Monday, April 20, 2009

Law Society ‘puppet’ tribunal allows crooked lawyer to remain in practice as fraud levels soar in Scots legal profession

Law SocietyLaw Society puppet tribunals protect crooked lawyers. Consumers of legal services in Scotland remain as unprotected as ever from the crooked element of the Scottish legal profession, as the media report the latest failure of self regulation by the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, that of allowing well known solicitor John G O’Donnell, from Glasgow, to remain in practice, despite a trail of client complaints and deception stretching back years.

REVEALED - Top Lawyer at the centre of 12 negligence claimsSunday Mail previous report on claims against John G O’Donnell. Mr O' Donnell, is still facing over 21 client claims for negligence against his work as a solicitor, but while the SSDT and the Law Society have pursued the complaints, and issued one of the weakest punishments available to them, the damages claims for negligence, which are being handled by the Law Society's infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy remain to be settled, and as one ex-member of staff from the Law Society said this morning "will probably take years to settle".

You can read the full Discipline Tribunal report here : SSDT findings on John G O'Donnell or, alternatively, HERE

The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal decision : “The Tribunal find John Gerard O’Donnell, 15 Clarkston Road, Glasgow; Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of his failure to comply with undertakings given to an individual and that individual’s solicitor, his unreasonable delay in having a lease completed and registered and his misleading the individual and the individual’s solicitor in that regard and his failure to advise the individual and the individual’s solicitor of the true position, his failure to comply with the guidelines on mandates 1998, his misleading the Law Society and his unreasonable delay on a number of occasions in responding to the reasonable enquiries of the Law Society.”

.. and for all that, no fine, and only a restricted practising certificate !

Philip Yelland - Director of Regulation - Law Society of ScotlandPhilip Yelland, in charge of standards at Law Society for years, but still plenty of John G O’Donnells & Andrew Penmans. As you can see from the decision handed down by the puppet Discipline Tribunal, Mr O’Donnell, like many other solicitors who handle their clients affairs so badly, has been allowed to remain in practice, and the only reason this case got to the Tribunal was because the Sunday Mail was keeping tabs on the case. If there had been no media attention, it is highly likely that Mr O’Donnell, just like many other lawyers, some even charged with criminal offences, would have walked free after a complaints whitewash from his legal colleagues at the Law Society of Scotland.

It is of note there is not one shred of concern for the clients or their many claims for negligence, currently being strung out, delayed, meddled with, fiddled with, and generally wiped out by the dirty tricks department of the Law Society, of which many of us have come to know and experience over the years.

You can read more about how the Law Society deals with negligence claims made against Scottish solicitors here : Lawyers negligence insurance branded corrupt, anti-consumer as evidence reveals only one per cent of clients get chance of payout

Scottish Legal Complaints CommissionSLCC of no help to victims of O'Donnell. Asked today if the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would be of any help to the many victims of Mr O'Donnell, a legal insider said "The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are about as much use as a dead duck. They have spent most of their time so far doing what is best for themselves, and have passed most complaints back to the Law Society simply because they are too hot to handle."

He went on "I don't see how the SLCC can justify their existence when all they have done is grumble about the size of their salaries, threaten to resign just because they had no Personal Insurance cover, and are trying to avoid taking up most of their responsibilities to protect clients from the likes of O'Donnell, while charging the legal profession and soaking up public money like a sponge."

Sensationally a retired solicitor, sickened by the constant scandals within the legal profession spoke out last night, warning the public they would have to do more against crooked lawyers or face their own legal problems when they needed a solicitor.

He said : "As long as solicitors don't fear regulation, there will always be 'crooked lawyers' out there getting away with whatever they can. Just look at what Mr O'Donnell has been up to, and the time it has taken the Law Society and the SSDT to do something, which at the end of the day amounted to a slap on the wrist."

ScottishGovernmentScottish Government accused of looking the other way on crooked lawyers. He also went on to accuse civil servants within the Scottish Government, and politicians of allowing the legal profession to circumvent the rights of clients whenever they felt like it. He said : "I was a solicitor for 30 years, and its no secret among us the Law Society, civil servants & Ministers within the Scottish Government share a common purpose in preventing fully independent regulation from being a reality and ensuring proper oversight of what you regularly describe, with some justification, as a thoroughly corrupt legal profession."

