Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Only a few days after the release of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's investigation into the claims process against solicitors, harsh evidence is beginning to emerge of the human cost to clients, where suicides, illness (some resulting in death), family break ups and huge financial losses are the horrific consequences sustained by members of the public who have tried to make claims against the Law Society of Scotland's 'Master Policy' insurance scheme, touted by the legal profession as protecting lawyers and clients but which the ground breaking report released by Manchester University School of Law on Monday reveals “is simply designed to allow lawyers to sleep at night.”

Suicides, illness, family breakdown, loss of homes, loss of livelihood were all identified by interviewees as being directly associated with members of the public’s dealings with the Law Society & Master Policy. During the research team's investigation of claims against the Master Policy, team members were told of suicides which had occurred due to the way in which clients of crooked lawyers had been treated by the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers who operate the Master Policy protection scheme for solicitors against negligence claims. Quoting the report : "Several claimants said that they had been diagnosed with depression; that they had high blood pressure; and several had their marriages fail due to their claim. Some had lost a lot of money, their homes, and we were told that one party litigant had committed suicide."

Law Society officials linked to suicide of client who claimed against the Master Policy. The suicide of one client who had dealings with the Master Policy, is apparently linked to senior officials at the Law Society of Scotland itself, who, when approached by the client to handle a complaint against his solicitor who had made major errors in handling legal business, recommended to the now deceased client he approach a well known firm of solicitors to sue his original solicitor and pursue a claim against the Master Policy for negligence. However, what the client did not know was the law firm which the now promoted Director of a department at the Law Society had recommended he approach, actually represented the Legal Defence Union, which exists to defend solicitors against both claims & complaints from clients, and who are involved in defending solicitors against over two thirds of the thousands of complaints made annually against lawyers by members of the public in Scotland.

The client, a farmer and co owner of a business, went onto unknowingly engage the law firm recommended to him by the still serving senior Law Society official, however, unsurprisingly, little or no progress was made over a lengthy period of time on the client's claim against the Master Policy, which in itself, caused severe stress and depression to the client and his family.

Matters reached the stage where the law firm, recommended to the client by the Law Society itself had done little on the case, and offered no hope of a just & fair resolution to the huge losses caused by the client's original solicitor, one evening, not long after yet another unsuccessful meeting with his solicitors, the client in question had reached a point of such depression, he committed suicide at home using a shotgun, leaving his widow & children. Several days after the client’s suicide, the same Law Society official who had recommended the law firm which had done nothing to proceed the deceased client's claim and take the original 'crooked lawyer' to court, wrote to the widow of the victim and callously informed her she had two weeks to make a complaint to the Law Society or she would be time barred.

The case itself, was investigated by the then Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman Linda Costello Baker, in 2001, who found the Law Society of Scotland had failed the deceased client and ordered they re-investigate the complaint. The Law Society then proceeded to investigate the complaints again, however reaching the same conclusions, which prompted the widow of the deceased client to return to the SLSO, Ms Costello Baker, who again investigated in 2003 and judged the Law Society had failed once more.

At least two other suicides directly associated with clients dealings with the Master Policy are known, where in both cases, clients appeared to have been put under intolerable pressure, delay, deceit and intimidation by lawyers, the Law Society itself, and the insurers to the Master Policy, that the result of the entire process was to cause the claimants to end their lives after breaking under the strain of dealings with the apparently deadly Master Policy insurance scheme.

Further excerpts from the Manchester University report into the Law Society's Master Policy & Guarantee Fund show the intolerable strain clients who attempt to claim against their 'crooked' solicitor have to endure : Claimants "described being intimidated, being forced to settle rather than try to run a hearing without legal support, and all felt that their claims’ outcomes were not fair. Some claimants felt that they should have received more support, and that this lack was further evidence of actors within the legal system being “against” Master Policy claimants. Judges were described as being “former solicitors”, members of the Law Society – and thus, against claimants. Some described judges and other judicial officers as being very hostile to party litigants."

One direct quote from the report, depicts a claimant, who was forced to become a party litigant : "I keep fighting cases, and they keep coming at me, and now I have become ill. But they still keep coming at me. They threw me out onto the street, I couldn’t get my medication, I’ve got nothing, I was homeless, ill, sleeping in the car. Now I am appealing. But I can’t get a solicitor. They are just shutting me down…. My health has been damaged, they kill you off. It's a proven fact. All of us have stress related problems after years and years of stress."

One client who had fought a nine year battle with the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers to the Master Policy over a multi million pound negligence claim which ultimately failed said : "The way that claims against crooked lawyers are handled in Scotland is criminal. The Law Society and the insurers will stop at nothing to ruin a client's life if they dare try and raise a claim for damages against their lawyer."

He went on : "I lost my business and then my house after the legal firm which was supposed to be acting on my behalf against my original solicitor, sued me for legal costs of over £72,000 after nine years of allegedly trying to take the case to court and then the whole thing coming to nothing. I found out that the law firm I took on to represent me against my original solicitor who ruined my business, had been working against me from the very start and to make matters worse, they are I hear going to merge with the law firm of my original solicitor now that my case is out of the way."

"My wife left me, took my children, and I now have little hope of ever working again. I am shattered and have been diagnosed with depression, but the solicitor I originally complained against has a good life, is an outwardly respectable member of the community, but in reality is a thief who embezzled tens of thousands of pounds from my business, and ruined my business just to make sure he could buy up the bankrupt parts for himself which is what he actually did."

He ended by saying : "If anyone asked me for advice on how to deal with a solicitor in Scotland, I'd say stay the hell away from them and even if you have to use one, do not get into a trusting relationship with them simply because if anything goes wrong, as it probably will, they will end up as your opponent in the blink of an eye and from then on your life will be made a living hell."

