Law Society of Scotland lobbies Scottish Parliament to pass anti consumer amendments on LPLA Bill threatening Court action if demands not met

Just imagine you were a politician for a minute, and someone you knew committed a murder or another serious crime, but got away with it.

This criminal, then came to you, asking you to amend the Law so they could murder someone else and get away with it, and just to keep themselves happy, they want you to also write amendments to the Law so they could abuse, murder & steal to their hearts content - and get away with it.

Would you do it ? Would you help a murderer or a fraudster or a child abuser, amend the law so they could carry on murdering, stealing, or abusing and get away with it ?

That is precisely what the Scottish legal profession is asking MSPs to do today in the Scottish Parliament in the debate on the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill , which aims to bring independent regulation to the legal profession, and take away the current crooked self regulation system operated by the Law Society of Scotland - which has seen thousands of complaints fiddled against crooked lawyers so clients get little or no compensation while the crooked lawyer gets off the hook from many client complaints & keeps on practising & keeps on robbing other clients who cant get anywhere trying to recover their lost money

Such cases as TOP LAWYER AT THE CENTRE OF 12 NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS are all too common, and from my own experience, just look how crooked lawyer Drew Penman was - and got away with it, to carry on being a crooked lawyer, so much I nominated him for Scotland's Most Famous Crooked Lawyer in Tueday's article Scottish Legal Awards - Lawyer Lawyer on the wall, who is the most crooked of us all ?

The Law Society of Scotland are today, promoting Jim Wallace MSP, former Deputy First Minister and Justice Minister, and Jackie Baillie, former Social Justice Minister and current member of the Justice 2 Committee as allies in their battle to prevent the public from getting a fair hearing when it comes to complaints against crooked lawyers.

Bit strange, isn't it ? that a Former Justice Minister would support a gang of criminals ? would support a profession which has ruined peoples lives, embezzled all their money, even caused the death of people - to save a lawyer from prosecution over fraud, corruption, embezzlement, rape, abuse, drugs dealing .... what kind of politician would support such a group of people ?

It's not just Jim Wallace though - as you can see from the amendments listed for the Parliamentary Debate - there are several other MSPs who have come forth to support Scotland's twisted & corrupt legal profession - hellbent on killing any chance of independent scrutiny of their corrupt behaviour towards clients.

Link to the Amendments: Marshalled List of Amendments selected for Stage 3

Please note Bill Aitken - Conservative MSP for Glasgow - he seems to be one of the Chief mouthpieces for crooked lawyers in this war against consumer reforms it seems - and he is so in love with the idea that crooked lawyers should be allowed to embezzle your money & get away with it - he demanded the proposed maximum fine of £20,000 for crooked lawyers be reduced to a mere £5000 in his Amendment No.179.

How do you like that idea then ? An MSP - a politician you elected, but now a mouthpiece for the Law Society of Scotland, wants a crooked lawyer to only have to pay £5000 at the very most - if for instance - they ruin your business, ruin your life, take your home, embezzle all your money. What kind of punishment or deterrent is that ?

Jackie Ballie MSP - former Social Justice Minister & Justice 2 Committee member isn't far behind Bill Aitken with anti-consumer amendments either - she also proposed the lowering of the £20,000 for crooked lawyers be reduced to £15,000 ... what a rip off ! - and why should there even be a limit of fine ?

How about when a lawyer ruins your business and you lose £100,000 or more ? You won't get much back from the £5,000 or £15,000 fine limit these MSPs are proposing ... and it's no use saying get a lawyer to sue the lawyer - that doesn't work as we all know - and which is why we are here today with the LPLA Bill.

In fact, it seems, out of 129 MSPs at the Scottish Parliament, only a few have stepped forward with any motivation at all on the part of the public - John Swinney MSP (SNP) and Colin Fox (SSP), to mention the most daring. Everyone else has kept a brutal silence on this issue - despite the fact every single MSP knows full well the corruption in the Scottish legal profession and how endemically corrupt the Law Society of Scotland's self regulatory complaints regime has been for decades.

Other MSPs who posted a variety of amendments to the LPLA Bill are : Jeremy Purvis (LibDem) , David Davidson (Conservative), Johann Lamont (Labour), Stewart Maxwell (SNP) & Hugh Henry (Labour)

The Law Society of Scotland has done its utmost to kill off the LPLA Bill, even having groups of lawyers meet with MSPs - even members of the Justice Committees themselves, where lawyers have privately warned some MSPs the LPLA Bill is not to become law unless it writes the amendments itself - and with the amendments proposed by Glasgow's Bill Aitken MSP - it looks like the Law Society of Scotland have done just that.

It's almost as if the Law Society of Scotland wants to censor the Scottish Parliament - just as it has done with the Scottish media - which I wrote about here :
Law Society of Scotland actively censors the Scottish Press to kill articles on crooked lawyers and here :
Scottish Legal Profession censors the Press to kill off bad publicity - Part II

The Law Society of Scotland is running so scared of the LPLA Bill, the legal profession have now threatened to boycott legal work - all because of the fact that lawyers won't be able to fiddle complaints against themselves with the advent of independent regulation of complaints in the LPLA Bill .. and an article today in the Herald Newspaper quotes those threats - so the crooked lawyers aren't going to take on all those cases such as executry, conveyancing or court work, for which the law requires they are registered as practicing solicitors.