Strangely enough, I have reported on that subject nearly two years ago : Justice Secretary rejects independent regulation of lawyers and public right of choice in legal services market

An official with a consumer group said : "If you think about it, it's almost as if paedophiles can call up Government Ministers or civil servants and get them to drop charges against them. That is the extent of what happens between the Law Society and Scotland's elected lawmakers. A cosy relationship that neither wish to end because its been so profitable to both in the past, and be warned, they will do anything to protect it."

Here is an example of just how far that relationship between the Law Society and the Scottish Government goes :

Kenny MacAskill defends the O’Donnell’s of his beloved legal profession at all costs, regardless of their victims plight.


John G O Donnell Sunday Mail 19 April 2009Exclusive: Watchdogs force one of country's worst lawyers out of firm

Apr 19 2009 By Russell Findlay

ONE OF Scotland’s worst lawyers has been forced out of business by legal watchdogs. John O’Donnell, 58, was accused of having “contempt” for the Law Society of Scotland by repeatedly snubbing clients and ignoring complaints.

He has been banned from working unsupervised for five years by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal (SSDT). It means he can no longer run his own law firm but can still work as a lawyer.

Legal reformer Peter Cherbi of Injustice Scotland said: “This lawyer is unfit to practise and should have been struck off. Instead he gets a slap on the wrist. “Again the Law Society and SSDT have failed to protect the public. This shows self-regulation doesn’t work.”

The Sunday Mail first exposed O’Donnell five years ago when cops probing an alleged money laundering gang raided his John G O’Donnell & Co office in Cathcart, Glasgow.

We revealed he faced at least 21 negligence complaints and compensation claims of more than £1million. But it took until last year for the SSDT to find him guilty of six counts of misconduct including breaching money laundering rules. O’Donnell claimed he suffered depression but had a clean bill of health and got off with a £500 fine.

He was finally forced out of business by an SSDT ruling in February, details of which were only released last week at the Sunday Mail’s request.

The SSDT found he lied to clients, their lawyers and the Law Society, and said they were “not convinced” by his explanations. They added: “It is imperative solicitors are honest at all times.”

One legal source said: “He got away with playing the sickness card for years. “This smacks of too little, too late.”

O’Donnell, who did not return our calls for comment, is trying to sell his business before the ban begins on June 1 but can still advertise his services until then.

A legal insider said: “This guy was subject to discipline last year. “Yet he is trusted to wind up the affairs of his clients and none of them are aware of what is happening.”

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, quite right Peter.

Hey Kenny why do you defend all these bloody crooks ? How much are you getting for it ?

Anonymous said...

Just as I have said before

Lawyers investigating lawyers means no justice for clients. Lawyers are legalised thiefs.

Anonymous said...

May I make a suggestion.

If people who are trying to claim against their lawyer start citing Kenny MacAskill as a witness then that might put the brakes on his tongue.

Clearly he could be called an "expert witness" in matters of law and definitely in matters of protecting lawyers so get going people - you know what to do !

Keep up the good work Peter

Anonymous said...

May 2th 1940 Leo Amery made a speech in the House of Commons which had a devastating effect of Chaimberlain's conduct of the war. It also applies to Kenny MacAskill.

Mr MacAskill,

"You have sat too long in the Scottish Parliament for any good you have been doing, depart I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god go".

Replace this man with a minister who will create an independent complaints commission with no lawyers.

Anonymous said...

""I was a solicitor for 30 years, and its no secret among us the Law Society, civil servants & Ministers within the Scottish Government share a common purpose in preventing fully independent regulation from being a reality and ensuring proper oversight of what you regularly describe, with some justification, as a thoroughly corrupt legal profession."

Your source has said what I have believed for years.Politicians have been and still are so enthralled (or are themselves a part of) the legal profession and while these people carry sway with our elected representatives nothing much will change.Unless maybe the public gets up off their fat behinds and engages in some major serious protests.

I live in hope there is justice said...

can hardly believe macaskill said that

what a shit and the bent lawyer too

keep exposing these thugs for what they are

Anonymous said...

Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, you show us how much you love lawyers and detest members of the public who complain about your colleagues.

Anonymous said...