A solicitor I asked for comment today said :”While I must express my sympathies to the families of clients who have apparently committed suicide over their dealings with the Law Society and the bad apples among us, we as solicitors are as much a victim of the Master Policy and the Law Society as are the clients. Not one solicitor to my knowledge has even seen a copy of the Master Policy but I do know someone who once asked for a copy and was refused, then was given a sharp rebuke for even asking to see it yet we are forced to pay annually into the Master Policy if we want to continue practising law in Scotland.”

He ended by saying : “The Master Policy is all about giving the Law Society of Scotland control over the legal profession and the public. Get rid of the Master Policy and the Law Society while you’re at it, allow us as individual firms to arrange our own insurance cover, and you would see a very different, more positive legal services market in Scotland.”

Consumer Focus Scotland welcomed the findings of Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report. Today, Consumer Focus Scotland issued a statement welcoming the findings of the report into the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, saying : “We welcome this preliminary research into the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund. Although based on a small sample, it provides useful qualitative evidence that the current system lacks clarity for both consumers and the legal profession. We welcome the recommendation that additional research is required, which we hope can further explore and build upon the initial findings from this report.”

The Law Society of Scotland refused to work with the Scottish Consumer Council on an investigation into the Master Policy in 2003 & 2004. However, it transpires from this week’s report that Consumer Focus Scotland in its previous incantation as the Scottish Consumer Council, who carried out several large investigations into problems with the Scottish legal profession, wanted to carry out an investigation into the Master Policy in 2003, however attempts were thwarted when the Law Society of Scotland refused to take part. An excerpt from Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report reads : “Consumer Focus in 2003 and 2004 wished to carry out desk-based research on the Master Policy. They sought the co-operation of the LSS of Scotland which was refused. Consequently the research was not undertaken.”

One large scale report undertaken by the Scottish Consumer Council took place in 1999 when the SCC’s Complaints Against Solicitors report was released. This week’s Manchester University report refers to the earlier SCC investigation as follows : “Consumer Focus Scotland has not specifically considered either the Master Policy or the Guarantee Fund, although it did state that professional indemnity insurance arrangements and complaints procedures needed to be put in place in order to facilitate the alternative business structures within the legal market. In 1999, Consumer Focus Scotland conducted a study on Complaints about Solicitors, which surveyed over 1200 people who had used the Law Society of Scotland’s complaints procedure during a one year period. During this research, Consumer Focus Scotland was contacted by a number of claimants who raised concerns about the Master Policy.”

You can read the Scottish Consumer Council’s 1999 “Complaints Against Solicitors” report HERE and the Manchester University report on the Law Society’s Master Policy & Guarantee Fund HERE :

Which? also welcomed the research findings but expressed concern over the Insurers restrictions on the research team who were denied access to important data. Also today, a spokeswoman for Which? issued comment on the Manchester University report, and, while welcoming the findings of the research team, concern and criticism was expressed that the Law Society refused to hand over important data or a copy of the Master Policy itself to the research team. Which? said :“We welcome the research but are obviously disappointed that the Law Society did not provide the researchers with access to the Master Policy as part of their work. However hopefully what was gleaned will provide a platform for other work to come in this area.”

So, at the end of the day, as the Manchester University report of this week reveals, “Thus, the Master Policy is essentially an insurance scheme intended to provide professional indemnity insurance coverage for solicitors.The purpose of the Master Policy, the simple answer is to allow solicitors to sleep at night. It provides professional indemnity insurance cover for firms."

SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine. What therefore, is the SLCC going to do about this and just how many members of the public have to get ill, or even die to protect a ‘crooked lawyer’ and the Master Policy, before something is done ? Jane Irvine, when asked for comment on these matters, said : “As you are aware, the research was commissioned by the SLCC and carried out by Manchester University School of Law. One of their undertakings was to conduct key informant interviews and the people who came forward were assured their own details would be treated in confidence by the researchers. These conditions have not changed.”

Ms Irvine continued : ”The SLCC is unable to comment on the individual interviews. However, the independent research is central to defining how we develop our role of oversight of the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund. In terms of the report, the experiences of the people who came forward to be interviewed were significant to the quality of the research. The information given by all those who assisted the researchers is valued by the SLCC and it is essential to the development of our oversight role.”

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has so far not returned requests for comment on Monday’s report …

'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers

Consumer experiences in Master Policy report brands Law Society of Scotland & its insurers ‘rotten to the core’. The Law Society of Scotland and it’s insurers who handle claims against an ever growing number of 'crooked lawyers' have been branded corrupt and dishonest by clients who were interviewed for the completion of ground breaking research published today by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, on the role of the two client compensation schemes operated by the Law Society of Scotland, known as the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund. The report contains highly accurate accounts from victims of crooked lawyers of the torturous and often failed process of trying to make a compensation claim against a ‘crooked lawyer’ who have mishandled clients legal affairs or in a now almost daily event, embezzled clients money.

Insurers Marsh & Law Society imposed conditions on SLCC’s research team. However, in a startling revelation which gives an insight into the difficulties the research team faced in compiling the report, legal insiders allege that corruption is so rife in the legal services sector, the Law Society refused to hand over actual copies of the Master Policy to the research team, fearing disclosure of the highly secretive & sensitive documents would cause a rush of bad publicity to the Scots legal profession for its consistent cover up of claims & complaints against highly corrupt law firms and individual solicitors. In response to enquiries, Dr Angela Melville, who interviewed many clients for her final report, confirmed the research team did not receive a copy of the Master Policy, despite requesting it. Instead, a letter from Alistair J Sim, Director of the US Insurer Marsh, who had executives convicted of criminal offences in the United States , attached strict conditions to what little information was disclosed : “Please note that the consent of Marsh and Royal & Sun Alliance plc to the production of the enclosed documents is condition on the research team agreeing not to quote from the documents, or any part of them, whether text or figures, in the report to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.”

