Monday, June 18, 2007

Legal profession targets Scottish Executive to protect its business, demanding right of audience & death to public interest reforms

What's in the new minister's legal in-tray ? asks the Scotsman newspaper today .. and one would expect from that a whole host of issues relating to public interest and the well known general failure of Scottish Law to tackle anything transparently these days ... however, there's none of that as the Law edition of the Scotsman uses the article to lobby against change or even the very idea of reforms to the monopolistic business model of the Law Society of Scotland ... dictating who has access to justice and who does not.


The first 'question' - you may suppose, comes possibly from a lawyer, asking, or perhaps better put .. demanding clarification, that Kenny MacAskill, the new Justice Minister, "is a friend of the legal profession in Scotland and will give proper weight to representations from the Law Society of Scotland, and lawyers generally on matters of interest to the profession such as the Purchaser's Information Pack, and any further proposed reforms of the profession, and does he agree it is now time to give the profession a break from the incessant interference it has endured from Holyrood since its inception? ".


Instead of just being a friend to the legal profession, how about the idea that Kenny MacAskill might be a friend of everyone in Scotland ?


I have of course in mind, the rest of the country other than just the lawyers, who have an interest in the Justice system, including those victims who have suffered at the hands of the very same legal profession which now seeks ... or as things seem to be heading, demands Mr MacAskill's loyalty and attention on issues it sees fit - including of course, the issue of regulation of the legal profession, which everyone knows is the most cherished prize of Scottish lawyers - to regulate themselves and cover up complaint after complaint against crooked lawyers....


"giving proper weight to representations from the Law Society of Scotland, and lawyers generally on matters of interest to the profession" .. now, what does that entail I hear you ask ?


Well, if perhaps Mr MacAskill doesn't give proper weight to representations from the Law Society of Scotland and their merry band of crooks, perhaps they will stick him on a rendition flight to Drumsheugh Gardens for some electrical treatment ? or even worse, face another Court challenge threat from Douglas Mill, the Law Society Chief Executive who famously last year threatened the Executive and Parliament over the passage of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007


"does he agree it is now time to give the profession a break from the incessant interference it has endured from Holyrood since its inception?..."


What interference from Holyrood exactly now is that ? ah yes .. perhaps 'Donald' is referring to David Mcletchie's Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill - which was actually welcomed by David Preston, the then President of the Law Society in 2003 ,who said in the Law Society's own Press Release : "This will allow the Law Society of Scotland to modernise and improve its procedures and will implement some of the recommendations made in the Justice 1 Committee's report on regulation of the Scottish Legal profession published last year"


Perhaps not then ... as that Bill was actually steamrollered through the Scottish Parliament and thrust down the Executive's throat by the Law Society itself, along with support from several MSPs. The main sponsor of the "Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill" was David McLetchie MSP (former Tory leader caught swindling the taxpayer over his Taxi expenses and certain conflicts of interest, and the Bill was also supported by Roseanna Cunningham, MSP, Donald Gorrie, MSP and Pauline McNeill, MSP ... perhaps MSPs to look out for in terms of their support of the legal profession then ?


Obvoiusly then 'Donald' from Glasgow is referring to the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 ... which of course seeks to deprive Scotland's crooked legal profession from self regulating complaints against it's own members .. a right they have enjoyed for far too long which the Law Society has used to keep armies of crooked lawyers in practice while clients get ripped off,, victimised ,intimidated and ruined


Ex-Judge Lord McCluskey also joins in the questions to Mr MacAskill, this time signing his Lordship as being Edinburgh based, instead of at the House of Lords in Westminster as he did earlier in the year in the Scotsman in a a letter condemning the previous Scottish Executive for "disregarding expert opinion on the draft law reform bill" .. which roughly translated, comes out as 'disregarding dictates from the Judiciary on any changes which make it more accountable or transparent'


Lord McCluskey is of course no stranger to effectively making policy dictates to the Government, which today we are treated to as :


"Will the minister be sure to take the time to read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession in Scotland (Chairman Lord Hughes) before taking any further decisions about changes in relation to the structures and institutions of the legal profession?