Mr John G O'Donnell suffered from depression. It is strange how lawyers and doctors in a tight corner, seem to suffer from this. Perhaps Mr O'Donnell was depressed because he did not screw enough clients. The SSDT are clearly influenced by his depression as they have allowed him to work if supervised, clients have nothing to worry about now, do they? I am sure a supervising colleague will make sure that O'Donnell's clients are looked after, fat chance.

Anonymous said...

Mow that Mr Mills is teaching Law at Glasgow University - on £80,00 a year - I wonder who the Law Society will choose to write memos to its notorious and disgraced insurance provider Marsh?

Time for a sebatacle perhaps Douglas?

Anonymous said...

Not even a Labour politician has stood up and said something like that in Parliament.What a bloody crook Macaskill should be sacked

Anonymous said...

Yes no doubt about it.MacAskill's arse has been bought and paid for by the Law Society.
No wonder ODonnell gets off the hook too with a justice minister like that.
Fucking disgrace makes me hate lawyers even more now

Anonymous said...

To the comment at 3 27pm

That is one of the best ideas I've heard for awhile but the problem is most people who have trouble with their lawyer can never get to court because they cant get a lawyer to pursue another lawyer.

Still its a good idea and people should start citing MacAskill in their witness lists AND let everyone know they are doing it too.

Good work Peter,keep up the writing - its great stuff!

Anonymous said...

Good to see the Sunday Mail going after these crooks and a great write up from you too Peter.

Keep up the good work all of you !

Anonymous said...

The lawyer submitting a comment at 4.09 PM said,
"Unless maybe the public gets up off their fat behinds and engages in some major serious protests".


I agree with you, if lawyers had affected as many people as the poll tax did, this would have been sorted long ago. A TV advert would help. I have no faith in lawyers, doctors and other professions. The political will is clearly not there, our politicians want to keep self regulation because it must be of financial benefit to them. No doubt Marsh UK will be providing benefits to sway the politicians in their favour.

Anonymous said...

Fraud levels against the clients of lawyers soar for the same reason as any other crime where the punishment is a slap on the wrist.

Anonymous said...

Readers check the website NAME AND SHAME SCOTLAND. There are some info on doctors, lawyers, judges, police etc.

Derek McGuire said...

Ive just been reading through your blog today Mr Peter Cherbi.

Very well put together and I admire the fact you are not affiliated to any political party.

I think you have a great deal of credibility in your writing and what you have obviously done for others and I just want to say I support you 100% on your arguments against self regulation.

Anonymous said...

I agree the SSDT is a set up just to protect bent lawyers as I found out myself .

I made a complaint to the Law Society about my lawyer 3 years ago,they took the complaint over and watered it down,sent it to the SSDT and they rejected it without even a hearing.

Never trust the SSDT anyone.

hat in a box said...

Peter. As a solicitor let me just say I absolutely cant stand clients at all and from what I see of John's case they got what they deserved.

I hope the retired solicitor you sourced kicks the bucket soon to free us from any further offerings we can all do without.

I might just go off and overcharge a few clients for spite.
How dos that grab you ?

Anonymous said...

Every law firm in Scotland is corrupt. If you need to deal with them Peter Cherbi's name will install fear in them. Their masters at the Law Society and
the SLCC cover up their corrupt methods. Mr Cherbi will not.
Imagine if a member of the Law Society shot a client. The Law Society then asks Scottish Ministers to draft legislation which makes murdering clients legal. There would be outrage from the public and rightly so.
That is what is happening, but it is not murder, they specialise in, but ripping off clients. Section 43 in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act is there to silence whistleblowers in the SLCC. So Scottish Ministers have agreed this so the Law Societies lawyers can keep ripping clients off with impunity. Some independent complaints handling system.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments on this article, and I'm sorry I haven't had the time to answer all so far - busy with cases being brought to my attention, cases of a remarkably similar nature to Mr O'Donnell.

One comment which descended into threats, asked me if I was writing these exposes on the SLCC because I wanted a place on it.

I do not.

I am not a collaborator and I will most certainly never have anything to do with the SLCC, which in my opinion is now just an extension of the Law Society, as many of you have come to realise.

