While the Glasgow Bar Association was reported in the media for using a public relations firm to 'criticise' legal aid reforms, it seems the Law Society of Scotland held a 'special general meeting' to add to the weight of the GBA's efforts, a meeting which was called by the Glasgow Bar Association itself, resulting in the Law Society conveniently condemning the recent summary criminal legal aid reforms.
According to one of two, very rushed Law Society Press Releases : “The SGM was called by the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) to debate the reforms and future of legal aid. The GBA supported the continuing involvement of the Society’s representatives in the review, though declined to re-join the process.”
Late last night, an insider at the Law Society alleged the GBA's efforts using MMM, a public relations firm, were known about and discussed among many attending the Law Society's 'special meeting' on the 22nd August 2008 .. despite a reference in one of the Law Society’s Press Releases of the meeting feigning ignorance over the arrangement of the ‘special general meeting’ quoting Oliver Adair, the convener of the Society’s Legal Aid Solicitors Committee : “Oliver Adair added that it was puzzling why the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) had called the SGM at this time.” If anyone believes that, raise a hand … or a glass !
Did Mr Adair know of the GBA’s media manipulation work on legal aid reforms ? … that remains to be seen, but it is now confirmed from sources the Law Society of Scotland, which, as the lawyers Governing body should have known of such an operation carried out by its members to 'influence' media coverage against legal aid reforms, did know of the GBA's spin attempt against the legal aid reforms.
You can read my earlier reports on this continuing story here :
Did the Law Society of Scotland know of lawyers media fixing operation over legal aid reforms ?
Scots legal profession used PR firms to manipulate media & public opinion on legal aid reforms
Among other motions passed at the 'special general meeting' of the Law Society, conveniently arranged at the same time of the GBA's spin doctor session to influence public opinion on the summary criminal legal aid reforms were :
* “The Special General Meeting of 22nd August 2008 believes that any cut in the summary criminal legal aid budget, after nine years with no increase in the fixed fee, is unacceptable and urges the Law Society of Scotland to continue pressing the government to reinvest savings in the overall criminal justice budget in legal aid.”
“The SGM of 22nd August 2008 condemns the increased bureaucracy involved in the administration of the summary criminal legal aid reforms.”
“The SGM of 22nd August 2008 supports the Law Society of Scotland representatives on the Summary Criminal Legal Assistance Monitoring and Evaluation Group in their negotiations with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.”
Since it now transpires the Law Society of Scotland itself were 'in the know' of the spin effort by the GBA to criticise criminal legal aid reforms, thoughts must now turn to who else knew the story .. such as perhaps, the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill himself ?
It certainly can't be the case that such a big operation which was undertaken, at "significant cost" according to one legal insider from the GBA, went unnoticed or without challenge from the profession's regulator itself, and others in the Government who themselves are solicitors and members of the Law Society of Scotland, even giving the occasional 'pledge' in Parliament to defend their legal colleagues at any cost whatsoever ...
The effort of 'negotiation' by the Law Society of Scotland to raise the legal aid payments for summary criminal legal aid work certainly now looks duplicitous to say the least, but isn't that the case with just about everything involving the Scots legal profession as a whole these days ?
If only the Scots legal profession would make the effort to clear up its sins of the past, rather than put its power into underhanded, devious and costly policies of twisting or thwarting legislation which threatened its way of earning money or maintaining market monopoly over legal services, then wouldn't solicitors in general gain a little more respect ... or does respect for the legal profession come second to profits ? .. something which one may conclude after the recent events reported in this legal aid scandal ...
Evidence enough if any is needed, the Law Society of Scotland has failed yet again as the legal profession's self regulator .. allowing elements of its members to run riot with justice reforms which involve taxpayer's money, attempting the same twists and turns to legal aid reforms, legislation and public opinion which the Society itself has been so well practiced over the years ...
Here follows the Law Society's two Press Releases, issued the same weekend as the Sunday Herald's first expose of the Glasgow Bar Association's spin effort which are reprinted here to give readers an idea of the Law Society's 'matching effort' on legal aid to that of the GBA.
Evidently, the Society felt it important to make two releases ...given there was to be critical press coverage over the weekend of the Scot's legal profession's stance on summary criminal legal aid reforms.
