The Inner House of the Court of Session yesterday dismissed an appeal from the firm, which was challenging the regulator’s decision in October 2024 to refer 12 of 15 complaints against partner David McKie to the Law Society of Scotland (LSS) for investigation.

The complaints were submitted by Guardian News and Media Ltd, the publisher of The Guardian, in connection with Mr McKie’s alleged conduct in response to its proposed reporting of an investigation into the law firm’s then-client, Baroness Michelle Mone.

Lawyers for Levy & McRae argued that legal professional privilege would mean that any investigation into Mr McKie would inevitably be unfair.

However, Lord Beckett said in yesterday’s ruling: “Given its limited role the Commission was correct to determine that resolution of any implications of privilege is for the LSS.

“The investigating body can determine, in light of what is ultimately available to it, whether it would be unfair to proceed with some or all of the complaints made.

“It is the proper body to resolve a conduct complaint that the Commission, in exercise of its statutory function, has found is not totally without merit.”

Commenting on the ruling, Neil Stevenson, CEO of the SLCC, said: “We’re grateful for the court’s decision to refuse this appeal.

“Every day the SLCC makes sifting decisions about whether complaints should be investigated.

“We particularly welcome the court’s reiteration of the principle that the SLCC ‘is a specialist body empowered by the Scottish Parliament to sift complaints against solicitors and as such should be accorded a degree of institutional respect by the court when adjudicating in its area of competence’.

“The opinion draws together the relevant legislation and previous decisions which provides helpful clarity for all stakeholders and complaint parties about the SLCC’s role and the nature of the decision it takes when sifting complaints.

“It is also very helpful to see the court’s further views on dealing with cases brought by third parties and the implications for legal professional privilege.

“We believe these are in line with our existing approach, but we thank the court for providing clarity and we will consider the court’s views further.”