Monday, March 30, 2009

Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity

Jane IrvineJane Irvine, SLCC Chair supports Law Society's compliance with FOI. In a startling rebuke to the Law Society of Scotland's campaign to remain a super secret unaccountable regulator of Scottish solicitors, Jane Irvine, the Chairman of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has sided with law reformers and Freedom of Information campaigners who are seeking to bring the Law Society of Scotland under the scope of Freedom of Information legislation.

Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC said: “If the Law Society of Scotland were ever to become FOI compliant, there could be considerable advantages to consumers and practitioners.".

Jane Irvine, formerly Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, following on from Linda Costelloe Baker, and is now Chair of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is the first high profile personality in the Scottish legal world to support the notion that the Law Society's secrecy status, which has caused much injustice to clients of 'crooked lawyers' over the years, is a thing of the past.

Ms Irvine believes, like many outside the secret society style bubble of the legal establishment, that now in the new era of the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and greater demands for scrutiny, particularly in the wake of global banking failures, that consumers, and even the legal profession itself could benefit from the transparency, accountability & openness which compliance with Freedom of Information legislation brings to public bodies, services and industry.

Jane Irvine cautioned however, that some parts of the Law Society's work may yet be required to keep secret from the public : "However, under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 there would inevitably be significant areas of information that would need to remain confidential in order to comply with the legislation. It therefore it would be important for expectations to be managed.”

Law Society of ScotlandLaw Society of Scotland proved many times it cannot be trusted as a secret regulator. As a law reform campaigner myself, I would have to slightly disagree with the SLCC Chair on some points, as evidence has shown from previous investigations carried out by the Law Society into crooked lawyers that it simply cannot be trusted as a secret self regulatory body, which has for the main, stood by many solicitors who ended up ruining their clients, and now it appears, has also allowed solicitors with criminal records to carry on practicing, with their clients totally unaware their legal representative is more of a criminal than some who arrive in their office requiring their services in court !

I would also point to some secrecy problems with the SLCC itself, where censorship of FOI requests has led to suspicion the Law Society, even after being forced to comply with freedom of information laws, would also use the black ink to hide behind confidentiality in order to continue protecting crooked lawyers …

MacAskill tight lippedJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s intentions to keep Law Society secret outflanked by reformers. Jane Irvine's stance on consumers gaining increased protection from crooked lawyers by removing the Law Society’s exemption from information laws, contrasts radically with the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s intentions, which were revealed last week after he issued a terse statement backing continued secrecy for the solicitors governing body.

MacAskill no intention to include Law Society in FOI reviewDiary of Injustice exposed MacAskill's gaffe on Law Society FOI secrecy. Last Monday I reported in an article the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill made a staggering policy U-turn in the space of a few hours, after initially letting slip he "had no intention of including the Law Society in any FOI review". However later in the day, as Government officials became aware of others giving more positive quotes to the story, a spokesman for the Justice Secretary reversed his initial statement seeking to maintain the Law Society's much coveted exemption from Freedom of Information laws, saying the matter was still open for discussion and organisations could still be suggested for inclusion in the 'open ended' review.

MacAskill challenged over Law Society FOI exemptionDiary of Injustice starts campaign to remove FOI exemption from Law Society of Scotland. Late last week, I began an open campaign which anyone can join to bring the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates into line with other parts of Scotland’s legal system, making them compliant with Freedom of Information legislation. You can join in the campaign to bring the legal profession into the scope of the anti secrecy FOI legislation too by emailing the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill here scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or write to him at : Kenny MacAskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice,The Scottish Government,St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG.

There is no place in our society, currently being battered by banking failures produced by the same soft touch, closed ranks regulation which the Law Society has been forcing on clients of the legal profession for decades.

There can be no argument for maintaining any level of secrecy for the Law Society of Scotland. The Law Society is an organisation which has proved time and again it has no respect for the rights of clients of solicitors, and has no intention of compensating vast numbers of clients who have lost millions of pounds to the actions of ‘crooked lawyers’.

The Law Society must be stripped of its immunity from Freedom of Information laws, and its remaining powers of investigating complaints against its own members and discipline powers transferred to an entirely independent body not mired in the overriding policies of self protectionism and anti client prejudice.

27 comments:

  1. Good for you Jane but I don't think anyone believes the Law Society is entitled to any secrecy after what happened with the banks!

    Keep up the good work Peter!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think MacAskill has the right to exclude his friends at the Law Society from foi and you are right to pursue it.