Special General Meeting Debates Legal Aid
Solicitors should remain at the heart of the process to monitor the effect of the reforms to summary justice and recent changes to the legal aid payment structure, the Law Society of Scotland will tell a debate this week.
The debate at a Special General Meeting (SGM) at the Society’s Edinburgh headquarters today (Friday, 22 August) will consider the impact of the reforms introduced earlier this year.
Oliver Adair, the convener of the Society’s Legal Aid Solicitors Committee, will stress to delegates the value of remaining part of a process for reviewing the reforms with the Cabinet Secretary at the end of the year.
He said: “The Society shares the concerns of many of our members about the reforms to legal aid, particularly the overall drop in the budget.
“However, we have already held positive negotiations with the Scottish Government and won a number of important concessions on behalf of the solicitors’ profession. We believe those reforms are the best deal currently attainable in extremely difficult circumstances.
“We are committed to continuing discussions with the government and Scottish Legal Aid Board to ensure the reforms are reviewed and any anomalies are rectified. That way, the system of criminal legal aid will be improved for solicitors and their clients.”
Oliver Adair added that it was puzzling why the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) had called the SGM at this time.
He said: “The Society has set up a Monitoring and Evaluation Group to take soundings from the profession so it is puzzling why they have called this meeting.
“The profession’s representatives in the review process are all legal aid practitioners themselves and are well aware of the concerns with some aspects of the reforms. We would urge colleagues to continue to provide us with valuable feedback, particularly examples of where the reforms are not working. We will then put those concerns to Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice.”
A motion supporting the Society’s representatives on the Monitoring and Evaluation Group will be put to the SGM.
Notes to editors:
• The summary justice reforms had the unanimous support of all parties in the Scottish Parliament. Where the reforms required legislative change, provisions were included in the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) Scotland Act 2007. The reforms were introduced in March 2008.
• Changes to the system of criminal legal assistance were introduced to complement the summary justice reforms, in particular, to encourage the early resolution of cases. The new legal aid system was introduced on 30 June 2008.
• Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, agreed to an “open and transparent” review of the reforms. A meeting with representatives of the legal profession and others involved in the review process is due to take place in December 2008.
ENDS FRIDAY, AUGUST 22
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please contact Suzy Powell on 0131 476 8115 / 07712 488875 or at suzypowell@lawscot.org.uk
OVERWHELMING BACKING FOR CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGAL AID REFORMS
Solicitors from across Scotland today, Friday, 22 August, gave overwhelming backing to the Law Society’s policy of reviewing reforms to the system of criminal legal aid.
Around 60 solicitors, mostly involved in criminal legal aid work, attended a Special General Meeting (SGM) at the Society’s Edinburgh headquarters. Pledges of support had also been given to the Society by more 350 solicitors from throughout the country.
A motion supporting the Society’s representatives who are monitoring and reviewing reforms to summary criminal legal assistance, which were introduced earlier this year, was passed unopposed.
A further motion, also passed unopposed, described cuts to summary criminal legal aid as “unacceptable” and urged the Society to press the Scottish Government to ensure savings in the overall criminal justice budget were reinvested in legal aid.
A third motion condemned the increase in bureaucracy caused by the reforms. It was also passed unopposed.
The SGM was called by the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) to debate the reforms and future of legal aid. The GBA supported the continuing involvement of the Society’s representatives in the review, though declined to re-join the process.
Oliver Adair, the convener of the Society’s Legal Aid Solicitors Committee, stressed to the meeting the value of remaining part of a process for reviewing the reforms.
He urged members of the profession to continue to feed back any concerns over the reforms. They will be put to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, at a meeting due to take place in December. The minister has said he will consider rectifying any anomalies identified during the review process.
Further consultation will then be staged with the profession and a meeting held early next year to gather further feedback.
Notes to editors:
* The motions passed at the SGM were: “The Special General Meeting of 22nd August 2008 believes that any cut in the summary criminal legal aid budget, after nine years with no increase in the fixed fee, is unacceptable and urges the Law Society of Scotland to continue pressing the government to reinvest savings in the overall criminal justice budget in legal aid.”