Lord McCluskey, Edinburgh "


Why not just come out and say it, your Lordship ... the Judiciary doesn't want any change to the way it operates - accountable only to itself and of course, the Judiciary does not want any change to the way lawyers make their money or how the Law Society of Scotland has incessantly fiddled complaints against crooked lawyers, because of course, Judges are lawyers themselves, members of the same Law Society of Scotland .. some of whom go on to be advocates, then sit on the bench, keeping their dark regulatory histories secret from the rest of us so they can advance to the ultimate positions unchecked ...


Are we back to Reforming Scotland's Judiciary at the point of a Judge's Gun again ? Lord McCluskey ? Does nothing change in the legal profession, even though the people of Scotland have voted for change ?


It's time to bring change to the way our legal profession has run the justice system and public access to it for all these decades - and if the new Justice Minister wants some ideas on issues to look at, how about subjects like these :


How about tackling the issue of lay member recruitment for all these self regulatory bodies such as the Law Society, where the same people staff regulatory committees of many different professions & public bodies, making it an industry for themselves while consumers suffer constant injustice as lay members sit by & do nothing


How about reviewing & compensating the victims of injustice by the legal profession itself ? there are ideas, such as my own Petition PE1033 to review the legal profession's sins of the past and properly review, investigate and compensate those ruined by crooked lawyers who have been allowed to go on practicing as lawyers, even ruin a few more clients in the process


Also, there is the issue of small claims, and why the legal profession has lobbied to keep it low for so long - to make sure the public have to use a lawyer to recover anything more than £750 .. and of course, spend a lot more than £750 using a lawyer to do it.


There needs to be a new culture of oversight, accountability and transparency at bodies such as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Committee, where serious injustice to people in the Courts does not always get a fair hearing.


The Crown Office, that well known ogre of incompetence, cover up & injustice also awaits significant reform as it seems to excel in issues of corruption itself , covering up cases involving it's own staff, fellow members of the legal profession, and victimising anyone who takes issue with its actings ...


How about an inquiry into why Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990 which were designed to open up access to justice and the legal services market, were held back by lobbying from the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates because of course opening up access to legal services would affect the profits of lawyers & advocates .. and of course, that such an inquiry would look into why previous Scottish Executives acquiesced to the wishes of the legal profession in this restriction of public access to legal services which even former Lord Advocate Lord Hardie seemingly agreed with denying increased competition & public access to legal markets


Instead of just having ASBOs - the now well known Anti Social Behaviour Order, how about instituting an ACBO - an Anti Corruption Behaviour Order to tackle the likes of crooked lawyers and crooked businessmen out to fleece the public & taxpayer at every turn ?


It would be so nice to have Lord McCluskey's support, whether he bases himself in London or Edinburgh, on some of these issues instead of just badgering or fingering the Executive on issues of 'don't reform the legal profession or judiciary, or else' ... after all, shouldn't an ex-judge speak for all of us not just his colleagues on the bench or in the legal profession, in the interests of justice, fairness & our interests as the Scottish public, of course ?


Where lies the victims of injustice in your words of wisdom to our elected Government, Lord McCluskey ?


Here is the article from today's Scotsman:


http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=948582007


What's in the new minister's legal in-tray?


KENNY MACASKILL, the new cabinet secretary for justice, answers your questions.


WILL the minister confirm that, unlike the impression given by the previous regime, he is a friend of the legal profession in Scotland and will give proper weight to representations from the Law Society of Scotland, and lawyers generally, on matters of interest to the profession such as the Purchaser's Information Pack, and any further proposed reforms of the profession, and does he agree it is now time to give the profession a break from the incessant interference it has endured from Holyrood since its inception?


Donald, Glasgow


MACASKILL: Law is a vital part of Scottish history, identity and life. We live in a changing world and the legal profession must change with it. But I want to work with the profession to allow it to better serve Scotland as well as its members.


At present the government is in the process of implementing the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act. Establishing the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and getting it off to the best possible start is the priority. We are not proposing any further regulatory reform at the moment.


However, I also think it is wrong to see the profession as a single homogenous group. It is diverse and I need to take account of the range of views within it. I know there are different ideas about whether we should introduce alternative business structures. I want to listen seriously to everyone concerned before we make decisions.