    As for Jane Irvine from what I've read of your blog before her slcc has a lot of problems with foi but at least they release the info unlike the other mob.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I still want to know why the law society had immunity in the first place.It stinks this has been going on since freedom of info started in 2002

    ReplyDelete
  4. Have the crooks at the Law Society started burning their files yet ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are too many cop outs from foi to allow lawyers any extra immunity and Macaskill's attitude is disgusting to put it mildly.
    How much does the Law Society have on him to command that kind of attitude ????

    ReplyDelete
  6. congrats for the wee success laddie !
    just shows u have to keep getting in their face to get some changes

    ReplyDelete
  7. The law society have probably read this,called her up and threatened something by now if she continues against them.The question is will she stand up to bent lawyers and how did she do as SLSO ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. At last some movement by people who should have been speaking out more a long time ago.I hope more comes of this and that all lawyers are made to obey FOI not just their Law Society.

    ReplyDelete
  9. probably Irvine and the slcc are so worried by the bashing youve given them recently she decided to agree with you

    good trick but watch she doesnt back down like they usually do sometimes

    ReplyDelete
  10. Freedom of information is a very good thing Peter.Just look at the problems its caused greedy politicians who take millions in expenses without helping the rest of us.
    Your campaign is to be respected and I hope it succeeds with your aims.

    Good luck :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. You should have been on this thing due to your experience with crooked lawyers but they went and put crooked lawyers on it instead.
    I was reading all about you today and those crooks that ruined your life.They should have both been sent to jail along with those at the Law Society who helped them.

    Good to see you gave some of it back and caused this not so happy bunch a lot of grief.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Can't help thinking this is just a sop given the SLCC's own censoring of FOI responses to one applicant and uncensored releases of the same material to another.

    No if's, but's, or maybe's - the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates must be FOI compliant in full, not just part.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Irvine jumps ship to save her own skin now everyone knows (rather than thinks) that bankers lawyers and just about anyone involved with money are and always have been crooks.How timely for her but still a coup for all your efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter

    Don't forget the SSDT is also currently exempt from FOI.

    Make sure you include the tribunal in your campaign to bring them into line with the SLCC.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No doubt this will be on the agenda today at the Law Society and Jane will be the target of a few nasty emails later on.

    ReplyDelete
  16. something about something leaving the sinking ship would be a suitable comment ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. You are stirring up one hell of a hornets nest Peter

    ReplyDelete
  18. well at least Irvine went with the flow instead of MacAskill who now looks out of step

    keep up the good work peter and lets hear some more about the SLCC too!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pity the hootsmon wouldnt take the story up because it could cause a lot of unwelcome changes for LSS.

    I suppose 1.5p a share hootsmon are too afraid they will lose their hallowed law column on a Tuesday which is only good for wiping my arse on anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another comment makes a good point.

    The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal is also exempt from FOI and you should add that to your campaign Peter as I know you will.

    The SSDT are as crooked as the Law Society and just another rubber stamp for bent lawyers

    ReplyDelete
  21. Its not really the full vote of "lets rip the guts out of the Law Society" she should be saying.

    Is it possible Jane and the SLCC couldn't really do without the Law Society ?

    ReplyDelete
  22. so more to the point why did the Scottish Executive allow lawyers an FOI exemption in 2002 and why are the SNP resisting making them comply with FOI now ?

    f*king lawyers are as bad as bankers if you dont mind me saying so

    ReplyDelete
  23. I dont believe Jane Irvine one bit and anyway where are the rest of the slcc board on this ? I would fathom a guess that anyone connected with the Law Society will be instructed by their real masters not to support the FOI principle.

    We are all in agreement I think on this : You need to be on this SLCC for it to have any credibility!

    ReplyDelete
  24. bit rich of irvine to say that with all the probs the slcc have !

    ReplyDelete
  25. I second those who are saying the SSDT should be made accountable to foi.

    I had a complaint with the Law Society years ago about my lawyer who used our own house titles as a security for rescuing his law firm.The Law Society tried to cover it up by taking on the complaint itself and when it went to the SSDT they passed it back to the Law SOciety because it wasnt handled properly supposedly and still after FOUR YEARS we havent got a result yet.

    THEY ARE ALL CROOKS!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Clearly the powers that be want to keep the Law Societies skeletons in the cupboard. What does MacAskill have to hide?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Pull the other one Jane.Its got bells on !

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.