elliott. The committee stated that Smith had failed to adhere to an advocate's fundamental obligations and to maintain his independence.

Smith appealed to the faculty's disciplinary tribunal, which upheld key findings against him last year.

Smith then raised an action at the Court of Session. Smith's lawyers argued that he had not become personally involved in his clients' business affairs and was acting as their advocate. They also said an investigating committee had already found in his favour on that key point.

Smith argued that there was no clearly identified conflict of interest and that this should have resulted in the complaint not being upheld. The complaint arose from civil litigation that began in 2013. Elliott had planned to launch two dating apps, Bender and Brenda, with Steven Worley and Kevin Farrell in 2011.

The three men fell out and Elliott tried to launch the business on his own. Worley and Farrell, represented by Smith, sued over control of the business and its intellectual property. Elliott first complained about Smith's conduct in the cases in 2018.

He claimed Smith had become personally involved in the business affairs of his clients, contrary to the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Advocates. The tribunal acknowledged that the complaints committee did not find Smith had acted dishonestly or in bad faith.

It said the issue had been around a lack of understanding of professional boundaries and attached considerable importance to the requirement for an advocate to have absolute independence.

Smith had previously been given a severe written censure. Lord Colbeck said the complaints committee was entitled to disagree with the investigating committee but was required to explain clearly why it had rejected the earlier finding. He ruled that the tribunal failed to address that issue when it considered Smith's appeal.