Thursday, April 02, 2009

MacAskill 'negligent' as revelations show £4.5m Legal Complaints Commission operating with no standards oversight one year on

SLCCScottish Legal Complaints Commission avoided standards code for over one year. It has emerged that while the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission rushed through key policies enabling it to refuse to investigate the most serious & severe complaints against crooked lawyers which occurred before 1st October 2008, the commission delayed implementing an official code of conduct which would have made their actions & decisions accountable to the Standards Commission for Scotland and Scottish Ministers.

MacAskill tight lipped Justice Secretary MacAskill still to sign off on scrutiny of law complaints quango over one year later. The 'draft' code of conduct, which has apparently been one of the last things on the law complaints body’s mind, is only now being rushed through due to coverage in the media of the disorderly conduct of board members & officials, where some appear out of touch and confused as to what their actual job entails, while others indulged in protracted hate fuelled exchanges over consumer organisations and campaign groups who have pressed for reform of the SLCC's poor, and ever so slightly anti-consumer attitude, to-date.

The Justice Secretary was asked why it has taken him over a year to sign off on rules of accountability for the highly paid members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who receive up to £350 a day plus expenses for their work, and which Mr MacAskill has already thrown nearly £2.5 million of taxpayers money into.

A spokesman for the Justice Secretary would only say : "The SLCC has submitted its draft Code of Conduct for Ministerial approval. This will be available to the media once it has been approved.”

"There has been a draft document in place since before the Commission opened. This has been under development and has just recently been submitted for Ministerial approval. It will now be considered and the agreed code will be made publicly available."

Margaret Scanlan - Called to the Bars - Sunday Mail  15 March 2009 emailSLCC officials may challenge Justice Secretary ‘on discipline’ after he ‘forgot’ to implement conduct role. However it has emerged that SLCC officials & board members feel their actions, reported in the media, cannot be disciplined under the so far unapproved 'draft' code of conduct and the Justice Secretary today refused to be drawn on the prospect he may be powerless to discipline his own appointments to the commission due to a lack of an official code of conduct he is yet to approve, one year on. Sources within the Scottish Government’s Justice Department however, have privately expressed fury with the revelations of the conduct of the SLCC officials named in the media, which I reported here : MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members 'booze culture conduct' reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers

In a further development, a senior solicitor this morning alleged the Justice Secretary may have been negligent in not ensuring the SLCC, set up with millions of pounds of taxpayers money had a code of conduct in place to scrutinise its workings.

He said "It is almost unthinkable that millions of pounds of public money was handed over to a few people who then took decisions they would not do the job the commission was intended to do".

He went on "It is possible that since no code of conduct was in place, and there was effectively no oversight of the work of the commission members, their decisions on everything so far, could well be invalid. There is little chance officials or board members could be held accountable for their actions, including the recent reports in the media relating to email exchanges between commission officials since there is currently no enforceable code of conduct."

standards commissionStandards Commission for Scotland investigate integrity in public life. The Standards Commission for Scotland, which would be responsible for investigating the SLCC’s officials, sensationally admitted today there was still no external oversight in place for the joint taxpayer-legal profession funded legal complaints commission, even after millions of pounds of taxpayers money had been spent and over one year of work had take place at the SLCC by Ministerial appointees at £350 a day each.

A spokesman for the Standards Commission said : "The Commission has internally approved a draft Code of Conduct, which is in the process of being agreed by Ministers and available from the SLCC or via their website."

The Standards Commission was then asked for their position on rumours that SLCC board members & officials may challenge any disciplinary inquiry, due to the huge gaffe by the Justice Secretary in not ensuring a code of oversight existed before commission members began work last January.

A spokesman for the Standards Commission admitted : "The Office of the CIO is unable to investigate conduct which occurred prior to the relevant code of conduct being approved."

"Any complaint regarding the conduct of an SLCC Commissioner prior to this date should be made in writing to the Chief Executive Officer, Eileen Masterman, at The Stamp Office, 10 – 14 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3EG."