With regard to the Purchaser's Information Pack, the legal profession has been involved throughout the development of the proposals. We are keen to work with all of the stakeholders as we take the proposals forward. The previous administration's intention was to introduce the Single Survey before the end of 2008. Ministers will consider the way forward for these proposals in light of the responses received from the consultation.


What do you see as the future for the antisocial behaviour legislation? Do you consider it is working effectively to eradicate neighbourhood crime in Scotland and, if not, what change do you think is necessary for it and the criminal justice system to attempt to achieve that objective?


Jane Dewar, Highlands


MACASKILL: First of all, I want to make clear that this government intends to build on many of the reforms of the last administration. The Antisocial Behaviour Act has now been in force for three years and in some areas is making a real difference to the quality of people's lives across Scotland. Many neighbourhoods have got some much-needed respite from antisocial actions as a result of closure orders, and penalty notices for noise nuisance have given thousands some well-deserved peace.


However, we also need to tackle the factors that cause so much of the low-level crime and antisocial behaviour that blight communities - particularly the three "D"s of drink, drugs, and deprivation. And we need to provide more positive things for young people to do, promoting good social behaviour as well as punishing the bad.


That's why now is an appropriate time to take a fresh look at the antisocial behaviour strategy to see where it can be strengthened and improved - and how we can get greater community involvement. Local agencies are responsible for promoting community safety and tackling antisocial behaviour at the local level. We plan to review how we fund them and monitor their performance to ensure continuing progress is made.


Hand in hand with that, we will also strengthen frontline policing to ensure neighbourhood crime is dealt with through the criminal justice system, wherever appropriate. The results of ongoing evaluations of antisocial behaviour orders and dispersal powers will feed into this wider review of our community safety strategy, which in turn will complement the wider programme of summary justice reform. In all of this, our aim will be to instil a culture of personal responsibility at the heart of safe, strong communities.


Will the minister be sure to take the time to read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession in Scotland (Chairman Lord Hughes) before taking any further decisions about changes in relation to the structures and institutions of the legal profession?


Lord McCluskey, Edinburgh


MACASKILL: This government does not have a monopoly on good ideas. So we will look for fresh thinking and new approaches from across the country - as well as the widest range of research.


I will want to consider a range of sources, such as the report by the Research Working Group on the Legal Services Market in Scotland. The Hughes Commission dates back to 1980, and in some respects it has been overtaken by events. An example would be the extension of rights of audience to solicitor-advocates. The Royal Commission then recommended maintaining the status quo, but solicitor-advocates are now well-established and doing an excellent job. The Faculty of Advocates has shown it can cope with the extra competition. That does not mean there is not still plenty of material in the Royal Commission's report, which remains as relevant as ever.


The most important thing will be to have a proper informed debate about the future of our institutions and how best they can contribute to the success of the country. I will seek to listen to and work with individuals such as Lord McCluskey.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

One hell of an article Peter.
I can see why you are the most feared client by the Law Society.
Oh and not to inflate your ego too much but your writing is a hell of a lot better than the Scotsman on law issues.

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed at the Scotsman being in bed with a bunch of crooked lawyers to protect the way they handled complaints.What brought this about after all that coverage of your own case ?

Donald Anderson / Edinburgh said...

Spot on as usual Peter and those links looks like you have an answer for everything !

Peter Cherbi said...

To all who have commented so far :

I think the article in the Scotsman yesterday, which after all, was on questions put to the Justice Minister by members of the legal profession & judiciary, does give an indication as to the problems we face in securing reforms and tackling injustice caused by the members of that very same legal profession - and make no mistake about it, these people will go to any lengths to protect their own interests - all manner of dirty tricks included.

On another matter, I would like to answer a comment sent to me today on my mother and what happened to her in this whole story of injustice.

To the person who sent the comment, it was of course, Mr Norman Howitt, a famous Borders Accountant, along with a Mrs Susan Begley, who was carrying out the abuse on my poor mother, I wrote about that and produced some of the evidence - more of which I am yet to publish, here : A picture is worth a thousand words - Images of fraud reveal corruption & deceit by lawyers & accountants in the Scottish Borders

Taking pension & bank books from an elderly woman, badgering her into signing documents without legal counsel, and conning her out of around £16,000 certainly ranks as abuse, I agree.