“The documents which are produced are confidential and are commercially sensitive. They are provided to the research team only and neither the documents nor copies should be provided to any other party nor should the content of the documents be disclosed to anyone outside the research team. At the conclusion of the research project, the documents should be returned with confirmation that foregoing conditions have been complied with and that no copies have been retained. If the research team is unable to agree to the foregoing conditions, the documents should be returned along with confirmation that no copies have been retained.”

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine attacked 'conditions imposed by Law Society on research'. Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC condemned the Law Society's insurance brokers, Marsh for not handing over necessary documents which the SLCC itself will need for its 'monitoring role' if that is to be achieved successfully under its legislative powers. Jane Irvine said : “The research is unique as it is the first to examine how the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund function but we are very disappointed that conditions imposed on the data delivered by the Law Society of Scotland’s broker, proved unacceptable and the transparency of operation, which is key for all users, is not apparent."

The Law Society of Scotland today issued a statement confirming the conditions of secrecy imposed on the independent research team, claiming “During the course of this research, representatives of the Law Society were interviewed and various Master Policy documents were supplied to the researchers. Some of the information was commercially sensitive and confidential so the researchers were asked not to share it with other parties and that copies were not made or kept.". Surely such levels of secrecy imposed on independent investigations only serve to preserve the corruption which necessitated the investigation in the first place.

A legal insider who was briefed on the interviews taking place alleged the Law Society attempted to control what was said by the solicitors to the research team, claiming : "Anything to do with the Master Policy or the Guarantee Fund, the Law Society wants to control, to the point of rigging the results. Because this was an independent research team they couldn't control what was being reported by way of interviews from members of the public, but they did ensure they had a firm grip on what solicitors said and what information was released from the Law Society itself."

You can read Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report on the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, HERE :

Report reveals Law Society Chief Kenneth Pritchard, now a Sheriff blocked a client's access to justice. The highly controversial research report contains direct references to evidence revealed by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney in the Scottish Parliament’s debating chamber, showing the most senior officials of the Law Society of Scotland, including a serving Sheriff, Kenneth Pritchard, intervened in claims against corrupt lawyers, ordering solicitors & legal firms to drop courtroom litigation against colleagues in the legal profession who had negligently handled clients affairs, in some cases losing (or taking) millions of pounds of clients money for themselves. John Swinney said in Parliament : “I can also cite to you extracts from a petition that was made to the Court of Session for Judicial Review, in which there is a quote from a letter from a Mr Pritchard who was the Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland in which he writes to a firm of solicitors: “I am anxious that you should protect your back in this matter, because every solicitor who has acted for this particular person has ended up with a claim against them.’ You will appreciate that this is a private and confidential letter, not to be shown to Mr Macintyre, the sole purpose of which is to give what I hope is helpful advice to protect both you and your firm”.

John Swinney’s revelations broke open the corruption at the Law Society of Scotland and insurance companies connected with the Master Policy. Mr Swinney concluded his statement by saying “So really quite active encouragement from an official of the Law Society of Scotland for a practitioner not to act and deliver legal representation to an individual concerned.”. Mr Swinney said he had no comment to make on the matter today, but Government insiders said the Cabinet Secretary “was satisfied the information he had revealed was accurate and that it clearly contradicted the Law Society’s version of events on Master Policy claims to the Justice 2 Committee & the Scottish Parliament.”

Former Law Chief Kenneth Pritchard claimed Master Policy protected solicitors & clients alike. While the ex Law Society chief, now Sheriff Kenneth Pritchard claimed that Master Policy protected both clients & solicitors, as I reported earlier HERE , the SLCC’s report issued today makes a nonsense of Mr Pritchard’s claims and the Law Society of Scotland’s continued policy of promoting the Master Policy as the “ultimate in consumer protection”. Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report reveals a much different picture of the motives of the Master Policy, clearly showing it exists to protect solicitors, no matter how corrupt they have become or what damage they have done to unsuspecting and overly trusting clients. An excerpt from the report issued today reads : "What is striking is that there is no mention of protection of interests of solicitors’ clients in Section 44 of the Solicitors Scotland Act 1980. Thus, the Master Policy is essentially an insurance scheme intended to provide professional indemnity insurance coverage for solicitors.The purpose of the Master Policy, the simple answer is to allow solicitors to sleep at night. It provides professional indemnity insurance cover for firms."

My own case, involving the complaint against crooked lawyer Andrew Penman, is reported in the research as follows : "Not content with slowing my case and claim against the solicitor, the Law Society of Scotland… directly intervened in my claim by letter and instructed my solicitor… not to take instructions from me… The Law Society, not content with intervening with my solicitors directly, proceeded to obstruct and cancel my Civil Legal Aid I had been trying to obtain for my case." You can read more on that HERE.

The findings concluded that clients of lawyers are left out in the cold, despite the Law Society of Scotland today continuing its claims that the Master Policy and the Guarantee Fund offers "unrivalled consumer protection. Clients of solicitors would now do well to consider their positions where what may appear to be a trusting relationship with their legal agent could break down in a calamitous manner at any second, From the report : "The overall impression given to the public seems to be that the Master Policy protects the interests of legal services clients, when, in fact, it protects the interests of solicitors."