Eileen MastermanSLCC CEO Masterman “agreed” with offensive opinions on consumer organisations. It turns out however, that SLCC Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, who is on £1350 per week, and is currently on holiday, is herself implicated in the widely reported email-gate scandal where bitter hate fuelled exchanges took place regarding personal opinions of several board members against consumer organisations & campaign groups, as it turns out just because many outsiders to the SLCC don't agree with the Law Society's line on regulating Scotland's legal profession.

A member of staff at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission condemned the actions of some of her colleagues, claiming "They have brought the commission into widespread disrepute and damaged its credibility with the public"

She went on "It appears there are some within the commission who see their job as a mission to undermine what was a genuine attempt to clean up regulation of the legal profession started by the previous administration.

“I don't think consumers will get any satisfaction with the way the commission is being bullied around by interests from the legal profession who should never have been part of it in the first place as we are now seeing demonstrated in their attitudes.".

It was confirmed today that complaints have been lodged with the Chief Executive against SLCC board members and officials, however who will actually investigate the issues is still to be decided given the CEO’s actions are also of a questionable nature, and that so far, no action has been taken against board members for their less than ethical standards of work.

You may wish to read more articles on problems at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : Some previous articles on the SLCC

If it is true as some think, the decisions taken by commission members are now invalid due to there not being a code of conduct or method of oversight & accountability of their decisions to this date, I would put it to the SLCC that one of their top priorities should now be to clear the air and take a decision to investigate all complaints against solicitors, including issues arising prior to 1st October 2008, including the many cases where the Law Society of Scotland whitewashed complaints against thoroughly crooked solicitors.

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

Obviously the slcc dont want to be accountable so its no accident their code of conduct has been left off the books for a year.

Interesting argument about whether their decisions are valid now you've enlightened us all.You might just be correct on that too.

Good luck!

Anonymous said...

Don't worry Peter.If push comes to shove it will be Scanlan and the board who have to go,not MacAskill.
You can expect some secret payoffs though and I'm sure you will be able to write about that !

skewered said...

My opinion ? They should all be sacked and sued for not doing their duty to the taxpayer first but as that wont happen just sacking them will do fine along with plenty public humiliation.

Anonymous said...

£350 a day ????
£1350 a week ????

Why the hell are they getting paid that much when the first thing they do is vote not to investigate complaints ?

Anonymous said...

1 year on - they were probably hoping no one had noticed

Anonymous said...

Let me guess - they will investigate themselves and conclude they did nothing wrong.

£350 a day snouts in the trough !

Anonymous said...

Very well spotted, not that the SLCC members will be worried - they can always rely on the stubborn and wilful 'incompetence' of MacAskill, Swinney, Salmond et al...

Anonymous said...

More SNP sleaze again
Who can be surprised at MacAskill even leaving out standards from a quango ?

SNP SLEAZE TODAY said...

No mistake here Peter its sheer corruption from the SNP and lawyers getting their own way again
Sleaze at its best with the SNP and please put this comment up !

Anonymous said...

"Any complaint regarding the conduct of an SLCC Commissioner prior to this date should be made in writing to the Chief Executive Officer, Eileen Masterman, at The Stamp Office, 10 – 14 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3EG.
What a waste of time this is, Masterman will protect the people the public want exposed. Sack the lot of them, and MacAskill and start again.

Anonymous said...

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission avoided standards code for over one year.
This does not surprise me. They are desperate to avoid any interference from anything that will diminish their power to self regulate.
Imagine a lawyer is in the dock at the High Court in Glasgow for stealing a large sum from a client. The jury is composed of lawyers. The outcome is obvious, although the press would have a field day.
Why is it then that the same situation is allowed, lawyers investigate lawyers at the Law Society of Scotland or the SLCC the way things are going. The difference is that the lawyer would not even be at an internal trial. They do not want independent complaints handling because this would expose them for the criminals that they are. Masterman and her cronies have dangerous power, too much for the users of legal services.
I have tried to get a lawyer to sue another lawyer on my behalf, one lawyer looked at me angrily and said " the legal system is not for that". I hit a brick wall of resistance and repugnance. That is all the more reason for the campaign to continue,victory to Mr Cherbi, the public, and the pressure groups.

