We haven't been able to take payment
You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Act now to keep your subscription
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Your subscription is due to terminate
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account, otherwise your subscription will terminate.

Solicitor who scared ex-wife found guilty of misconduct

Benjamin Hann said his relationship with his wife had been traumatic
Benjamin Hann said his relationship with his wife had been traumatic

A solicitor who hounded and frightened his estranged wife has been found guilty of professional misconduct.

Benjamin Hann, 46, left his spouse in a state of fear and alarm by repeatedly turning up at her home, sending unwanted messages and flowers and being at locations where he knew or suspected she would be present.

Hann, a director of Hann & Co in Edinburgh, was fined £400 after admitting behaving in a threatening or abusive manner towards his ex-wife, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in 2017 and 2018.

It led the Council of the Law Society of Scotland to lodge a complaint with the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal, which concluded that his conduct constituted professional misconduct. It said: “It represented a serious and reprehensible departure from the standards of competent and reputable solicitors and called his integrity into question . . . Hann has no insight into his conduct and blames everyone but himself for his predicament.”

The tribunal ruled that Hann’s conduct had been impulsive and showed a lack of control. It noted that he went to her flat uninvited, swore at her, observed her in secret and followed her.

Advertisement

Hann gave evidence that his relationship with his former wife had been “traumatic” and “on and off”.

The tribunal’s report said: “His evidence at the hearing was rambling and, despite reminders, he repeatedly failed to keep to the point.”

However, the tribunal found his actions were at the lower end of the scale of misconduct. It concluded: “There was no suggestion the conduct had been repeated after the conviction. In all these circumstances it considered censure was the appropriate sanction.”