Also contained in the report are fairly typical experiences of clients who find out they have been the victim of a 'crooked lawyer' but who then find it difficult to gain fair hearings of their complaints or claims : "The first step for most claimants was to try and resolve the case by speaking to the most senior partner in the firm. None of the claimants that we spoke to felt that the firm made any effort to address their concerns. Instead, they all described being met by partners who were aggressive, and this attitude also appeared to add to their sense of shock.”

One reported experience of a client who made a complaint against their solicitor : "So I phoned up the senior partner of the firm. He then started up investigations, and I made an appointment to see the senior partner. When I went in to see the senior partner, after having a brief conversation with him, he looked at me across the desk, and he sat back in his chair, and he folded his arms, and he said “I’m now your opponent.”

Clients of solicitors would now do well to consider their positions where what may appear to be a trusting relationship with their legal agent could break down in a calamitous manner at any second, rendering the one trusted solicitor an opponent who will stop at nothing to ruin their once so admiring client.

Another report of a client who found the Law Society constantly delaying their claim against a crooked lawyer, in an experience common to many clients, is highlighted in the following manner : "Additionally, from the time my claim was made, the Law Society of Scotland, who were still considering complaints made against the solicitor… constantly halted their investigations, putting forward excuses they could not investigate matters while I was raising a claim for negligence against the Master Policy. This stop-start investigation policy continued for well over a year and it was obvious there was an intentional go-slow on the part of the Law Society of Scotland in their investigations to prevent me from obtaining evidence from their investigations to put into my claim to the Master Policy against the solicitor."

MSPs at the Scottish Parliament are also accused of failing to help constituents who get into difficulties with the legal profession. Members of the public interviewed by the research team also criticised politicians and consumer groups for not doing enough against a very strong legal profession, when even the most horrific cases of client abuse by lawyers went unresolved : "These claimants explained that after discovering that the legal system was not necessarily going to provide a route to justice, that they had attempted to try other avenues to get their cases resolved. They had campaigned for their cause to various consumer interest groups, had approached their MSPs, participated in Government inquiries, turned to the newspaper, and yet they felt that these efforts had met with little avail. For some, this failure provided further evidence of the deep ‘corruption’ and influence of the Law Society."

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was condemned by members of the public in the report as just another Law Society. Unsurprisingly, people who were interviewed by the research team felt the SLCC was of no help to them, reported in an excerpt here : "The SLCC is made up of people with jobs connected to the ‘Law Society Inc.’. It is not independent. That is what we wanted. The Law Society is a law unto their own, they are protected. And the SLCC is part of that. The new SLCC won’t help me… From October to now, how they exercise their remit, there is a cosy relationship between the SLCC and the Law Society… They are supposed to be at arm’s length. But documents released under FOI, these documents show that they aren’t."

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman. The SLCC’s Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, commented on the research saying : “The research is very much exploratory and this is due to the short time-span and the small number of claimants and solicitors it was possible to interview. The research is a useful first step in providing the SLCC with a meaningful insight into the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund and how it can affect complainers. Members of the SLCC Board will now benefit from this important first-stage research which will develop our role overseeing the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund.”

The research team conclude their report by stating : “ What has clearly come through these interviews has been the very divergent views of solicitors and claimants/consumer groups as to the primary function of the Master Policy. The former tend to see it as simply a professional negligence insurance designed to protect individual members of the profession. The latter see that its primary purpose should be to protect the public against incompetent members of the profession. Whilst these are not incompatible aims we have come to the view that the rhetoric of the Law Society of Scotland encourages the latter perception but practice is more inclined to the former. In other jurisdictions there is a more explicit statement that it is the former.”

“Those claimants to whom we spoke were very much of the opinion that it was difficult to establish liability of a solicitor for professional negligence. It would be desirable to test this claim by looking at the record of the Master Policy in terms of claims and compensation paid. Data which would have allowed us to do this was requested from the Law Society of Scotland but was only made available the day before this Report was due to be submitted. Furthermore the Law Society of Scotland and Marsh put conditions on the use of the data in this Report which were unacceptable to us and to the Chief Executive of SLCC.”

“We would recommend that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission undertake a longer term research project which will allow researchers to examine the experiences of a representative sample of claimants and solicitors as well as analyse data on claims provided by the Master Policy’s broker under reasonable conditions of use.”

So, now what ? Will the SLCC actually do something for people who have had their claims destroyed by the Master Policy ‘protection racket’ ? Will SLCC members such as Margaret Scanlan who it was revealed, tagged claimants to the Guarantee Fund as “chancers” learn that just because victims of ‘crooked lawyers’ try to claim compensation for their stolen funds does not necessarily make everyone a chancer ?

Well, for now, it appears the SLCC will do nothing .. and wont even seek a copy of the Master Policy itself, so there is much more campaigning to be done on these issues to ensure that cases involving claims, and also complaints against crooked lawyers, are considered and regulated properly by a wholly independent organisation free of any involvement with the legal profession .. and that is most certainly not, the SLCC.

Scotland's Chief Judge Lord Hamilton asks Parliament 'to defer' McKenzie Friend petition after Scots wait 39 years for access to justice

Scotland's Lord President Lord Hamilton asked Holyrood 'to defer' McKenzie Friend petition. THIRTY NINE YEARS after the role of a McKenzie Friend was recognised in the English courts, allowing court users south of the border the invaluable assistance of a 'McKenzie Friend' in cases where litigants could not obtain legal representation, Scotland's Lord President Lord Hamilton, has asked the Scottish Parliament 'to defer' the recent McKenzie Friend petition (Petition PE1247) until after the release of the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill's review of Scotland's Civil Justice system which is widely expected to make recommendations on introducing the availability of McKenzie Friends to users of Scotland's courts.

