Top Scottish KC cleared of professional misconduct

A top lawyer has been cleared of professional misconduct following complaints he acted improperly during a legal feud over a dating app.

Andrew Smith KC instructed lawyers to go to the Court of Session after the Faculty of Advocates complaints committee found him guilty of three counts of professional misconduct. It followed a complaint by a man involved in a civil dispute with two former business partners.

Last July, Smith lost his appeal after the tribunal upheld key findings made against him, prompting him to raise an action at the Court of Session.

Smith has now succeeded in overturning the decision made during a protracted legal feud over two dating apps, Bender and Brenda.

Complainant, Steven Elliott had planned to launch the apps with two friends, Steven Worley and Kevin Farrell, in 2011. The three men fell out and Elliott tried to launch the business on his own.

This led to civil litigation starting in 2013 from Worley and Farrell, who were represented by Smith. Several court cases followed over the 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 advocates' rule book, the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Advocates.

In 2024, the Faculty of Advocates complaints committee agreed with the complaint and found Smith guilty. It said he had failed to adhere to an advocate's "fundamental obligations" and to maintain his "independence".

Smith appealed the complaints committee's decision to the faculty's disciplinary tribunal.

But last year the tribunal upheld key findings made against him, prompting him to raise an action in the Court of Session.

His lawyers argued that Smith had not become personally involved in his clients' business affairs.

They said he was acting as their advocate, not as a participant in the business.

They also said that 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.

In a written judgment published by the court, Lord Colbeck upheld the arguments made to him by Smith's legal team.

He wrote: "I will sustain the third plea-in-law for the petitioner and reduce the decision of the disciplinary tribunal of 18 July 2025."

The court heard that the complaints committee was wrong to reject that finding without properly explaining the reasons why it did so.

Smith's legal team argued that the disciplinary tribunal then made the same mistake by failing to deal with that earlier committee's lack of reasoning.

The tribunal acknowledged that the committee did not find Smith had acted dishonestly or in bad faith.

Rather, the issue had been around a lack of understanding of professional boundaries.

However, it said the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Advocates attached "considerable importance to the requirement for an advocate to have absolute independence, free from all other influence, especially such as may arise from his personal interests" and said the complaints committee was entitled to conclude Smith's conduct "amounted to professional misconduct".

Smith had previously been given a severe written censure.

Lord Colbeck concluded that the tribunal's decision could not stand because the disciplinary bodies had failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting an earlier finding that Smith had been acting as counsel rather than becoming personally involved in his clients' business affairs.

The judge said the complaints committee was entitled to disagree with the investigating committee.

However, it was required to explain clearly why it had rejected the earlier finding.

Lord Colbeck ruled that the tribunal failed to address that issue when it considered Smith's appeal.

He concluded that the findings of professional misconduct could not stand and reduced the tribunal's decision.