Anonymous said...

"Taking pension & bank books from an elderly woman, badgering her into signing documents without legal counsel, and conning her out of around £16,000 certainly ranks as abuse, I agree"

I agree also and if anyone did that to my mom Id be doing a lot more than writing about it.Jail those f*ckers for what they did to your mom

Anonymous said...

Thought I'd come along after seeing your comments in the Scotsman.
What do you expect from the lawyers like Macaskill taking orders from an ex judge.don't think the lawyers will change their tune even though Scotland voted snp.Lawyers are obviously out to save the union and will be bossing your shiny new Justice Minister around in no time at all.
Take my advice and move to England.I think we need your skills more down here than up there!

Poirot said...

Good point on the McLetchie Bill Peter just goes to show the Law Society wants to pick & choose when it uses Holyrood for its own good.

Can't think of many people who would have written that one up the way you have and good to see you are upsetting the crooks & their supporters again.

Anonymous said...

No comment on the Donald Findlay story ?

Anonymous said...

I will seek to listen to and work with individuals such as Lord McCluskey
riiight ! thats just as good as saying I'm going to take orders from the Judges.
Alex I think you need a new Justice Minister if this is the case !

Anonymous said...

I didn't see Lord McCluskey's name on the election ballot papers.If he wants to be part of Holyrood as it seems from his constant open letters in the press why not be a candidate ? What's the matter Mr exJudge ? afraid you wont get many votes ?

Peter Cherbi said...

#Poirot @ 2:01 PM

Well there's been a few times the Law Society have used both the Executive and the Parliament for it's own ends.

I wish the Scotsman had picked up on that too, but as it was the Law Edition on Monday, I suppose 'omissions' were to be expected.

#anonymous @ 3:30 PM

No, no comment on the Donald Findlay story except to say it is a regulatory matter still in progress awaiting a written judgement from Lord Coulsfield.

I would like to say though, I was disgusted by how the discussion on the Herald comments board sank to sectarianism & most probably libel against Mr Findlay and the complainers. People sometimes have a go at me for writing about the legal profession, but what I write is based on fact, evidence, or cases which have already been or are about to be reported in the media.

#anonymous @ 6:39 PM

I could never imagine Lord McCluskey standing for an elected position. He doesn't need to since he is a peer but I would welcome his thoughts on how victims should deal with the long known about system of corrupt self regulation in the legal profession and why people must suffer injustice just so a few bent lawyers can keep their jobs.

marksman said...

The Herald were naive to allow comment on that news story about Donald Findlay and the Pope Joke complaint.Scotsman had better sense and kept out the nutters from making their sectarian rants.

A lesson learned (again) for the Herald maybe but I wouldn't be surprised if the guys who did the complaining against Findlay don't sue over what was said about them.

Anonymous said...

The Crown Office, that well known ogre of incompetence, cover up & injustice also awaits significant reform as it seems to excel in issues of corruption itself , covering up cases involving it's own staff, fellow members of the legal profession, and victimising anyone who takes issue with its actings ...

I LIKE YOUR IDEA AND THAT LINK IN IT !

Conflicts of interest??? said...

Peter,

With regard to your very interesting and informative commentary (as usual) re MacAskill from Monday’s Scotsman, the decision surely for our new Cabinet Secretary “for Justice” is really quite simple:

Scotland’s People – Population c.5,000,000.

Scotland’s Lawyers – Population c.10,000.

There are 4,990,000 reasons why MacAskill has to now put aside any loyalties he may still harbour for his former legal “profession”, and henceforth put his Edinburgh constituents and the People of Scotland FIRST – that’s the 4,990,000 non-lawyers.

If he wants to remain a mouthpiece for Scotland’s legal profession, then he must resign immediately and return to being one of the gang of 10,000.

No “conflicts of interest” JUSTICE Secretaries are welcome, or should be allowed to continue, by the People of Scotland – we’ve had enough of that over the past 8 years.

Conflicts of interest = Protection of sacred cows = Conspiring to defeat the ends of justice. Ever thus.

So, Mr MacAskill. What is it to be?