Lord Hamilton claims 'the Review will make a recommendation on this matter in its Report’. “Thank you for your letter of 6 May 2009. This asks whether the Court of Session supports the introduction of a "McKenzie Friend" facility and for reasons as to its view. “As it is noted in the Official report of the discussion of the Committee at its meeting on 5 May, this is a matter which is under consideration by the Civil Courts Review under the chairmanship of the Lord Justice Clerk, the Rt Hon Lord Gill. In its consultation paper, the Review asked for views on the following question; "Should a person without a right of audience be entitled to address the court on behalf of a party litigant and, if so, in what circumstances?"

“In light of this we can, I think, reasonably conclude that the Review will make a recommendation on this matter in its Report. I understand the publication of that document to be imminent. In view of this, I do not at this stage wish to express a view as to the position of the Court of Session on the matter. I should instead wish to consider the matter in light of whatever the Review recommends. If the Committee were to decide to defer further consideration of the petition until after the Review has been published, I should be content to respond further at that stage."

However, while the Lord Justice General may be comfortable in asking Holyrood 'to defer' consideration of the McKenzie Friend petition .. most feel that Scots legal rights have been deferred long enough after an outrageous thirty nine year wait for the introduction of the McKenzie Friend facility in Scotland while the rest of the United Kingdom has successfully used the facility to help individuals access to justice.

For one thing, there must now be an explanation as to why Scots have had to wait thirty nine years to exercise the same legal rights the rest of the country has used effectively in resolving legal disputes ... but a legal insider today answered that question very clearly, accusing the Scottish legal profession and the Law Society of Scotland of blocking the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland's courts simply because it would ruin lawyers business and challenge the Law Society’s monopoly on public access to justice.

He said : "The only reason McKenzie Friends have been kept out of Scotland's courts is money, nothing else."

"If you look at the kinds of civil cases in the Scottish courts, up to maybe 30% or even higher of those could be resolved by the litigant appearing themselves, helped by a McKenzie Friend. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that if law firms lost that 30% or more of their business they would not be making as much money as they have done by maintaining a grip on rights of audience in Scotland for forty years."

He went on : "Forget all those arguments about clogging up the courts with people who are unqualified to represent themselves or don't know the law properly. The court is there to serve the public, not itself or the legal profession's requirement for a fast and protracted buck out of the client's purse. People themselves know their own case best, no matter what lawyers might say ... and if you have a party litigant, assisted by a McKenzie Friend, there may well be much speedier resolutions to a lot of low level civil actions which are clogging up Scotland's courts for no reason other than to generate more legal fees for solicitors who are just out to make a profit out of stringing out client’s civil cases for years."

In all likelihood, this statement is true, as most of the significant legal reforms for civil justice, from the small claims limit (held in Scotland at £350 for 17 years while in England it is up to £5,000), to the public’s lack of of choice in legal representation in Scotland (The reforms of the Law Reform 1990 Act held back for 19 years) and now coincidentally we find the rest of the UK has successfully used McKenzie friends for 39 years .. while the legal establishment in Scotland forbade its introduction .. fearing loss of earnings. If you look at Scots rights in civil justice as things currently stand, all the delays of the reforms I have quoted .. and many I have not .. simply boil down to lawyers being concerned they are losing market share (and thereby, profit from legal fees) to people who can perfectly handle their own legal affairs, rather than going to a solicitor to have their legal affairs mishandled .. as is more often the case than not these days.

As readers will know, I reported on the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland in previous articles, and efforts to secure a fair hearing for the petition were greatly enhanced by the appearance of Scotland's only independent MSP, Margo MacDonald, speaking on the petition's behalf, also supported by submissions from consumer organisation Which? and law reform campaigners including myself.

You can read my earlier reports on the McKenzie Friend petition here : Battle to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland continues as Holyrood investigates ‘access to justice’ proposals, also McKenzie Friend proposal gains friends as consumer organisations rally to support petition’s hearing at Scottish Parliament & my initial report on the petition here : 'McKenzie Friend' proposal to Parliament seeks to end 39 years of lawyers monopoly over Scots access to justice

You can watch Margo MacDonald’s testimony to the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee here :

Margo MacDonald speaks on behalf of McKenzie Friends Petition to Holyrood.

It is recognised in England & Wales that Human Rights legislation allows litigants to argue for the presence & use of a McKenzie Friend in their case. It is also of significant importance that in the Lord President of the English courts guidance on the use of McKenzie Friends, where the English Lord President specifically states : “When considering any request for the assistance of a MF, the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch 1 Part 1 Article 6 is engaged; the court should consider the matter judicially, allowing the litigant reasonable opportunity to develop the argument in favour of the request.” This glaring difference between how the English courts treat the McKenzie friend issue, versus the restrictions in Scotland, raises the possibility the Scottish courts refusal to allow litigants access to the McKenzie Friends has violated the rights of individuals for a considerable number of years.

