Thursday, January 24, 2008

Law Society - disinformation, censorship & intimidation of critics & clients preferred to respecting public interest

Sometimes, campaigns to change the law on important issues - such as the law itself, result in a great deal of misinformation being spread by those whose positions would well be threatened by significant changes to legislation.

Yes, I know the above statement sounds as obvious as 'teaching granny to suck eggs' but what I have written as we all know, is indeed the case.

Take on an institution, or a powerful organisation, and you risk your reputation, your livelihood, your personal life, even, your life in some cases. Make no mistake, anything that can be done against you to stop your campaign, to stop the details of what was done to you being made public, to stop you in your tracks from gathering any level of support for change to legislation allowing such fraudulent behavior .. can & will be done against you.

I've reported on similar issues before - when people dare make complaints against their legal agents and something like the following happens : Lawyers complaints system thought to have caused intimidation of clients for years

Well, lets clear up some of the misinformation spread by the Law Society of Scotland against campaigners, critics, and myself.

Does Peter Cherbi hate the legal profession ?

No I don't hate the legal profession.

I dislike the fact that lawyers who provide poor, corrupt or negligent services to clients are allowed to remain in practice, ripping off even more clients by committing the same offences, and the Law Society of Scotland together with the current self regulatory framework of the legal profession, weighed heavily in favour of the lawyer, against the client, will ensure that for the main, lawyers who do these terrible things to clients, get away with it.

The solution to this is to take away the regulatory function of the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, and make the entire process independent - and a lot more independent than the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which still has far too many lawyers sitting on it for it to be viewed as "independent".

Does Peter Cherbi hate the Law Society of Scotland ?

No I don't hate the Law Society of Scotland.

The Law Society of Scotland is being run by a few people, for their own motives & interests, at the expense of the relationship between solicitors & clients. Solicitors don't even have a vote in most of the major decisions of the Law Society of Scotland - its all down to dictatorship and what the likes of the Chief Executive, Douglas Mill says must be policy, will be policy.

The solution to that one, is for the grass roots membership of the legal profession - where there are YES, I will say it, many hard working solicitors who are NOT crooked, to take back the Law Society of Scotland and see that it is run properly, by the profession as a union for itself, not as a regulator and not as a 'guardian of client's interests' which should be left to a new wholly independent organisation.

Does Peter Cherbi believe we would all be better off without lawyers ?

Absolutely not - although a few of you may well do I suppose ..

When Government or politicians run amok, or peoples rights are trampled, the recourse to these issues is the courts. If a criminal prosecution is fiddled, by the prosecution themselves, lawyers must draw those issues to the attention of the court and have their clients found innocent. If neighbours get into a dispute, experienced lawyers trained in the relevant issues should be used in a timely and fast procedure to bring the matter to a conclusion .. etc .etc etc ...

However, all that depends on whether those who are providing the legal services - the lawyers, are capable enough & honest enough to do the job - not string out the case for extra fees, or resort to spiking both the pursuers & defenders into unnecessary litigation which only results in harmed lives at the end of the day.

The fault of any failings in this area of course, lie with the legal profession's governing body, who will have failed (and regularly do fail) to maintain the appropriate standards of service and policing of members which lead to the levels of complaints against poor service and all kinds of fiddles from the legal profession day in, day out and when the profession has the likes of the Law Society of Scotland in its current form, in charge of standards, there will be none.

Solution ? Again, take the regulatory function away from the Law Society, and of course, open up the legal services market ....

Does Peter Cherbi support opening the legal services market. ?

Yes, indeed I do support opening the legal services market - on the condition there is a fully independent regulatory body formed to ensure that standards of legal service is maintained by incoming firms & individuals, that qualifications to attain such high standards of service are met, and that there is a proper, honest & accountable compensation scheme paid for my the legal services market to honour any failings of its members. Since the Law Society of Scotland has never attained any of these things in it's entire history - they cannot be allowed to rule an opened legal services market as such.

Does Peter Cherbi like the SNP ?

Yes I do, as a matter of fact.

Actually, you will never get a finer man than the SNP Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney MSP when it comes to revealing some of the most significant problems of the legal profession such as how clients of negligent or crooked lawyers are compensated - and more importantly what the likes of the Law Society and its 'leading lights' have done to intimidate clients & members of the public who have dared complain or attempt to claim against a crooked lawyer ...

John Swinney MSP dared to challenge the Law Society of Scotland on corruption in claims & complaints against crooked lawyers

Make no mistake about it, there are also many others within the SNP who do not support protecting the legal profession just because the current Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill says they must. I know, because quite a few have contacted me over this.

What does Peter Cherbi think of the other politician parties at Holyrood on the issue of regulatory reform of the legal profession ?

Well, the Conservatives stand against any reform of the regulatory regime of the legal profession and are not interested in the rights of the public, so lets forget the Tories - they won't do much for people when it comes to problems with the legal profession, unless maybe Phil Gallie comes back to the Scottish Parliament.

The Greens - well, I read a piece which seems to indicate to me they have considerable trouble in understanding the issue at all. Maybe if one of them loses their house to a crooked lawyer, they might sympathise with a client victim a bit more later on ...

Labour created the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which has been one of the biggest shifts in regulatory practice since the Law Society of Scotland came into existence.

In a way its a pity what was created in the LPLA Act has become somewhat corrupted by both the Law Society of Scotland and a few ex lawyer politicians who so blatantly lack any impartiality or thought for the public interest.