Answers on a postcard please to……

Better still. How about responding on this forum??????

AlanM said...

I like the way you are using links in your articles.It really sets the tone of how the lawyers have been able to keep control of things for so long.

Keep up the good work Mr Cherbi.

Peter Cherbi said...

Anonymous said "That was the weakest lily-livered response to a post I've ever seen. ....Or are you chicken than your merry band of readers will learn the truth about you!!"

The above post came in from an "anonymous" supporter of Andrew Penman, Norman Howitt and the several other lawyers over the years who have profited by ripping off my family and ruining my life. You can tell I have obviously upset someone who has profited from my injustice then ....

I am indeed happy to print your bile and hatred of my exposing of those crooks you admire, as it shows the depths of hatred those who seek to cover up injustice go to, to protect their crimes and their colleagues. But I ask, why hide behind the cloak of anonymity in your accusations ? or are you too "lily-livered" yourself like those crooks you so ovciously support ?

I remember well the cover story invented by Norman Howitt & friends to cover up their deeds, of forcing my mother to sign over her assets, of forcing my mother, with menaces, to give them her pension & bank books - but which in reality were bled dry by those very same people. I remember well the same cover story used to try and force my mother to hand over all her assets to Norman Howitt, even paying him for doing so .. and I remember well the same cover story used by Nigel Hall, my mother's then Hawick lawyer with apparently a history of problems himself to seek to hand over wast amounts of money to people connected with fleecing my mother ... The evidence at hand I have covered in many articles on my blog ... and has obviously stirred up many problems since it cannot be denied.

As for abusing my mother, an allegation I'm sure she would respond quite strongly to, if she were still alive, I can only say that reflected in your words, seems to be the very symptoms of abuse you accuse others of .. perhaps you are an experienced abuser and seek to transfer your obvious hatred of yourself, or those you abuse, onto people who expose crooks for what they are....

Indeed, Mr Penman used this same cover story as part of the plan to get him off the hook from my complaints - fortunately for me, the Scotsman newspaper covered the whole thing, as my readers can see from this story where it was revealed that a senior member of the Law Society of Scotland, James Ness, had acted for Mr Penman before the Complaints Committee and spat the same bile & hatred to get him off the hook.

A Reprint of the Scotsman Report on this very matter is here :
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=349173066&context=set-72157594551333786&size=l

I am no stranger to threats & accusations of this nature - actually, many campaigners against injustice get the same. Constantly I hear of cases where lies & allegations are made against people by lawyers, or their friends, to wipe out complaints & credibility, but this will not work on me.

Incidentally the Scotsman journalists also spoke to my mother, as did a few other journalists at the time, some of whom knew my mum very well and there was certainly never any abuse in my family, thankfully - so plenty witnesses and plenty people who have suffered just as badly at the hands of those who lie & make such nasty comments as your anonymous self.

on the case said...

Thanks for sending the comment to me Peter

Don't pay attention to those allies of Penman & co, particularly those who put forth such drivel to attack someone I know to be a fine young man who has been victimised to the ends of the earth by the legal profession.

A quick call to a freelancer in the Borders revealed to me last night a messy adoption which Mr Penman seems to have told some lies in, around the time of your complaint to the Law Society.The Penman family have some much darker secrets to reveal too, which I'm sure his wife & siblings would appreciate. Can be arranged if you like just to show who's who and what's what.

Your Mr Howitt and his family fair no better, being well known in Melrose for some rather naughty goings on, and perhaps Howitt's allies would like to explain the matter of a little item by way of a criminal record too. Details to be sent if you like.

Don't forget Graeme Henderson tried the same mudslinging in the Sheridan v NOTW case, so it's a standard tactic of the crooked fraternity and their friends but any more like that, please send them on.After all, we have worked together for a few years now on stuff like this.

Anonymous said...

haha ! looks like the lawyers are trying to get their own back now ? You must have hurt them a lot exposing this filth for what they really are.
Cheap shot saying that about your mother, I hope they and theirs burn in hell for it.
Lets have the dirt out on this scum and how many others they ahve ripped off

Anonymous said...

Screw the critics and malcontents I'll take Cherbi's word on all things legal any time over bent lawyers out to rob us blind.Guy knows what he's writing about and clearly upsets the crooks of the law.