If there is to be true consumer protection for the legal services market, and at the same time an independent regulator which will maintain the highest standards of legal service to the public, an organisation will have to be comprised of people well outside the legal profession, with no links at all. We did not get this with the SLCC, as you have all read here, and while lawyers are still included in the key elements of regulation, there will be no peace for clients, and no peace for crooked lawyers or those who protect the guilty.

To be honest, from what I have had to read in the past few days, I think that solicitors who ruin their clients in ways expressed to me, should be charged initially with criminal assault, stripped of their practising certificate immediately, just as say, a Police Officer may be suspended as a result of charges or allegations made against them, and the matter dealt with both criminal and civil authorities simultaneously with respect to their own particular remits.

Nothing short of what I am proposing, will clean up a very corrupt industry, which has been allowed to regulate itself for far too long.

Anonymous said...

THIS PARAGRAPH IS FROM THE BBC NEWS WEBSITE

"Alex Salmond tells the STUC his government is using every lever at its disposal to protect jobs in the recession".

Victims of crooked lawyers, do you notice he never uses levers to end self regulation of the legal profession. On the contrary his levers help the lawyers. At the next election give Salmond the boot with his SNP colleagues.
WE want Justice for the victims of the legal establishment, not crooked politicians like Salmond.

Anonymous said...

Responding to post at 4.23PM.

Hello Solicitor,

Nice to see you are upset, you have demonstrated by your remarks why we are fighting.
Clearly you detest clients, (the feeling is mutual) but you are not revealing your identity, lets face it, no clients, no income.
You will not overcharge clients for spite, you will as a matter of course like all of your profession. The Law Society High Command will kiss you for that.

Anonymous said...

Well said Peter and I completely agree with you as always,however I dont feel we will ever be rid of these criminals who purport to handle our legal affairs unless we have good people such as you included on the regulator to ensure justice be done.

I think most people will probably agree there are not too many like you around sadly :(

Anonymous said...

PLEASE READ THIS AGAIN POST AT
4:23 PM.

Peter. As a solicitor let me just say I absolutely cant stand clients at all and from what I see of John's case they got what they deserved.

PETER WE HAVE CERTAINLY RATTLED THIS MONKEYS CAGE.
MR OR MISS SOLICITOR YOU SHOULD PUT THE ABOVE STATEMENT ON YOUR DESK. THANK GOD YOUR ARE NOT A DOCTOR WITH THE SAME ATTITUDE TO PATIENTS. SHIPMAN MARK II.
Readers note how he or she witholds their identity. When anyone goes to a lawyers office remember this person may be sitting opposite you.
Perhaps they work for the Law Society or SLCC, no wonder there are coverups. This solicitor has plenty of compassion for John O'Donnells situation and contempt for clients. A CLEAR ADVERT WHY INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS HANDLING IS PARAMOUNT.

Anonymous said...

All lawyers disgust me now

Anonymous said...

Surprised you published my comment

Boohoo to those who complain.Tough.

At any rate your response demonstrates why only solicitors can be on the SLCC.What mistakes we make if we make them must be dealt with by the profession itself rather than outsiders,the majority of whom (perhaps not including yourself) who have no understanding of what actually goes on in a solicitor's office.

Anonymous said...

Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, with the punishment John O'Donnell got it should be renamed the Scottish Solicitors Tribunal.
Discipline seems to out of the scope of their remit.

Anonymous said...

Mr Yelland has been at Client Relations for so long because he's good at his job which is seeing to it that complaints against his bent colleagues hit the waste basket.

Anonymous said...

I agree Peter - the whole complaints system against lawyers should be criminalised and just as you say when a lawyer is charged they should be stopped from working straight away.Brilliant idea from you which comes as no surprise reading your stuff but to stop the cops and Crown Office whitewashing the case too there would have to be an extra layer of scrutiny to keep them straight too wouldn't you agree ?

Anonymous said...

I noticed that Douglas Mill - made ridiculous suicide jibe in the Scotsman after Herald reported the Justice 2 confrontation between Swinney & Mill over interference in claims & access to justice.
Mr Mill I cannot speak for the Law Society but as far as Mr Cherbi's supporters are concerned, I can assure you, you won't be missed. If you were an honest man you would still have your old job.

Anonymous said...

Surprised you published my comment

Boohoo to those who complain.Tough.