You can read the full guidance for McKenzie Friends in England & Wales in pdf format, HERE and now we must wait on the ‘imminent’ publication of the Civil Justice Review to see how the issue of rights of representation in Scotland’s courts and the McKenzie Friend question is to be dealt with, and at least in the Chairman of the Review, Lord Gill, we seem to have someone who is forthright enough in his views to advocate change …

Lord Gill has already branded Scotland's Civil Justice system as "Victorian" and in need of reform. Lord Gill, who has chaired the review of Scotland's woefully antiquated civil justice system and who is well known for his forthright views, told a Law Society of Scotland conference that "The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that has survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in sustance, its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and, therefore, failing society." You can read more of Lord Gill's comments on the inadequacies of civil justice in Scotland, here : Senior judge hits out at Scotland's 'Victorian' court system and you can download Lord Gill's speech from the Law Society's website (you better download it quickly) here : Lord Gill's speech to Law Society conference (pdf)

You can read more about the Civil Justice Review here : Civil Courts Review

However, Lord Gill’s civil justice review does face a few problems, as the politicians are now realising the scale of his proposals, efforts are being undermined by consumer organisations such as Consumer Focus Scotland, to back up the Lord Justice Clerk’s findings, with a joint Consumer Focus Scotland – Scottish Legal Aid Board survey ruined by elements of the Scottish Government & Scottish Courts Service, restricting the total amount of people questioned to a meagre 35 out of thousands of potential civil court users. I broke this story as an exclusive, earlier, here : Justice Secretary accused of attempt to undermine Lord Gill civil justice review as Government backed survey targets only 35 court users

A source at the Scottish Parliament said today “There will be no delay in the McKenzie Friend Petition as the petitioner himself has already been notified of a new hearing in September. We have to move on, despite the wishes of others not to progress matters which are clearly in the public interest.”

So … McKenzie Friends should, and must, come to Scotland. It is our right. Rather than be second class citizens when it comes to the justice system in Scotland, we should be first class citizens .. and part of being first class citizens with a first class justice system, means taking away the power of the legal profession to dictate who among us has access to justice and who does not. It is everyone’s right to have access to justice and justice will only be done when that is the case.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission branded ‘costly rubber stamp for crooked lawyers’ after leaks show backing for Law Society’s cover ups

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission lacks will to tackle complaints against lawyers despite huge public funding. The release of results of investigations carried out by the £4.5million joint taxpayer-lawyer funded Scottish Legal Complaints Commission into complaints raised by members of the public against law firms & individual solicitors, show that what was hailed as a ‘new broom’ in the world of regulating complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’ is in actuality, little more than a weak willed rubber stamp for corruption in the world of self regulation of the Scots legal profession.

Today for the first time, the results of investigations carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal the astonishing lack of detail in their case handling procedures, and lack of will to even document the specific terms of complaints made against legal firms by clients whose cases ended up becoming victims of the legal firms they had approached to deal with difficult legal issues.

In the papers recently released, the client had been completely unaware they had a right to go to the Law Society of Scotland and contest the work of their legal representatives .. but the Law Society used their ‘time bar’ limitations to refuse to investigate the issues, which the SLCC itself backed.

Investigation #1 : SLCC said Law Society of Scotland did nothing wrong …

Investigation #2 : SLCC claimed Law Society did nothing wrong (again)

However, while the Law Society claimed the above complaints were outwith time bar, it is a fact the Law Society have on several occasions, investigated complaints made against law firms in cases where discovery of evidence was made many years later … making this case, and the SLCC’s refusal to do anything, rather questionable.

A spokesman for a consumer organisation who viewed the ‘results’ of the SLCC’s investigations into the way the Law Society had handled complaints against two Glasgow law firms, branded the contents '”lacklustre” and “a farce”, going onto condemn the organisation as a raw deal for Scotland.

He said : “I see little point in allowing the SLCC to continue its role if this amount of detail is all that is going to come out of investigations carried out by the SLCC into consumer complaints against solicitors. I’m sorry our organisation supported the SLCC now I’ve seen this … it’s a raw deal for the public after all the effort put in to get an improvement in consumer protection in the legal services market we badly need in Scotland.”

“There isn’t even any detail in the papers as to what the complaint was all about in the first place and the events surrounding it. Even the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman used to give a complete account of the original complaint and the stages it went through at the Law Society of Scotland, amounting usually to some 30 pages plus of details. Here we have as little detail as possible which is not what the public expects of a regulator appointed to clean up the severe problems of self regulation of the legal profession.”

Well …after two Scottish Parliamentary inquiries into regulation of the legal profession, and the passing of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 which created the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to clean up corruption in the world of complaints regulation against crooked lawyers … one would think that clients deserve a little more than this .. especially after well over £2 million of taxpayers money has been soaked up by the quango and a further £2.4 million from the legal profession itself.

You can read my earlier articles on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - a failure from the start

SLCC engages in website window dressing but still reluctant to investigate crooked lawyers. The SLCC, apparently anxious that its public image is now much less than trustworthy, is embarking on a reluctant media campaign ‘to promote itself to the community at large’ .. where leaflets and ‘road shows’ will inform the public of its existence and the services it provides consumers and solicitors. The plans may prove somewhat rocky as campaign groups and critics have pledged to attend the road shows and ask difficult questions of the way the SLCC operates and deals with the public, particularly in the wake of recent scandals which have seen SLCC board members appear in the press, apparently content to attack consumers & clients of ‘crooked lawyers’ while performing their costly regulatory roles.

Its fairly obvious the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s heart just isn’t in their work from the documents I’ve seen today, some published, some not.

As far as investigations of complaints against lawyers go, reports must be much more substantive in their account of matters and go into the complete detail of the issues which have caused the client to go to the SLCC or the Law Society of Scotland in the first place, otherwise no lessons will be learned by anyone, the client will never get a fair hearing, and justice will never be seen to be done (again) when it comes to dealing with crooked lawyers.

As one client put it tonight “No matter what this lawyer’s protection racket will do, they will never be trusted by the public who have been lied to too many times over complaints against crooked lawyers”.

SLCC appointments scandal 'humiliation' for Justice Secretary as MacAskill forced to abandon new lay member recruitment

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was forced to cancel appointments round after media reports of scandals at the SLCC. Amid denials from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission that at least one of it's lay members who were personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill last year wished to 'step down', revelations from Scotland's independent appointments regulator and sources now confirm the incident did take place and that the new appointments round, had to be abruptly cancelled by the Justice Secretary just one month later after reports appeared in the media of scandals involving the SLCC's lawyer members.