Anonymous said...

lawyers talking about abuse when they are the biggest pedo abusers out there hanging round toilets waiting for 10y.o.boys to play with then resisting arrest and get off scot free.how come the more crooked they get the more pedo they become lol whats the link to that one? Maybe like Danskin they film it for later or to sell to more lawyers lol
hey pete expose the abusers in the law society i bet there are plenty weirdos there

gork said...

if someone's giving you a hard time Peter remember any comment can be traced back to source, no matter if its anonymous or not.Keep all the times & dates and the blogger team or your email provider will be able to do something about it

cro@lawscot.org.uk said...

As someone who used to work at the Client Relations Office at the Law Society I can relate to a lot of what you say mr Cherbi.

Clients who complain against their solicitors never get a fair hearing and someone you have mentioned here before often 'instructs' us on how to delay complainers and mess them around.Everyone has to do it at the CRO otherwise you get told there's no job at the end of it.

I once saw a work colleague reduced to tears when she was orderded by you know who to write to a complainer telling them their complaint against their solicitor which related to overcharging for work and losing a court case had been dismissed at a committee.We all thought the solicitor would be found guilty as the case had taken up considerable time & resources with a recommendation by the reporter to prosecute the solicitor, but matters changed after the solicitor complained againstsolicitor submitted Police and local authority reports the complainer had abused a daughter of another client of the solicitor concerned.We all knew the reports the solicitor submitted on the alleged abuse were false and there was never any attempt by the complaints committee to verify the information but a relative of mine lived in the town where the solicitor's practice was, and told me a police constable purchased a 4 bedroomed house with grounds for less than 30,000 in a traditionally high value area and the social services officer from the local authority who wrote the false abuse report bought a house in Spain, both of these people were clients of the solicitor who was the subject of the complaint and we all believed they were both paid off by the solicitor to write the reports to be submitted as a defence against the complaint which is exactly what happened.Both reports were written on simple sheets of paper without any references or logos of the Police Force or local authority concerned and that just shows how easy it is for lawyers to fool the complaints committees.The daughter of the client referred to by the solicitor in his defence I'm told was 32 at the time of the complaint.The reports submitted by the lawyer in his defence said she was 14.

The complainer spent years writing to the CRO on this matter but predictably got nowhere.My CRO work colleague on the case was threatened that if she did not do as she was ordered to, she would be sacked and have no future in the legal profession, which is the same threat we are all under when working at the CRO and reminded of when we leave it for pastures new.There is a horrible atmosphere within the office under 'your friend' and your 'other friend' often comes in to give his own extreme viewpoint on how we should deal with complainers.

Good for you mr Cherbi for writing as you have and keep it up.I'm sure you are used to all the dirty tricks of the Law Society against complainers which I have seen first hand myself.Maybe one day some of us former members of staff who have been mistreated ourselves will have the courage to speak out on it without fear of having our mortgages threatened or being made redundant in our employment.

Poirot said...

What an interesting comment Peter.I hope it gives you some ideas for this inquiry you are seeking.

I wonder how Mr Yelland will react to it since he can't discuss complaints because of client solicitor confidentiality and we can't find out more about complaints because the Law Society are currently exempt from Freedom of Information legislation. Interesting times indeed.

Peter Cherbi said...

#cro@lawscot.org.uk @ 4:08PM

That is a fantastic comment. I'm tempted to use it in an article on its own. Could you email me please ?

#Poirot yes thanks I've been reading it too, if we can get people like this to talk before an inquiry into how the Law Society have caused so much injustice I'm sure things will move forward.

Anonymous said...

Your friends are well informed on the adoption involving Mr Penman.

If they are going for you,go for them and make anything fair game.

Succeed Mr Cherbi You have my utmost respect for all you have suffered and all you do for people.

Anonymous said...

Obviously the Law Society just can't compete with you Peter on grounds of honesty.This article was probably one of your best and totally exposes them and their allies for what they are.No one NO ONE can write about the legal profession in Scotland as you can.You totally blow their credibility away each time.

Keep up the good work like everyone says.

Anonymous said...