Anonymous said...

I dont think its right at all this slcc were given all this money and there was/is? no rules to keep them in check.That HAS to be wrong from the start and its the governments responsibility this happened

Anonymous said...

Yes I agree - definitely sleazy on the SNP for allowing 4mil to go to lawyers and no code of conduct but who would have thought to check if they had one before handing the money over ? Obviously not MacAskill so we know what he thinks of it !

I'm surprised no cybernazis come along and try to justify MacAskill handing over the taxpayers cash to a bunch of unregulated quango merchants.

WHAT A F@CKING DISGRACE THE WHOLE THING

Anonymous said...

In any system that needs reforming, it takes a long time and a lot of work to clean it up. The SLCC code of conduct has not been done, so Masterman and her colleagues do not have to do what they are meant to do.
Perhaps it is time for many of the victims of crooked lawyers to become Scottish Parliamentiary Election Candidates. Some of use in there is what is needed.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi I quote your words,
"Many people ask me which legal firm to recommend them to trust. I can't answer that. There are none.
Yes, I know of one or two very small, hard working legal firms .... but all things depend ultimately, on who you are, what you want them to do for you .. how much money you have (of course)".
I thank you from the bottom of my heart for saying this, because your supporters know you are right.
You should be very proud of what you have achieved so far, and we are doing the easy bit, telling family, friends, colleagues, etc. You give us a voice against injustice, and thank you for that.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill either wasnt bothered about a code of conduct or the slcc talked it to death but after you and the Sunday Mail had a go here it is now just a wee bit late !

I do agree with you the whole thing is fishy and probably everyone thought it would never come up.Hootsmon wont be writing about it I'm sure even if there is an anti snp angle!

Anonymous said...

Thoroughly crooked the whole thing !

MacAskill should be sacked along with the razzler and her pals on the quango

Anonymous said...

A one year delay in implementing a code of conduct is no accident and nothing to do with the Minister forgetting about it.

This is a deliberate act of omission.

Anonymous said...

I note one person has stated they hit a brick wall of repugnance, when asking solicitors to sue or expose other solicitors.
I went round every law firm in Hamilton and could not get any of them to act against my ex lawyer.
They were friendly until I told them what I wanted them to do. They added insult to injury because they knew I was right about my ex lawyer, but they would not help me. The Law Society of Scotland would not investigate my case.
I learned lawyers can do what they want to their clients. How could I get my written evidence in court without a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

I think you have a point there about decisions being questionable if no code of conduct was there to regulate them.

However that works both ways Peter.The levy the slcc decided on for solicitors might also be able to be challenged now on that basis.

Anonymous said...

The following is a quote taken from the Legal Defence Union website,
"Lawyers sometimes need lawyers! It is good professionalism to take advice.
We are committed to the idea of prompt, friendly, confidential and skilled advice to all solicitors in Scotland".
Legal Defence Union please note, clients need lawyers to expose corruption in lawyers. What we need is a body set up so that we can cross check clients documents ourselves, and a way of exposing your dishonest members to the public.

Anonymous said...

Good old fashioned corruption from the SNP once more.
How much of that £350 a day can be claimed back now you found this out Peter ?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to see a solicitor try and claim back their levy because of this.

The Law Society will gut them in an instant if they dare !

Anonymous said...

Quite a contrast to your report where Jane Irvine backed FOI on the Law Society.I take it she neglected to mention her own commission had avoided enforcing a code of conduct that every public authority has to have in place first ?

Keep up the good work and don't worry about lack of newspaper coverage - most papers these days are like a dog thats had its balls cut off.They are only going after the bankers because they are all in debt to them too!

Anonymous said...