SLCC delayed publication of meetings details for 5 months to hide secret recruitment drive. The Legal Complaints Commission's requirement for new lay members only emerged this week, in the five month late publication of their meetings minutes, which insiders allege was a deliberate delay to cover up the fact that at least one commission lay member had asked to step down, as I reported earlier, here : Justice Secretary forced into new appointments round at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after lay member ‘steps down’

Media reports showed extreme anti-public bitterness at SLCC. However, revelations from documents obtained under the Freedom of Information act which I reported on, and were also reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper, portrayed board members & staff of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as anti-consumer, anti-reform, and having the same closed shop mentality as the Law Society of Scotland, where papers showed that board members had engaged in bitter hate fuelled rants against victims of crooked lawyers, had also attacked individuals who were claiming compensation against 'crooked lawyers' and were seemingly more interested in being out on the town than performing their public duties.

Scottish appointments regulator OCPAS confirmed they were involved in now cancelled recruitment of SLCC lay members. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland have now confirmed they were involved in an abruptly cancelled round of lay member appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, initiated in February by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill who was then forced to cancel the appointments round after only a month, in April.

A spokesman for OCPAS said : "We did assign an OCPAS Assessor to oversee a new appointments round for the SLCC in February of this year. The Scottish Government cancelled the round in April before it got beyond the planning stage. This is the prerogative of the Scottish Ministers."

He continued : "It is not possible for the Scottish Ministers to recruit ministerial appointees for the Commission without our regulatory oversight. When we do have regulatory oversight over appointments the vacancies always have to be publicised appropriately. As a minimum they must be publicised on the Scottish Government’s public appointments website"

SLCC Board members – Who wants to step down now ? However, this is not the first time board members have wanted to 'step down' at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has received over £2 million pounds of public money so far, where board members earn up to £350 a day in expenses, and some salaries of particular members of staff are hitting up to £1350 a week.

I reported earlier that the entire board of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission threatened to resign over a lack of insurance cover and increased perks, which itself could have also provoked another costly round of appointments by the Justice Secretary. On that occasion, the Scottish Government were forced to give in, and bow to the demands of the SLCC board members.

Scottish Government ‘were humiliated’ by lawyers complaints quango the SLCC. A Scottish Government insider talking about the scandal at the SLCC claimed today the whole episode "had made a fool out of the Justice Secretary" after Mr MacAskill instituted a new appointments round for lay members in February of this year, but was then forced to cancel it just a few weeks later.

Media focus on booze culture & secret goings on at SLCC derailed the latest shoe-in appointments. The insider claimed : "The SLCC's failure to competently handle their lay member issue ended up causing a lot of problems for the Justice Secretary and Justice Department officials, who, after the media reports on Margaret Scanlan and Eileen Masterman, had to cancel the new recruitment round the commission itself had requested."

"Secrecy on the issue was viewed as important as the SLCC was presenting its budget to Parliament and no one wanted awkward questions on the conduct of ministerial appointees and the fact some suspected there would have been shoe-in appointments if there had been no press attention."

He went on : "I understand the whole episode was very humiliating for MacAskill and the justice team. They were and still are very angry over the whole thing but many are thinking the SLCC is just not up to the job they are supposed to be doing."

A spokesman for a consumer organisation today also expressed concern over the SLCC's handling of the appointments affair. He said : "If the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission always choose the secrecy route in trying to hide their problems then I don't see how the public can have any confidence in them at all."

He continued : "This latest affair, which seems to show the Government and the commission were trying to hide their need for new lay members raises questions over the whole appointments process, especially where lay members are supposed to be independent of the legal profession and are there to balance the complement of lawyers already sitting on the SLCC."

A member of the public, who read my earlier report this week on the lay member scandal at the SLCC decided to call in and ask for an explanation.

He said : "After reading your report on Monday, I called the SLCC to ask why lay members were resigning but the person I spoke to denied there were any resignations or anyone wanted to step down, despite the fact it says in their own minutes a lay member was going to step down which you also published. How can anyone trust an organisation like that ?"

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine – greater clarity needed at SLCC for new lay members. To end the theme of secret resignations & secret appointments for now, the SLCC managed a two line reference in their April minutes to the ‘delay’ of the lay appointments round. The SLCC’s Chairman, Jane Irvine is quoted in the briefest terms as saying : “The Chair also advised that SGvt have agreed to defer the additional appointment of Lay Members to the Board until there is greater clarity over need by the SLCC.”

However the April minutes have only now been released, months after the events took place which you read by clicking on the following thumbnails :

SLCC April’s minutes – published 5 months late, hopefully not for public eyes ?

So, it seems, secrecy and outright lies are the order of the day at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where news of internal scandals and the failures of its board members to live up to their expected duties towards the public are concealed, just in the same way the Law Society of Scotland conceals all its dirty operations. Is this what we expected from the hard work put in on the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 ? I think not.

Scotland wins on devolution but after 10 years Scots still miss out on justice

Holyrood brings devolution but no justice for Scots. While Scotland celebrates 10 years of devolution with the anniversary of the Scottish Parliament, Scots have not enjoyed increased access to justice or increased rights against corrupt professionals or reforms to over the span of the Holyrood parliament to-date.