That's a great story in the Scotsman on Jury still out on law in the dock.

James Ness could spill the venom in front of a law society committee but wouldn't stand a chance in public with those claims.How many times has he done that for crooked lawyers in his post at Law Care I wonder and how many abusing lawyers are out there.figures please.

Now you are exposed in the real world Mr Penman & friends lets hear about some of your own dirty secrets.Don't they usually say that fraudsters and liars are usually up for lots of other crimes too ?Your brethren regularly argue this in courtrooms so what's sauce for the goose is good for the gander.Time to see what lies behind your crooked curtains too !

outthere said...

God my thoughts about Scotland have been totally changed by reading this stuff and the links.
Your Government better clean up their act if you want to be independent or well thought of. All this injustice is just sickening. Totally ruined my impression of honest Scotland with all these crooks in charge of the law and whoever heard of judges threatening governments in newspapers its just nuts.

Anonymous said...

After reading that comment from the cro@lawscot person I am really beginning to wonder if the same happened to my complaint because an architect who was involved in the case my lawyer was conducting for me before he decided to bankrupt the firm we had and see one of his partners bought the warehouses seemed to have been working for the lawyer all along against us putting the boot during the complaint investigation at the law society with a letter which was full of lies and he even had the cheek to charge us for what he did I think i will have to email you too Mr Cherbi

Anonymous said...

Beginning to see that Client Relations to lawyers means Client Fuck Up.

How about we do the same back to them ? Oh not allowed of course since they would have some of their nastier clients come round and threaten to rape our families or burgle the house or put us out of our jobs or phone the bank to fuck up the mortgage. ABOUT FUCKING TIME THESE BASTARDS WERE ALL EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE

Anonymous said...

if anyone wonders why lawyers want to keep complaint regulation for themselves they just need to read this blog.

What a gang of crooks !

JC said...

If you want an honest opinion Mr Cherbi I think you are all wasting your time with the SNP on asking for inquiries and reforms

Why do I say this ? Its a minority government of course, easy to vote down and the party is full of members already in hoc to the lawyers etc

Scotland would have been better leaving Labour in charge and they would have got round to carrying out the reforms you asked. Didn't you get the lpla act you wanted from a Labour Executive ? Have you said "Thank You" for that yet ? because no one else - and you said this yourself would have passed lpla or even brought the idea up.

Do you seriously think Kenny Macaskill will reform his colleagues in the legal profession ? I don't. It takes Westminster power to tackle professions and judicial reforms. SNP will never manage it and Scotland will become the Zimbabwe of the union.

What do you say to that ?

Anonymous said...

How right you are about getting a case into court against a lawyer.An impossible task getting a lawyer to do anything against another.You have a good debate on your posting here I'm very glad to read it !

Anonymous said...

Someone should be asking where the Howitts and Penmans get their monies for all their jollies oh yes its money from clients that fund them isnt it and big bills for shafting people or screwing them for doing nothing little penmans have a good lifestyle on the back of daddies clients then

Anonymous said...

last comment good one.I always wondered how families of crooked lawyers do and see they get all the best stuff and sent off to private schools etc but all this is paid for by daddy lawyer ripping off clients and plundering bank accounts so how do the Penman family do then after daddys little scam did they pay back or just live off the proceeds of daddy penmans rip offs do they grow up to be like daddy lawyer too ?!!

jax said...

I'm very interested in that comment from a former Client Relations officer.

Can we expect more on that soon Peter ? It looks the business in detail and confirms what I've always felt about complaints against the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear more on this Client relations stuff too.Obviously they are just a bunch of crooks out to mess up complaints to protect their lawyer buddies.Lets know all of those who worked in that office and what they get up to in their spare time.

Anonymous said...

I suspect cro@lawscot.org's comments only tell a small piece of what goes on in the client relations dept.

I made a complaint against my lawyer over a hefty account fora court action, only to discover that he hadn't put in any of the interviews and expert witness statements as productions which is why the case failed.I had letters from my lawyer telling me he had put them into the Court but the Court says otherwise and the Law Society just blanked the issue, didn't bother to respond.

Probably happens to many more like me so maybe cro@lawscot.org would like to tell us more of the goings on in client relations.