The comment about the Legal Defence Union - one of their number helped a solicitor charged with child abuse.You should look into the case when you get some time - really weird how it was all dropped and no action taken just because the perpetrator is a Glasgow lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Do you know why there have been no prosecutions of lawyers stealing legal aid money?
It is because all of the law firms in Scotland would close.
Those who graduate in law or medicine lose touch with reality. They think they are smarter and better than you. One GP in South Lanarkshire learned his patient was a serious threat to his reputation, which was a result of the GP's dishonesty. So he is not as smart as he thought he was.
Be warned they are supercilious evil people. If you are a threat to the reputation of a doctor or lawyer, you stand alone. The attitude from them is that a professionals career must not be tarnished. Their professional bodies hold the same views.

Anonymous said...

THE LEGAL PROFESSION & LEGAL AID ACT, following is part of an article by Mr Cherbi.
The LPLA Act is not the only piece of legislation to change the Scottish legal landscape which is worrying lawyers.
Even more worrying to the legal profession, is the idea of opening up the legal services market and thus breaking the monopoly on access to legal services currently held by lawyers & advocates, where, if you want to get to court, or use critical legal services, you must use a solicitor who is a member of the Law Society of Scotland.
You have hit the nail on the head Mr Cherbi, I like so many people cannot get to court because I cannot get a lawyer. This situation must end at all costs. I was pleased to read this. The lawyers have a stranglehold on the provision of legal services. NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WILL EVER HAVE ACCESS TO A COURT HEARING, NEVER MIND JUSTICE, SO LONG AS THE PRESENT SYSTEM REMAINS.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi, the Limitation Act stipulates that you have three years to raise an action for damages from the date the damage was incurred.
The people who have not been able to go to court within this time about a crooked lawyer, have been barred from doing so because of discrimination from lawyers. They are time barred because they have been solicitor barred. An interesting point to consider and no doubt the lawyers will pull this one out of the hat after independant regulation. Could you please give me your views on this matter?

MacAskill and Salmond are CORRUPT, CORRUPT, CORRUPT said...

# Anonymous @ 8.54pm said...

"NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WILL EVER HAVE ACCESS TO A COURT HEARING, NEVER MIND JUSTICE, SO LONG AS THE PRESENT SYSTEM REMAINS."

Spot on ... and so long as MacAskill remains ... for he is as crooked and corrupt as they come and will always protect his buddies in Scotland's very corrupt and unaccountable legal "profession".

Get rid of this scumbag people of Scotland ... for you will NEVER find the truth and justice you all seek whilst that slimeball remains as Scotland's INjustice Secretary.

Ain't that right Mr Cherbi?!

______________________________

An Open Letter to Scotland's INjustice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill MSP

Kenny MacAskill MSP
Cabinet Secretary "for Justice"
Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP

Kenny.MacAskill.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Dear Mr MacAskill

In the 23 months since your appointment by Alex Salmond (the First Minister of Scotland) as Cabinet Secretary "for Justice", could you please inform us exactly what good you have done for your constituents of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh who appointed you, and Scotland's 5,000,000 population as a whole?

As far as we have seen you are simply helping and protecting your 10,000 fellow solicitors, the Law Society, legal "profession" as a whole and the Edinburgh and Scottish establishment in general.

Certainly, in the many cases of wrong-doing, corruption and injustice involving local government, the police, YOUR legal "profession" and many other groups and organisations in Scotland, you have done nothing for those "malcontents" who have approached you (often pleading for your help) seeking the TRUTH and JUSTICE in their individual cases of injustice at the hands of corrupt and crooked individuals and organisations you are only too well aware of yourself.

Are you a protector of the Edinburgh and Scottish establishment (especially YOUR legal "profession") and indifferent to the plight of those who approach you with their cases of injustice seeking your help?

Confirm or deny please.

Looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

"Joe Public"
Edinburgh

Anonymous said...

Its fairly easy to see this group of lawyers didn't want any code of conduct and thats why you are able to expose this after a year of them fiddling behind the scenes on their fat salaries.