While there is no denying it the Scottish Parliament has given us a stronger voice in our own affairs, the fact remains that in the 10 year span of the Scottish parliament so far, there has been scandal after scandal in the world of Scots law, where the legal profession and vested interests have for the main, delayed, dodged, or even obliterated most cases seeking remedy of injustice in Scotland from the McKie fingerprint saga, to the fate of the Lockerbie bomber, to the very public, consistent failures at Scotland's Crown Office which have seen a string of high profile convictions quashed over ‘unsafe’ (doctored) evidence and even cases where the thoroughly guilty have walked free.

In the world of Scots civil justice, the pace of reform has been virtually non existent, with Scotland being one of the few countries where class actions are not allowed, simply due to fears the public will turn on the financial & legal sectors themselves , MacKenzie Friends, also still banned from the Scottish Courts, even after 39 years of service in the rest of the UK (and other countries), rights of audience reforms, initially brought in 20 years ago, still not fully implemented allowing the public to choose their legal representatives, rather than as things still stand – solicitors choosing their clients .. etc etc … the list is endless, suffice to say, Scots are third class citizens when it comes to civil justice, in fact, when it comes to any justice.

I am a supporter of Scotland having a Parliament. It certainly has given us a stronger and much needed voice in our own affairs.

MSPs – you pay their mortgage as well as your own but your house will be repossessed before theirs. I am not, however, a supporter of MSPs having us pay their mortgages (and everything else down to stamps) while earning £67,000 a year or the £96,000 a year the 6 Cabinet Ministers earn who do get their mortgages paid for by us. I am also not a supporter of the cosy arrangements certain MSPs have with the likes of the legal and financial professions, who seem to enjoy political favour after favour, where MSPs will happily take over parliament's time to put forward their friend’s policies or legislative proposals, while oh-so—obviously blocking members of the public access to elected representatives or victims campaigns seeking resolutions to a wide range of cases of injustice, simply because those campaigns or cases conflict with potential donations from the professions.

MSPs help the professions much more than the public. Put simply, its nice & fancy for an MSP, even a Cabinet Secretary to be seen with a bunch of bankers & lawyers at a fancy dinner, and then the next week, take over some Parliamentary time to raise a motion on their dinner host’s behalf, but its not so convenient for an MSP to do the same for, say, abuse victims, or a cancer sufferer asking for withheld medication just because he’s in the wrong postcode, or perhaps say to victims of poisoned blood products – “oh we can answer and settle your cases next week because we know who is guilty” …. no .. its just not possible to do, is it … our politicians are just not honest enough to take those kind of simple steps … there’s too much … “oh .. we’ll see what we can do” (while worrying about how much they can secure for doing or not doing it) and 10 years pass, and nothing changes.

So what good is a parliament and a Government to people if there is no justice ? Well, there are plenty countries around the world who have Parliaments and Governments but, like Scotland have high levels of injustice. Thoughts turn to comparisons with several South American countries, which also prompted officials from the United Nations to call Scotland's Justice system that of a "Banana Republic". They were right to do so.

William Wallace – he wouldn’t have wasted much time on bent politicians & crooked officials. Selling William Wallace to Scotland is fine, I think most of us probably look up to him, and oh, but to have someone like that in politics .. we will sadly never see. If, perhaps, we were able to travel back in time and inform William of how unjust Scotland is today, I suspect the response would be more of a raised claymore to those who commit injustice, cover it up, or prolong it for profit, rather than the usual bout of letter writing which many Scots and their families are forced to engage in to the smarmy, egotistical politicians of our day who lead only by cult and bluster, rather than face the truth by walking among their people and do as they are commanded by the very people they are supposed to serve, rather than rule.

I doubt William Wallace would have embarked in 5 or 10 year letter exchanges to help resolve the cases of victims who are denied justice, where perhaps the murder of a family member has gone without proper investigation, where innocent people have been vindictively set up with criminal charges only to be acquitted while politicians mounted a concerted attempt to cover up the falsehoods, negligence & corruption, where political interests have used our justice system to fiddle verdicts such as the Lockerbie trial , where victims of medical criminality have been allowed to die to protect corrupt civil servants who knew about poisoned blood products, and where the legal establishment (as I have reported on so often) have blocked legislative reforms to its own protection of crooked lawyers, crooked members of the judiciary, and unjust laws.

Of course, everyone laughs at people who claim injustice, don't they ? its funny .. it didn’t happen to someone (yet) so they are not too bothered … but they stop laughing fast when they fall victim to an injustice that also cannot be put right because the same politicians of our present day who cry ‘Scotland ahoy’ and claim to represent our best interests, are too busy prostituting themselves generally to those who are causing the injustice, for top dollar.

Indeed, while the public struggle & usually fail to secure hearings from politicians, businessmen whose foreign empires are built on gambling money, can apparently secure the undivided attention of politicians, with even Ministers rushing to their side, even willing to change & bend the law as long as big finance heads their way, that's Scotland today, nothing to do with William Wallace, I can assure you..

So what kind of a Scotland do we live in, when our Scotland has no justice and still no one humble or honest enough to give us justice ? Isn't it time we took back Scotland, for Scot's sakes ?

This is what Scots are left with on Justice after 10 years - a Justice Secretary who prides himself as owing a bunch of lawyers [and bankers] for putting him in power. But Scotland is made up of more than lawyers and bankers, Kenny …

Happy 10 years, Holyrood, but for my view, while people drop dead before receiving medication they’ve campaigned for 3 years to obtain, or abuse victims are denied help (even after writing to their MSP (now the Justice Secretary) for years) .. or victims of medical criminality die simply so that a few politicians & civil servants are spared the clink, there’s nothing much to celebrate .. just more work to be done, with maybe one day, an honest man or woman to be found among us who will do it, selflessly, without fear, serving and putting the community first, instead of vested interests & big money worship.