At any rate your response demonstrates why only solicitors can be on the SLCC.What mistakes we make if we make them must be dealt with by the profession itself rather than outsiders,the majority of whom (perhaps not including yourself) who have no understanding of what actually goes on in a solicitor's office.

NO WAY WILL YOU KEEP REGULATING YOURSELVES, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT GENUINE MISTAKES, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GENUINE CORRUPTION. LAWYERS INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS AGAINST LAWYERS = CORRUPTION, IT YOU DON'T LIKE THIS, TOUGH.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN A LAWYER TAKING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER LAWYER FOR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. YOUR JUSTICE IS COVERING UP, AND AS LONG AS THE STATUS QUO REMAINS CLIENTS WILL HAVE NO JUSTICE. WHAT HAPPENS IN A LAWYERS OFFICE IN MANY CASES IS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, WITH A CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS SYSTEM WHICH COVERS EVERYTHING UP.

7:59 PM

Anonymous said...

Peter. As a solicitor let me just say I absolutely cant stand clients at all and from what I see of John's case they got what they deserved.

Readers, please read between the lines regarding what this solicitor is saying, he cannot stand clients, they got what they deserved. He clearly loves John O'Donnell, this love between solicitors is the reason you and I cannot get justice against the legal profession. Professional love eliminates the possibility of a fair and just legal system. How can this person possibly look at a complaint from a client and judge what is happening on the written evidence. Your documents would go on the fire.
Solicitor you said you cannot stand clients, you are a fool for saying this. How can you represent a person fairly if you cannot stand them. You are a coward because you do not want us to know your name. You demonstrate a person does not have to have a great intellect, to be a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

I think anyone who argues they have a right to regulate themselves are crooks - just look at what happened with the banks who basically did what they wanted and regulated themselves or twisted the regulators round so they weren't doing their job.From what I read of the whole thing most of those at the fsa used to work in banks and look where it got us.Now we have the same with the legal profession and big surprise - they are moaning about it now people want it changed !

Self regulation = corruption in anyone's book except crooks

Anonymous said...

Just as well you are not on this slcc Peter.The whole thing has turned into a fiasco from what I've heard privately.

Good work.The thing was ill conceived from the very start as the former Ombudsman Linda Costelloe Baker said herself.She appears to have been spot on as you might say.

Anonymous said...

SOLICITOR THANK YOU FOR THIS STATEMENT. IT SPEAKS VOLUMES WHY YOU CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO REGULATE YOUR OWN PROFESSION.

Peter. As a solicitor let me just say I absolutely cant stand clients at all and from what I see of John's case they got what they deserved.

-----------------------------------

But you will take Legal Aid money, and do nothing to help your client, perhaps you will be next at the SSDT?
Mr Cherbi posted your comment as it is full of supurating venom against clients and chronic bias in favour of John O'Donnell. Talk about letting your mask down, your detestation of clients overides your common sense (if you have any)? What chance would any client have of winning their case with you representing them? Your statement means we must assume that all solicitors have the same view of clients as you have, because we do not know your identity.

Anonymous said...

Good Evening Mr Cherbi,

Today I have been printing some your articles and giving them to my friends, who are most interested. I have also advised them to visit Mr Ushers site Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.

Lawyers a little test for you. The lawyer who left the message stating he could not stand clients, and John O'Donnells victims deserve what they got, if you know his name, tell us, someone must work with him? Only a fool would state he cannot stand clients, he could be a lawyer anywhere so without his name we must assume you all cannot stand clients and you all think John's victims deserved what they got. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Anonymous said...

Peter. As a solicitor let me just say I absolutely cant stand clients at all and from what I see of John's case they got what they deserved.

-----------------------------------

This fool has shown he hates clients, loves lawyers, and lacks the impartiallity necessary to investigate complaints.
If John O'Donnell had treated the idiot who wrote the above statement the way O'Donnell treated his victims, that idiot would want O'Donnell hung, drawn, and quartered. We are dealing with chronic hypocrytes, and this disease runs through every law office. Lawyers are full of toxic venom, and hate those who go against their profession. This lawyer has shown what we all know, they will shake your hand at the first meeting, GET YOU TO FILL IN THE LEGAL AID FORMS) AND STAB YOU IN THE BACK. Not a very intelligent person in my view.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers can never be allowed to regulate themselves and as you say it must come to an end.How do we go about it Peter ? I want to do soemthing on this to help

Anonymous said...