I wish I could get £350 a day for being too drunk to know whats right from wrong !

Anonymous said...

In response to 7:45pm,

I noted your comment about a member of the Legal Defence Union helping a solicitor charged with child abuse. I will look into this.
There was a lawyer in Edinburgh Julian Danskin who was jailed for nine months for abusing boys. One of them tragically committed suicide, pity is was not Danskin. Clearly the powers that be in the legal profession, think it is acceptable for lawyers to ruin youngsters lives by wasting their minds.
The sentencing here was shocking, perhaps a case of birds of a feather flock together. It is a good job the legal profession do not control the press like Nazi regime in Germany, we would never have known about these evil people.

Anonymous said...

The salaries of this lot are disgusting ! No wonder it was only open to members & sympathisers of the legal profession !

Anonymous said...

THIS WAS TAKEN FROM AN EARLIER ARTICLE BY MR CHERBI.
The new rule of free speech, dictated by the Law Society of Scotland, says it's acceptable for the press to report on cases of complaint against crooked lawyers, as long as the tone of the story is sympathetic to the legal profession. Even better if the report is written by a lawyer who has a column in a newspaper.
The new rule of free speech, dictated by the Law Society of Scotland, also says it's not acceptable, for stories to be reported on cases of complaint against the legal profession, if the story comes from the client or 'has a moderate chance of gaining public sympathy against for victims of crooked lawyers'.
Interesting Mr Cherbi, It seems to me what we have here is dictatorial bullying by the Law Society. We could draw a parallel with Dr Joseph Goebbles, Hitler's propaganda minister. It is acceptable for press reports about Hitler as long as they are sympathetic. Goebbles, was the press in Nazi Germany. Clearly if the Law Society had their way the press would be silenced.
READ THESE WORDS AGAIN,
Even better if the report is written by a lawyer who has a column in a newspaper.
In my opinion the Law Society would clearly be a threat to free speech. Imagine if they could sieze political power, would they ban all political parties, have a version of the Brownshirts, to crush protests against injustice. NO, NO, NO, my friends in Edinburgh, you cannot control free speech in any form, as this would be the thin end of a sinister wedge. When a society grants special status to certain professions this is a threat to justice everywhere. YOUR IDEA OF JUSTICE IS TO EXONERATE ALL LAWYERS IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW THEY CONDUCT THEMSELVES. THIS CANNOT CONTINUE.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article.

I appreciate there is strong feeling among some against particular individuals at the SLCC and in the legal profession for disallowing the public's access to justice and a resolution of their cases, often horrendous, and often ruining their lives, while the lawyer concerned faces little or no punishment for their deeds. That must end, although for it to end, people en-masse need to do something about it .. just as we have recently seen with the banking failures.

# Anonymous @ 11.50pm

There should be no statue of limitations on the actions of a law officer - whether that be a solicitor or other officer of the court or anyone in the legal world.

The reasoning for that is clear, as many times solicitors design their frauds so the effects are not realised for several years after they began plundering their clients .. and by that time the legal profession has in place a number of mitigating arguments such as time bar to leave the poor client penniless while the solicitor gets away with it.

There will be more revelations about the SLCC and MacAskill soon, nothing sadly to indicate the commission or the Justice Secretary is intent on transparency or honesty when it comes to all things legal.

Anonymous said...

Responding to 12:13 PM

They have brownshirts, the attack on the Law Society Accountant, Mr Cummings.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi,

As a result of the corruption in my sister's case I wrote to the Scottish Parliament Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson. I questioned the legal privilidge status of doctors, and the inability to get a lawyer to sue another lawyer. Please note I received no reply and the letter was sent registered post.
Clearly discrimination is alive and kicking on Scotland.

Anonymous said...

You said "
There should be no statue of limitations on the actions of a law officer - whether that be a solicitor or other officer of the court or anyone in the legal world.

The reasoning for that is clear, as many times solicitors design their frauds so the effects are not realised for several years after they began plundering their clients .. and by that time the legal profession has in place a number of mitigating arguments such as time bar to leave the poor client penniless while the solicitor gets away with it."

and I entirely agree with you Peter.

