MAN IN LEGAL ROW BRANDED PARANOID
BILL CHISHOLM

THE Law Society of Scotland has described as “paranoid” a man fighting to recover millions of’ pounds he claims have been lost by a law firm.

It was disclosed yesterday that the regulatory body had dismissed 11 complaints brought by Stuart Usher against Brodie’s, the Edinburgh law firm which had been involved in running his family’s estate in the Borders for more than 30 years.

The society has spent 20 months investigating Mr Usher’s allegations that Brodie’s behaviour towards his family’s executry had been thoroughly unprofessional, resulting in substantially lower values being obtained for its assets.

The detailed report on which the Society’s Complaints ‘Committee based its decision to reject Mr Usher’s claims accuses him of paranoia, ranting and making facetious comments about the investigation’s report.

But Mr Usher yesterday described the outcome of the inquiry as a whitewash and denied the personal criticisms levelled at him.

He told The Scotsman he would be taking his case to the Legal Services Ombudsman, seeking a judicial review of the Law Society’s findings and would proceed with a multi-million pound damages claim.

The Ushers were one of Scotland’s wealthiest and most powerful families during the first half of the century. The farms and estates of Wells, Hallrule and Bedrule covered more than 6,000 acres between Hawick and Jedburgh. Other Usher properties included Norton, near Edinburgh airport, and Pitheavlis Castle near Perth

The family made its fortune from the whisky industry. Sir Robert Usher, the second baronet of Norton and Wells, was known as the “Whisky King”, with a. warehouse at St Leonard’s in Edinburgh able to accommodate 25 million bottles, most of them for export. 

But, according to Stuart Usher, the decline in the family’s wealth can be traced back to 1963, following the death of his uncle, also called Stuart, who was fourth baronet.

The title then passed to the fourth baronet’s two sons, Peter and Robert, who both suffered from Down’s syndrome and were unable to control their affairs. At the same time the Usher Baronetcy Trust, drawn up in 1911 to safeguard the family’s future interests, expired.

Mr Usher has previously said it had been assumed the title and estate would transfer from his uncle to his father, William Usher, by-passing the handicapped brothers.

He said then it was therefore something of a shock to his branch of the family when Peter was confirmed as fifth baronet and the first individual Usher to own everything outright.

Brodie’s was appointed to manage the estates between 1963 and 1994 while first Peter, and then Robert held the Norton and Wells title. Because’ the brothers could not make wills the estate had to be liquidated and sold off after paying off the two sets of death duties.

Mr Usher said he lodged complaints with the Law Society of Scotland on behalf of his brother, Sir John Usher, the seventh baronet. Sir John, who died suddenly last summer at his home in South Africa, named Mr Usher as his attorney to act for him in winding up the estate.

The complaints outlined by Mr Usher claimed Brodie’s had not acted in the best interests of the executry and the nine beneficiaries. He alleged that the law firm had refused him access to vital records of the estates and obstructed him as he attempted to ingather the estates of the deceased.

Mr Usher’s list of complaints also covered alleged disregard by Brodie’s of his instructions on behalf of his brother and not including him in the decision making process on matters relating to running the estates.

He also accused the lawyers of a conflict of interest by acting for other parties who either lived on or were tenants of the estates of the deceased handicapped brothers.

His letter of complaint concluded. “It appears that their (Brodie’s) behaviour towards the executry was thoroughly unprofessional. It certainly appears that they have behaved in this most unsatisfactory manner  in an attempt to conceal from me their mismanagement  of the estates.”

But the Law Society’s damning report, a copy of which has  been passed to The Scotsman states: “The complainer shows  a. paranoid suspicion of every one involved. He starts by stating that everyone is against him, presumably as his justification for losing later. It is.  clear that he will never be prepared to accept any version of events other than his own.”