AN ATRICLE ABOUT A DOCTOR, LOOK INTO THIS ONE MR CHERBI.

Disgraced Bothwell GP is facing serious sex allegation
Apr 9 2009 by Alastair McNeill, Hamilton Advertiser

A DISGRACED Lanarkshire GP who beat up his wife is facing a ‘serious sex allegation’.

Police have passed to the procurator fiscal a report containing claims Dr Christopher Rowlands carried out a sexual assault.

A Strathclyde Police spokesman this week confirmed that officers had investigated Rowlands and matters had been referred to the procurator fiscal.

She said: “A report on the circumstances of the allegations has been submitted to the procurator fiscal in Hamilton.

“However, no warrant has been issued for Dr Rowlands’ arrest.”

A police source confirmed that the complaint against the doctor was of a “serious sexual nature”.

A spokesman for Hamilton procurator fiscal said they had received a report on a 53-year-old man and the matter was under consideration.

In 2004, Rowlands was convicted of battering wife Anne-Marie at their family home in Bothwell and was fined £1100 for the offence.

Rowlands had repeatedly punched his wife on the head and body, dragged her across the floor and stamped on her head to her injury.

He left Blantyre’s Rowallan Medical Group early in 2004 on health grounds, and later left Mrs Rowlands for hairdresser Patricia Freeman who walked out on her husband David.

Rowlands went on to commit further offences including an assault on Patricia Freeman’s husband with a set of keys. He was barred from practising after a General Medical Council Fitness to Practise Panel concluded Rowlands’ ability to work had been impaired due to his criminal record.

The suspension was due to be reviewed at the end of the month.

Six offences committed by Rowlands between August 2004 and June 2006 - two assaults, three breaches of the peace and a breach of bail conditions - were considered “matters of serious concern“ by the GMC.

Rowlands’ lawyer had told Hamilton Sheriff Court his client suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after attending the scene of a helicopter crash in Shetland.

Prior to the fine being imposed solicitor Gerry Devanney told Sheriff John Stewart that Rowlands had been offered a four-month contract at the A&E department of Bristol Royal Infirmary. It later emerged there had been no formal job offer and the GP did not take up the post.

The GMC website states the Fitness to Practise Panel is scheduled to review Rowlands’ case, of impairment by reason of a conviction or caution, between April 30 and May 1.

“The panel will review the case of Dr Rowlands whose registration is suspended by virtue of a determination of the Fitness to Practise Panel in August 2008,” the GMC website adds.

“The original conviction, from August 2004, concerned assault and breach of the peace.”

CHRIS ROWLANDS: report of allegations sent to the procurator fiscal.


IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE?

Anonymous said...

HAMILTON ADVERTISER

Lawyer banned for drink-driving
Jan 8 2009

A HAMILTON lawyer was last week banned from the road after admitting a drink-driving charge.

Nicholas Scullion snr was also fined £400 at Hamilton Sheriff Court, where he regularly appears to defend clients.

Scullion was stopped by police in Motherwell while driving his Jaguar in September.

He had been slightly over the limit – a blood test had found he had an alcohol count of 91mg. The limit is 80mg.

Nicholas J Scullion and Co run the website roadtrafficdefence.com with the slogan Saving Your Licence.

It claims that the firm specialise in drink driving, speeding, careless and dangerous driving offences.

Colleagues were said to be stunned when they saw the 61-year-old lawyer in the dock at the end of a day’s business last week.

Scullion, of Bothwell, had slipped into Hamilton Sheriff Court by the back door and was represented by his son, Nicholas jnr.

A sheriff from another area had been brought in to deal with the matter.

A legal source said: “He was the very last case in court, but no one knew about it. Those still in court were shocked.

“He must be embarrassed by the whole thing – especially since the firm specialise in driving offences.”

The firm, which earlier this year moved into new premises in Cadzow Street, boast about their expertise in helping motorists.

Their website states: “It is often thought that there are no defences to a charge of driving with excess alcohol or failing to provide a specimen.

“There are loopholes that can be exploited to help you avoid disqualification.”

Sheriff Maggie Neilson imposed the fine and disqualified him from driving for a year. His licence was also endorsed.