Good ... that means they wont be able to rip you off for vast fees for selling your house or buying a house, or ripping off dead clients wills - like crooked lawyer Andrew Penman did with my dad's will, and they can't prolong Civil Court work you asked them to do for you - so they can fatten up the account at the end of the work done ... It might just bring a new more honest breed of person into the legal arena who is able to undertake the work for you without all those fat inflated bills to feather the high living lifestyles of all those crooked lawyers.

Not content with threatening to boycott legal work, the Law Society of Scotland has also issued a Press Release with a threat of a Court Challenge to the Parliament against the LPLA Bill if the legal profession's demands of amendments are not met. How's that for dictatorship then ! .... has Douglas Mill now become the new Saddam Hussein ? We get rid of one Dictator and another one springs up - but this time, it's at home - and Mr Mill & the gang of political control-freak lawyers in the Scottish legal profession are far more dangerous to the public & the judicial system than any politician - as has been proved time & again.

Douglas Mill's threat of a Court challenge to the LPLA Bill is well known, because he called the newspapers to publish his threat in early November- I covered it here : Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill,. but it just goes to show how far the Law Society is willing to go to keep complaints handling to themselves - all this to keep crooked lawyers in jobs - who would otherwise be in jail if they tried their wholesale client rip offs, embezzlements & other activities anywhere else.

Peter Cherbi's message to the Scottish Parliament today :

Resist the threats & intimidation of the Law Society of Scotland & the legal mafia. Pass the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill without all those so obviously anti consumer amendments and give the public a chance to be heard for once. You all know we are right in what we say - and how long all of us victims - the seen & unseen have suffered - do something about it, and bring honesty to the Scottish legal profession. Give the public a reason to trust the people who must represent us in the Courts & legal system - because at the moment, we have no one to trust with our legal affairs. No one.

Herald article here : http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/76711.html

Law change ‘may harm clients of solicitors’
DOUGLAS FRASER December 14 2006

Solicitors may walk away from mainstream legal work if there is too much regulatory burden placed on them by legislation which is entering its final stage at Holyrood, the Law Society of Scotland has warned.

A spokeswoman said yesterday that if the costs of remaining as a solicitor are increased by the charges for sustaining a new complaints system, including fines of up to £20,000, that may encourage solicitors to redefine themselves as lawyers or legal advisers instead.

If they do not carry out executry, conveyancing or court work, for which the law requires they are registered as practising solicitors, they would be free to carry on without that badge – on commercial work, for instance.

The spokeswoman said solicitors would prefer to remain as a unified profession, but added that costs and regulation could change that. The outcome would only harm customers' interests, it was claimed, taking many lawyers outside the remit of the new complaints system. It may also make lawyers more selective in the cases they are willing to take on.

The Law Society of Scotland has made repeated warnings about the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, on which MSPs will take their final decisions today.

With key amendments facing them, one of those warnings is that the bill as it stands this morning could become the first piece of Holyrood legislation to be struck down for being incompatible with human rights legislation.

Press Release (or declaration of War against the Scottish public & Parliament) by the Law Society of Scotland here :

Former Ministers Back Society's Calls for Change to Legal Reform Bill

TWO influential MSPs have backed the Law Society of Scotland's concerns and will bring forward vital amendments to the legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill tomorrow (Thursday 14 December).

Jim Wallace MSP, former Deputy First Minister and Justice Minister, and Jackie Baillie, former Social Justice Minister and current member of the Justice 2 Committee, are among those who have put forward amendments to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill.

The Society has warned consistently that the Bill, which includes setting up a Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to handle service complaints against lawyers, could breach the European Convention on Human Rights. Unless its flaws are addressed it could become the first Act of the Scottish Parliament to be struck down as incompetent.

The former ministers' amendments, as well as a series of amendments by the Scottish Executive and David Davidson MSP, seek to correct flaws highlighted by the Society. They include the need to provide a right of appeal to the courts against SLCC decisions and involvement of the Lord President in the appointment of Commission members.

Douglas Mill, the Chief Executive of the Society, stressed that the Stage 3 debate tomorrow (Thursday December 14) was the final chance for MSPs to ensure that the new process for making complaints against solicitors is better than the current system.

He said: "The Society backs the principle of establishing an independent body to handle service complaints against solicitors in Scotland but that must be an improvement on the existing system for the public and legal profession alike.

"We have made our concerns known on a number of occasions and a large number of amendments have already been tabled during the parliamentary process which have led to some improvements but the question of ECHR compliance and the independence of the SLCC from government are fundamental and must be addressed tomorrow.

"The Society hopes the amendments brought forward at the Stage 3 debate will correct the flaws in this Bill and ensure it does not face a court challenge at a later stage."

Other changes that the Society hopes will be agreed during the debate include lowering the maximum compensation levels for individual findings of poor service by lawyers from £20,000 and ensuring greater accountability of the work and costs of the SLCC.