“The SGM of 22nd August 2008 condemns the increased bureaucracy involved in the administration of the summary criminal legal aid reforms.”
“The SGM of 22nd August 2008 supports the Law Society of Scotland representatives on the Summary Criminal Legal Assistance Monitoring and Evaluation Group in their negotiations with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.”
* The summary justice reforms had the unanimous support of all parties in the Scottish Parliament. Where the reforms required legislative change, provisions were included in the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) Scotland Act 2007. The reforms were introduced in March 2008.
* Changes to the system of criminal legal assistance were introduced to complement the summary justice reforms, in particular, to encourage the early resolution of cases. The new legal aid system was introduced on 30 June 2008.
* Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, agreed to an “open and transparent” review of the reforms. A meeting with representatives of the legal profession and others involved in the review process is due to take place in December 2008.
ENDS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please contact Suzy Powell on 0131 476 8115 / 07712 488875 or at suzypowell@lawscot.org.uk
19 comments:
Early bird catches the worm?
A friend of mine was at that meeting last week,knew all about the GBA as did many attending.
I will not be raising a glass to Mr Adair.I do not believe the Law Society knew nothing of what was going on.
Interesting,I thought the Sunday Herald were just having a dig at a Labour media organ but now I see from yours today the GBA and the Law Society had this all stitched up.
Good work as always Peter.I really think you should have been a lawyer !
Oliver Adair wont win any points for that comment which makes the whole thing look more suspicious.
I seem to sense you have something to do with all of this.Am I being mystic or is that the case ?
# Anonymous @ 9.11am
I received some good tips during an interview last night ... and can only agree with your comment, along with my further article on the issue today.
# Anonymous @ 12.07pm
A couple of coincidental Press Releases from the Law Society amid a hastily arranged 'special general meeting' from the GBA ... one could hardly think either one was in the dark over the other's intentions ...
I don't think I would have lasted as a lawyer under the rule of the Law Society of Scotland - they have a habit of threatening any of their members who dare criticise their rule ...
#Anonymous @ 12.45pm
I agree ... and perhaps some more to come oin this story later ..
Don't you think its slightly amazing the nats haven't been all over this story or is it because it involves lawyers and no one really gives a shit about protecting a lawyer or helping to fill their pockets as Mr Macaskill seems to be doing!
So by the looks of it the order of events was GBA hires MMM then tells Law Society.Law Society does nothing.GBA + MMM are rumbled by the media then the GBA & Law Society arrange the laughable special meeting to give each other the chance to deny anything ever happened.
Great stuff.Just goes to show the legal profession can never and never will be trusted.Smoke them out Peter and continue your work.Do you think the hootsmon will have a go at spinning it in for the Law Society or is the whole thing too obvious even for them ?
Yet more good analysis Mr Cherbi and your conclusion the LSS knew of the GBA's media sting is spot on.
Well well well the GBA took the wrong route as usual and it is left to Peter Cherbi et all to reveal the sordid details of what went on in the backrooms of Glasgow legal firms.
Are you against criminal legal aid Peter?
What would you say if it were withdrawn and people lost this access to justice you talk about so much? Would you take that up as an 'injustice' issue too?
Do you think solicitors should just work for free?
Do you actually know any criminal defence solicitors and how these legal aid reforms are hitting their businesses?
You better tackle both sides of the story before accusing the profession of colluding with members in this alleged media fiddle
Your posting even made today's partners meeting Mr Cherbi.All complimentary comments too compared with what the Law Society ended up being called!
TTNF
Thoroughly riveting Peter.So much for those who say there is no conspiracy by lawyers to keep their bad news to themselves.
Keep nipping at their ankles or whatever it is you do because its damn good !
Well done on the expose too Peter.You certainly proved the Law Society was in on it.Adair's explanation stinks to high heaven !
Surely the Law Society would never stoop to such dirty tricks ?
# Anonymous @ 1.34pm
No not amazing in the slightest. Party orders to protect the legal profession ? Whatever next !
# "Spin in the City" @ 1.50pm
I agree with your summary of events and I don't think the Scotsman will be up for a repeat of the story under the present circumstances ...