The only reason time bar exists for 3 or up to 5 years is to protect the professions and nothing else.

In that time anyone attempting to sue for negligence in medical, legal or financial areas will find their path to justice blocked at every turn as no doubt you experienced yourself.

Anyone connected with the law should always be able to be held to account for their actions, regardless the amount of time which has passed since their questionable actions.

Keep up the good work Peter Cherbi!

Anonymous said...

Reply To Peter Cherbi your message at 12:34PM.

Thank you Peter for this. I understand, they hide their frauds as best they can, but the Limitation Act cannot apply to them. I missed that, how silly of me.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Your respondents should hand out a page of your diary to family, friends, colleagues if you are fine with that. Which page do you think will have the most impact? Perhaps one where someone has their morgage loan from the bank stolen by a solicitor? Most people have morgages. We need to be your agents to spread the word with your consent. Perhaps you can make up a suitable poster, we can print off and give to people?
What do you think?

Anonymous said...

I am very interested in your blog Mr Cherbi.I too have had some terrible experiences with solicitors and not one of them managed to repair the damage the earlier one did.

I read your other posting about removing funds from the control of solicitors and also comments from others about their files.I will be doing the same tomorrow with my current solicitor to end this cycle I've been in for some time.I only wish I had known of your blog years ago.

All the best and good luck with your writing and campaigns.

Anonymous said...

Not "negligence" Peter - rather "corruption"..

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 3.23pm

Yes I am agreeable to such an idea ...

The more people are aware of the pitfalls of dealing with the Scots legal profession, just as many have now encountered with our less than glorious financial institutions ... the better.

I would leave it up to people to select a page themselves though .. there are so many topics and so many examples of how poor legal services are in Scotland ...

# Anonymous @ 9.24pm

Glad I could help, and let me know how you get on at your lawyers office.

# Anonymous @ 10.40am

Yes, I agree.

Anonymous said...

never heard of this standards commission before

whats the betting they will whitewash the whole thing as per instructions ?

Anonymous said...

They should just change the name back to the Law Society as the slcc is beginning to look like a dummy company in an offshore tax haven .. hahaha !

whisperer said...

The earlier comment sounds about right to me - this is corruption and not negligence on Kenny MacAskill's part.

You don't forget about something like a code of conduct for a year.

There was clearly to be no approval of the code until you and the Sunday Mail exposed what was going on at the slcc and if it hadn't been for you there would still be no code being talked about!

Anonymous said...

Suffice to say I agree with everyone else - this quango is just a con on the public to make everyone think the problems the law Society caused will go away.They clearly did not!

Anonymous said...

The Law Society and the SLCC must be providing financial sweetners to Salmond and MacAskill. If Marsh UK bribe the politicians reform will be impossible.

Anonymous said...

I saw that in the Sunday Mail too !

No doubt she's an apologist for the rest of her kind by the sounds of it !

Anonymous said...

snouts in the trough and what a trough too !! £4.5 million quid !!

Anonymous said...