The Campaign Against Drink Driving described Scullion’s 12-month driving ban as “lenient.”

Anonymous said...

Rowlands’ lawyer had told Hamilton Sheriff Court his client suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after attending the scene of a helicopter crash in Shetland.

(AGAIN WE SEE A PROFESSIONAL IN TROUBLE HAS SOME CONDITION), MENTAL ILLNESS? WHO WILL DIAGNOSE IT, A DOCTOR OF COURSE.

Prior to the fine being imposed solicitor Gerry Devanney told Sheriff John Stewart that Rowlands had been offered a four-month contract at the A&E department of Bristol Royal Infirmary. It later emerged there had been no formal job offer and the GP did not take up the post.

(WAS THE SOLICITOR LIED TO ABOUT THE JOB IN BRISTOL OR IS THE SOLICITOR TELLING LIES?)

Doctors have no mental illness when they are treating patients. I know one (not Mr Rowlands) who fabricates patients mental illness when he is in a difficult legal position.

At lease Mr Scullion did not say he was mentally ill, that age old lawyer trick.

Anonymous said...

THE HAMILTON ADVERTISER

Insurers challenge asbestos ruling
Apr 21 2009

Insurers have launched a last ditch challenge against a law giving victims of negligent exposure to asbestos the power to seek damages in Scotland.

The industry argues that the law contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights and insurers' economic rights.

The decision by MSPs last month overturned a landmark House of Lords ruling that people with pleural plaques - a symptomless thickening of lung membranes - cannot claim compensation

I noticed this in the paper this week Mr Cherbi, the industry argues that the law contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights and insurers' economic rights.
How pathetic these lawyers are they would do anything for money, filthy morals.
Other lawyers wanted to use the human rights act to allow them to continue, investigating complaints against their own profession.
Clearly they are not interested in the human rights of asbestos victims or lawyers clients. The asbestos victims must be compensated at all costs.

Anonymous said...

Paedophile doctor caught in Derbyshire, other doctor beats up wife and assaults new partners husband, doctors distorting medical records, mass serial killer doctor, doctors making money through corrupt organ scams overseas, doctor on sex charge, the theft of childrens organs at Alder Hay, Bristol heart scandal, doctors helping insurance companies to avoid compensating victims of asbestos exposure, doctors covering up injuries in litigation cases, employers employing doctors to avoid litigation cases, there must be some good ones?

Anonymous said...

Six offences committed by Rowlands between August 2004 and June 2006 -two assaults, three breaches of the peace and a breach of bail conditions - were considered “matters of serious concern“ by the GMC.

-----------------------------------

The General Medical Council are correct about Dr Rowlands.

Donal MacIntyre's website showed they allowed a convicted rapist who was a Gynaecologist back to work and did not tell his patients. What is going on here, women are being examined by this consultant and he was jailed for raping a patient. Clearly a convicted rapist treating patients is not a matter of serious concern for the General Medical Council, although Dr Rowlands violence is. I am not defending Dr Rowlands, but surely there are warped people in the GMC if they allow a rapist back to work.

Anonymous said...

Law Society client intimidation :

Waterboarding: Aimed at simulating sensation of drowning. Used on clients who claim or complain against crooked lawyers

Insect: Deadly insect to be placed with client in 'confinement box', client to be told the insect would sting. Used on clients who dont pay their overcharged faked up legal bills

Walling: Client slammed repeatedly into false wall to create sound and shock. Used on people who expose the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as a bunch of crooks.

Sleep deprivation: Client shackled standing up while Law Society staff take turns to whip them. Used often on clients who don't take to Law Society whitewashes, once for 180 hours

Anonymous said...

PATIENTS NEED GREATER PROTECTION

A rogue doctor could still get away with murder despite a shake-up of the coroner's system designed to deter another serial killer like GP Harold Shipman, according to the judge who led the inquiry into his crimes.


The Shipman Inquiry concluded nearly five years ago that loopholes in the coroner's system had allowed the family doctor from Hyde, near Manchester, to cover his tracks by signing death certificates himself, avoiding the involvement of a coroner.

It found Shipman murdered at least 215 victims by giving lethal morphine injections, during a killing spree lasting from 1975 to 1998. (How do you detect the silent killer?)