# Anonymous @ 3.46pm
Thanks
# Anonymous @ 4.33pm
No I'm not against Criminal Legal Aid, but milking the legal aid system I am against.
Would you support a falsehood to obtain taxpayers money ?
If Criminal Legal Aid was withdrawn from an individual wrongly, it would qualify as an injustice issue.
No I don't think solicitors should work for free - but the legal profession shouldn't be able to set its own fees to clients.
I know several Criminal Defence solicitors, one of whom I would always recommend to anyone who needed one (and have done so in the past).
If you want to correct the problems the legal profession is facing, tackle the since it has caused in the past - and you will get more respect for your legal aid argument ...
# Anonymous @ 5.01pm
I am so happy ...
# Anonymous @ 6.36pm
I try ...we all try ...
# Anonymous @ 7.15pm
Thanks.
# Anonymous @ 9.19pm
Yes, and all in a day's work for the Law Society ...
Let's get this timeline straight.
The GBA launches secret media campaign to oppose summary justice reforms on grounds that they are an affront to justice.
The GBA also launches not so secret capmaign of laughable 'industrual action' in protest at said affront to justice.
The Law Society condemns the industrial action and decides to work with government to monitor the operation of the reforms.
The GBA thinks this means the Law Society is not representing their interests, so calls special general meeting, partly to condemn the Law Society.
SGM turns out to be something of a damp squib when GBA end up backing the Law Society's more constructive approach (because they knew they would lose a vote because they only got 12 people on their bus from Glasgow).
THEN Sunday Herald exposes GBA as two faced money grabbing swine with their snouts firmly in the legal aid trough.
THEN the hootsmon carries exactly the same story.
Most of world thinks 'nothing wrong with hiring PR company to argue your case, but GBA are duplicitous swine because they got their PR agents to argue a different case (it's about justice v it's about money)'.
World not exactly shocked to hear that lawyers like money and will sh*t stir as much as they can to keep hold of it.
Big kudos to the Herald for finally saying in print what everyone had thought all along. And yes, the Society must have known about the campaign, but then part of it was against them. And yes, Kenny Macaskill must have known about the campaign, but then most of it was against him. Oh yes, and the Herald and Scotsman must have known about the campaign because WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY WERE GETTING THEIR SUMMARY JUSTICE STORIES FROM?
It's not so much that the press has woken up to the 'secret campaign': the press has been a very willing party in all of this. They've just decided that money grabbing lawyers make better sport than slagging off reforms that are meant to make the justice system better and cheaper.
And balance is restored to the world.
If you go to the original Herald link on the first story you will see Gerry Considine struggle with an explanation for the whole thing.
Yet more media management from the Law Society and various groups of lawyers bent on taking as much as possible from the taxpayers purse.
Who will investigate ? No one because its in nobodys interests it gets out what they are doing which is basically robbing the country blind.
An interesting turn of events for the GBA who were caught investigating the SNP.I wonder why they were doing that?
I like the comment at 942am! I'd say the GBA are going to be for it now !
Maybe they should get better media advisers or MAYBE they should topple the Law Society from that bloody perch it does not deserve.
Go lads - get those Edinburgh shites out of our hair - they are doing the worst job ever just as Cherbi has always said !
To the previous post discussing 'balance'... what balance?
The Law Society - a self regulating monopoly which claims to give equal and impartial consideration to both the interests of the public and the legal profession simultaneously - but has never been able to give a credible explanation to anyone of how it performs this inherently compromised and unattainable agenda - is now seen to be in cahoots with members of the legal profession, behind closed doors, to undermine the policy of a democratically elected Government.
The Press and Politicians knowing of this agenda and the dubious, not to say thoroughly corrupt, reliance of the legal profession upon the disgraced insurance provider Marsh since at least the 1990's, does nothing - the occasional lip service apart, and this only delivered when even the most uninformed begin to realise that there is indeed convincing evidence to suggest that 2+2=4.
Disregarding all of the above Salmond, Swinney and the SNP - who are content to see a lawyer continued to be allowed pose as Justice Minister - tacitly prevent any proper or effecitive regulation of the legal profession, a 'process' which descends daily from travesty to farce.
Clearly all those mentioned above deserve a much wider audience.
Post a Comment