IN RESPONSE TO 3.04PM
We know you are right. My sister was involved in litigation. Her doctor was inventing long term mental illness on a report he sent to the court. When she later visited the doctor he was annoyed her medical records had been sequestrated by the court. She had been on incapacity benefit. He told her she would have to go back to work on light duties. She asked him why, she had been back at work before and the occupational health nurse told her she could not be there for health and safety reasons.
When she went back to work again, her employer would not let her into work. She phoned her GP, he said I cannot help you any more. She phoned her lawyer based in Glasgow (a large law firm), he never returned her phone calls.
Her employer terminated her contract five months later. SHE HAD NO MONEY TO LIVE ON DURING THESE FIVE MONTHS (we supported her).
She had trusted her GP with her life as most people do. We found out he was lying to the court after her contract was terminated, BECAUSE THERE WAS A REPORT HE WOULD NOT LET HER SEE, WHICH IMPLIED IN THE STRONGEST TERMS SHE HAD BEEN SEEING A PSYCHIATRIST FOR TWENTY YEARS. WE GOT THE REPORT ONLY AFTER REPORTING THE GP.
SO HER GP STOPPED HER INCAPACITY BENEFIT, HER LAWYER DID NOTHING ABOUT IT, WE BELIEVE THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER TO STARVE HER INTO SUBMISSION.
WE STILL HAVE THE DOCUMENTS, NHS PRIMARY CARE HAVE COVERED IT UP, THE LAW SOCIETY FOR SCOTLAND DID NOT WANT TO KNOW.
PLEASE LEARN FROM THIS, LAWYERS AND DOCTORS CAN EASILY GET AROUND HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS IF A PERSONS INJURIES ARE NOT VISIBLE.
WHAT IS MORE WORRYING, IF THIS HAPPENS TO YOU WHO HAS THE TOTAL POWER TO DECIDE IF YOU ARE FIT FOR WORK? A DANGEROUS POSITION FOR SOMEONE TO BE LEFT IN.
WE ALSO WROTE TO HAMILTON SHERIFF COURT WITH COPIES OF THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE, THE SHERIFF COULD NOT GIVE US A LEGAL OPINION BUT ASKED THE SHERIFF CLERK TO WRITE BACK TO US. WE RECIEVED A LETTER ADVISING US TO SEEK ADVICE FROM A SOLICITOR. NO SOLICITOR WOULD HELP US, MY SISTER'S EX GP AND SOLICITOR ARE STILL WORKING. SHE IS NOT. NHS PRIMARY CARE MANAGERS ARE IN BED WITH THEIR GP'S.
LITIGATION WHERE A PERSONS INJURIES ARE NOT VISIBLE, IS A COVER UP WHERE LAWYERS AND DOCTORS MAKE MONEY. WHEN YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A DOCTOR OR LAWYER, THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING PATIENTS AND CLIENTS PROTECT THEIR OWN. THESE TWO PROFESSIONS HAVE HORRIFIC POWER. I BELIEVE IN FAIRNESS AND I KNOW THERE ARE DISHONEST SHERIFFS, BUT THE SHERRIF WHO READ THE EVIDENCE WE SENT TO HAMILTON SHERIFF COURT COULD HAVE THROWN IT IN THE BIN. SHE DID NOT WHICH GAVE US A FRAGMENT OF FAITH IN THE SYSTEM.
AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE WE HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM, IT IS NOT A JUSTICE SYSTEM. LAWYERS TALK ABOUT THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS, THEY CAN AND DO LEAVE YOU TO STARVE.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society Dictatorship have lost touch with reality. You do not tell the press what they can and cannot say about lawyers.
Next you will be sending your henchmen around press offices so that you have lawyer friendly reports. In this country we have free speech. Free speech against a legal system that is corrupt to it's foundations must continue. The right of free speech, is necessary to root out corruption and oppression.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi,
I know from your work here you would not make a good politician. I know you have great ability, but your values are too high for politics. It is for the filthy members of society, especially lawyers.
Your supporters grow daily, thank you for all of your efforts to achieve a decent fair society. Lawyers are the scouge of humanity, as you well know.

Anonymous said...

If any person reading this needs a lawyer exposed as dishonest please note,
Forget complaining to the Law Society or SLCC. Masterman will burn your documents.
Do not expect another law firm to help you, they will not. They would put a bullet in your head before they would expose another lawyer.
You will be on your own, against powerful ruthless criminals.

A question for Lawyers reading this,

If someone took your families money from you, covered up what happened to you at work, stole your morgage money, to keep their business afloat, what would you want done to someone like that. No doubt you would want them executed. That is because you are vile evil people who are happy to dish it out. But the same people want to keep investigating themselves. This is so you can keep your criminal activities as secret as possible. THIS CANNOT CONTINUE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE.
Imagine if the Rudolf Hess and German lawyers conducted the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. The result would have been a foregone conclusion, a show trial. No prosecutions, everyone exonerated. Such is the situation at the Law Society and SLCC, yes I do compare you with the Nazi's but you lot kill people slowly.