He was convicted in January 2000 of murdering 15 of his patients and jailed for life but died after being found hanging by his bedsheets in his cell at Wakefield Prison in 2004.

Dame Janet Smith, who chaired the inquiry, told the BBC she was concerned about the lack of progress in implementing her recommendations on tightening up the way deaths are recorded.

She said until the details of reforms to death certification are published, it is difficult to see how the system could prevent another "dishonest" and "malevolent" doctor getting away with murder.

"I really was shocked to find how totally our system of death certification is dependent upon the honesty and integrity of a single doctor." (Very dangerous).

She added: "Once you realise that you can have a dishonest doctor and a malevolent doctor, then it is obvious that under our system that doctor can get away with murder."

However, Justice Minister Bridget Prentice told the programme she was confident the "possibility of something as horrific as Shipman will have very, very little chance of happening again". (Brave thing to say).

"There will be this need to have two doctors examining certificates, there will be the opportunity for families to query what's on the death certificate," she said.

"I think a number of aspects like that will make sure that we don't see another Shipman."

The Coroners and Justice Bill was published in January - nearly five years after the Shipman Inquiry ended.

Under the proposed reforms to the coroner's system, a second doctor will be required to review deaths which have not been referred to a coroner.

The Government also proposed changes to cremation procedures to allow families to inspect the medical forms of deceased relatives so they will be able to draw the medical referee's attention to any concerns about unexpected symptoms or discrepancies in the case.

The regulations were introduced as an interim measure and precede longer-term Department of Health plans to create the role of a Medical Examiner, who will deal with all deaths.

("Shipman thought he was doing nothing wrong. His attitude to investigating officers "How dare you question me, I am a medical practitioner"). A patronizing murderer indeed. If ever a reason existed for patients to know about complaints against their GP, this case is it. This article was in the press, comments in brackets are by the respondent).

Anonymous said...

BBC News Story.

Sexual assault doctor struck off

Crosby was jailed for five years in March this year
A Merseyside GP, jailed for indecently assaulting female patients who went to him with gynaecological problems, has been struck off.
The General Medical Council (GMC) told Stephen Crosby that his examinations were invasive, indecent and went beyond what was medically justified.

In March, Liverpool Crown Court heard how the father of seven, assaulted seven patients over a 21-year period.

Mr Crosby is currently serving a five year jail term.

Hotline set up

He was also ordered to sign on the Sex Offenders Register for life.

The offences at the Village Surgery in Formby came to light in 2002 when Crosby had to admit to Southport and Formby Primary Care Trust he had been given a police caution for indecent exposure.

A hotline was set up and a letter sent out to female patients some of whom had made sexual allegations against the GP.

He was suspended in October 2002 and was originally charged with 26 separate sex attacks on women patients.

Crosby - who denied the offences - was convicted of seven and cleared of five. The remaining 14 counts were ordered to lie on the file.

(Another shocking case.)

Anonymous said...

The problem for patients is that they are brought up to trust doctors. Like lawyers, medics have a cover up culture and it could be argued this undermines the trust patients have in doctors. One GP actually reported Shipman (She cared about patients and her practice), over the number of deaths he had, but she was warned about damaging his reputation. In the face of such a culture, patients should know if doctors have been reported to Primary Care so they can make an informed choice. Shipman was taking drugs and had stockpiled them. When he was caught the partners threw him out of the practice. This is when his future patients should have been informed, ruining this monsters career would have saved countless lives. But no, he was allowed to be rehabilitated? and future patients kept in the dark, just like the General Medical Council did with the rapist above. So this culture of coverup is the factor that allowed this evil man to continue perpetrating his crimes against the most vulnerable in our society. A doctor's reputation and career are what is important to the medics. Like lawyers, complaints against the medical profession are ignored, and this case highlights the fatal consequences of that culture. Primare Care managers are coverup managers. Going to a doctor is a necessary part of life, but the culture of coverup makes me wonder how honest your average doctor is?

Anonymous said...

I made a complaint against my solicitor and the same thing happened.The committee recommended prosecution at the ssdt and it was stopped after the crook sent them a letter.The Law Society gave me no explanation about it and the ssdt threatened me if I wrote again asking what happened.

Anonymous said...

much like over at the RNLI wouldn't you say ?