It remains to be seen what the Labour party will propose on these matters, and how they will take issues forward.

Does Peter Cherbi think the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be a failure or success ?

That remains to be seen - but as I have already reported, the appointments process, and certain information which has come my way that I have for now not published, seems to indicate there will be significant problems ahead for the SLCC if the Law Society of Scotland is allowed to maintain its grip on disciplinary procedures and conduct complaints.

What does Peter Cherbi think of the personal attacks, hate messages and more from elements of the legal profession against him and other high profile campaigners ?

Well, that comes with the territory, but as I said, I think these 'personal remarks and attacks' which come from members of the legal profession or their allies are a symptom of the predicament they have got themselves into.The fact is they are supporting fraud & lies, fairly blatantly and have no way out to argue their position other than to attack those who publicise the truth.

To me, the likes of Douglas Mill's rants against those who dispute his version of reality (the twilight zone), or those of the occasional politicians who support the legal profession, are a bit like attacking a heart attack patient who didn't get their medicine because the politician or the person with the most to lose from legislative changes (who might think more people should have heart attacks) picked up the phone and told, even ordered, the doctor not to give the patient their medicine.

Simply, people have been getting ripped off for years by the legal profession - we all know it, this is not in dispute, and today, its so common its hardly even newsworthy, and when cause to complain about it occurs, financially ruined clients get nothing, and worse, they are personally targeted by the Law Society and a few friends of the crooked solicitor, almost to the point of death, and that's no exaggeration, as many a journalist know themselves.

I think the problem for me is of course my story has been well covered by the likes of the Scotsman and other newspapers over the years.I have used that coverage to help others, I hope who have benefited from that coverage, maybe resolving a few problems they had with lawyers too ...

Some of my media coverage over the years : Andrew Penman & Norman Howitt : Lawyer & accountant team up to ruin Cherbi executry estate

I am, unlike these politicians and those who lead the legal profession, not a glory seeker. I have no desire of political office, political influence, the ability to ruin a life at a stroke or decide the fate of someone in an instant.

I simply want answers and a resolution to my case, and all the cases of injustice to others caused by the failure of the Law Society to properly regulate the legal profession, maintain standards, ensure access to justice for all, and recompense properly those people whose lives have been totally ruined by disgraceful & unnecessary confrontations with their lawyers, all just because, the lawyers were caught with their fingers in the till.

Also of course, not forgetting the wider issues of injustice in other cases, which the denial of access to justice by the legal profession either out of self interest, or political favour, has brought to members of the public in issues brought to my attention - from medical negligence, to abuse cases, to unexplained deaths, to all the unnecessary cases of injustice which should not be happening in Scotland today in 2008.

Look, listen to me for a minute here. This is not rocket science.

We are all fighting each other over these lawyers, just because the Law Society wants to keep its system of getting lawyers off the hook when it feels like it, and also keeping the legal services market closed so you and I, and everyone in Scotland, has to pay through the nose for anything to do with the law.

Not all the legal profession agrees with the few at the top of the Law Society who want to keep these dishonourable values ... people on both sides of the argument, including myself, realised a long time ago, that healing the relationship between solicitors and clients is a much more worthy cause for Scotland, than protecting a few negligent or crooked lawyers just so they can go on keeping their fingers in the till ...

Not much to ask to clean all that up surely - we all need to use legal services, and if these matters were addressed, the legal profession, the legal system itself, the public, and Scotland, would all benefit - that has to be a good thing, right ?


Anonymous said...

interesting stuff.i disagree a little. i think we should be rid of all lawyers but what you say is true to an extent that we need someone to do the legal stuff when stitched up by whoever

fancy being a lawyer one day Peter ? i think you would make a DAMN GOOD ONE !

Anonymous said...

Please come back to the hootsmon - very boring these days without you !

Anonymous said...

This man didnt need a lawyer and won

form your own citizens representation or something and get out of this run to a lawyer culture because they create it to get more money

you do a good job peter cherbi

Campaign to oust Kenny "No Justice" MacAskill said...

Peter said :

"... the ability to ruin a life at a stroke or decide the fate of someone in an instant ...

"Also of course, not forgetting the wider issues of injustice in other cases ... in issues brought to my attention - from medical negligence, to abuse cases, to unexplained deaths, to all the unnecessary cases of injustice which should not be happening in Scotland today in 2008."

Indeed Peter : The ability to ruin a life at a stroke or decide the fate of someone in an instant ... in issues brought to my attention - from medical negligence, to abuse cases ... to all the unnecessary cases of injustice which should not be happening in Scotland today in 2008.

These injustices should not be happening, but i'm afraid your words could not sum up just how very bad, unfair and unjust Scotland's legal system is - especially now that we have the crooked, corrupt and blatant conflict of interest Mr MacAskill in charge ... who seems to thrive on all this injustice, while his "turn a blind eye" boss, who very foolishly appointed him in the first place, does nothing to remedy his error in appointing someone else to take over Scotland's INjustice Department.

Check out my previous posting to learn just how crooked, corrupt, wicked, heartless, cruel and self-protective (of himself and his establishment buddies) Scotland's INjustice Secretary really is ... and why he should NEVER have been appointed to that all-important job in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see you clarify some points Mr Cherbi.

The problem for us as you point out so well is the legal profession in Scotland is led by a few people while the general membership have a limited say in what goes on.

From what I hear I think you are provoking some long overdue hard debate.