TWO apparently loyal and trustworthy women cashiers with a law firm

swindled more than #750,000 of clients' money, it was alleged yesterday,

as the solicitor in charge of the cash room was fined #5000 for

professional misconduct.

The firm, Storie, Cruden, and Simpson, of Bon Accord Crescent,

Aberdeen, is now suing the women, and the Crown Office confirmed that a

criminal investigation into the affair is being carried out.

Mr Mario Vicca, 55, was the partner responsible for supervising the

cash room when, in March 1991, accountants acting for the Law Society of

Scotland discovered a shortage of #758,528 in the firm's client account.

The Law Society took Mr Vicca before the Scottish Solicitors

Discipline Tribunal, where he admitted three breaches of the solicitors'

accounts rules.

In its written judgment the tribunal said the work in the firm's cash

room had been carried out by two women cashiers, one of whom had been

with the company for 35 years, the other for 16.

When the money was found to be missing, the firm's accountants,

Williamson and Dunn of Aberdeen, admitted that one of its audit clerks

had failed to carry out his duties properly.

However, the tribunal also found that Mr Vicca's level of supervision

had been inadequate and contributed in a significant way to a fraud on

the firm.

In its complaint to the tribunal the law society said it believed the

missing money in the client account was the result of a fraud by one or

both cashiers.

Mr Andrew Hardie, QC, who presented a plea in mitigation on behalf of

Mr Vicca at the tribunal hearing, explained that the embezzlement had

continued for a number of years and arose from misplaced trust of the

two long-standing employees.

The accountants, Williamson and Dunn, had assured Storie, Cruden, and

Simpson that all was well and everything in the firm's books appeared to

be in order. However, the firm was the victim of a clever fraud by the

cashiers.

Mr Hardie emphasised there had been no loss to the public and no

claims on the law society's guarantee fund because, as soon as matters

came to light, all the partners offered to put up their homes as

security. In the end, the whole deficit had been covered.

He informed the tribunal that the law firm was pursuing a court action

against the accountants, with reasonable prospects of a settlement for a

substantial amount. A decree could also be obtained against the cashiers

but it was doubtful whether any money could be recovered.

The tribunal acknowledged that it was reasonable for Mr Vicca and his

partners to place a considerable degree of trust in long-standing and

apparently experienced members of staff.

The tribunal added: ''It is accepted that the shortfall was not

directly attributable to the action of any of the partners.

Nevertheless, this tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that the

appropriate penalty is imposed in any case of professional misconduct.

''In this case, Mr Vicca's neglect exposed himself and his partners to

a situation where clients' funds were put seriously at risk. It is a

matter of good fortune in this case that, so far as the clients are

concerned, the partners had the resources to cover the shortfall.

''Otherwise, having regard to the amount involved, the loss could have

been catastrophic, causing much distress to clients and grievous damage

to the reputation of the profession in Scotland.''