Law chiefs have fined a solicitor for making antisemitic comments online after he said “Auschwitz is like Paisley, but without the social problems”.
The offensive comments were made by lawyer Neil McPherson on the social networking site Facebook in March 2020, a professional conduct sub committee of the Law Society of Scotland found.
Records show his comments made reference to Jewish lawyer Arnon Nachmani, who had taken a trip to the concentration camp site in Poland.
In the same month the same lawyer described people from Paisley as “ugly and thick”.
McPherson was ordered to pay a £2,000 fine and £100 in compensation to the victim, who is originally from Paisley.
Paperwork seen by The Scottish Sun reveals claims he made “insensitive, unprofessional and offensive comments regarding another Facebook member’s trip to Auschwitz, saying that Auschwitz is like Paisley but without the social problems”.
A second allegation said he described people from Paisley as “ugly and thick”.
McPherson claimed the posts were “fake and that he was not responsible for the messages”.
The reporter for the sub-committee was “in no doubt that the comments were of an antisemitic nature and offensive towards people who lived in a particular town in Scotland”.
Mr Nachmani, who is understood to be a lawyer, is said to have “made it clear” that “due to his Jewish background and also because he claimed to have been born in Paisley, he was deeply offended by these posts”.
The committee found that if the account was fake it was a “very sophisticated fake”.
Much of the material posted on the account was “banal and wholly innocent” and not what would be expected to be found on a fake account, the committee found.
And there was no evidence or suggestion of any attempt made by the solicitor to have the ‘fake’ account taken down, they said.
The committee found that it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the solicitor was the author of the offensive material.
But the sub committee was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the solicitor was the author of the offending material.
It added: “As the complaint was only capable of being proved on the balance of probabilities, it did not pass the evidential test for professional misconduct.”
However, it did “meet the evidential test for unsatisfactory professional conduct which fell well below the standard of conduct to be expected of a competent and reputable solicitor”.
It said that “given the nature of the offending material, it was satisfied that a fine should be imposed at the highest level”.