Anonymous said...

I remember in the press last year Mr Cameron Fyfe, a partner in Ross Harper Solicitors, Glasgow was conned out of a substantial sum of money. He was not the conmans only victim.
Clearly, Mr Fyfe's judgement was poor, which would make me wary of leaving my money with a law firm. If lawyers cannot look after their own money, what chance do clients have when leaving money with law firms.?
As I understand it Mr Fyfe did not get his money back, but the conman was jailed. So the people the conman fooled got some justice. If a member of the public try to get money out of The Law Societies Master Fund they will be the same as the above conmans victims. No compensation, and the lawyer gets away with it, unlike the conman. Such is our biased legal system, the Law Society of Scotland are as crooked as the conman.

Anonymous said...

I could not get a lawyer to take Mr Fyfe to court for me, so it is poetic justice he lost his money. Now he knows what it feels like to be on the recieving end.

Anonymous said...

When I fould out how dishonest lawyers and doctors were, I wondered how they could sleep at night.
Then I realised they are simply evil. Telling lies, twisting evidence, they will do anything to get what they want. Readers be warned, these people will destroy you. Regarding your medical records, patient confidentiallity, does not exist, because no matter what they write about you their NHS bossed will cover it up. Every doctor is a specialist, at covering up things that can harm them, and I have no doubt that your average doctor would do a Shipman, if a patient could ruin the doctor's career.
If you have never complained about your GP, my advice is do not. The corruption, lies and cover up, get worst the higher you go. No patient would ever trust a doctor if they knew what I know. They all share the same attitudes as Shipman, they say, "How dare you question me. I am a medical practitioner," You would be as well complaining to the doctor's mother, that is how loyal NHS managers are to their doctors. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. THE NHS COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE IS A COVER UP CLUB.

Anonymous said...

Never trust a lawyer, not even MacAskill, better to swim with a great white shark, it will kill quickly.
Are you deaf MacAskill, independent complaints handling is what we want.

Anonymous said...

If you ever want to sue anyone do not go to Cameron Fyfe, of Ross Harper.

He waited for over a year to get an expert to check my employers systems of work. My employer refused to let the expert into the premises. Mr Fyfe said he would get a court order to get the expert in. We found out later Fyfe did nothing.

He refused to obtain a medical report from the NHS, which he asked me to get. This report blamed my employer for my injuries. Fyfe said I had to see one of his doctors, who said he could not find anything wrong with me. (A cover up).

Months later Fyfe wrote to me stating he was getting an ergonomics expert. I asked him why, my employer did not allow the first expert onto the premises. Fyfe was stringing me along.

Fyfe did not tell me my medical records had been sequestrated by the court.

There was no record in the court file Ross Harper Solicitors ever represented me. A member of staff told me there was something seriously wrong.

Fyfe mostly did not return my calls.

He did not help me when my doctor stopped my money.

The Law Society for Scotland refused to investigate the way Fyfe dealt with my case.

The way Cameron Fyfe dealt with my litigation against my employer, made me wonder who's side he was on. I have no doubt now. Mr Fyfe I have the documents, and if I find out you have treated anyone else in the same way I will go public. You know who I am, but you do not want to fight because the documents I have verify what I am writing here.

Anonymous said...

If a member of the public has a dispute with their GP, they have a dispute with all GP's in the practice.
If a member of the public has a dispute with their Lawyer, they have a dispute with all Lawyers in the the legal profession.
This is why self regulation must end.

Anonymous said...

so is anything going to be done about this mob or are they not accountable to anyone except themselves as usual ?

Anonymous said...

If you ever want to sue anyone do not go to Cameron Fyfe, of Ross Harper.

He waited for over a year to get an expert to check my employers systems of work. My employer refused to let the expert into the premises. Mr Fyfe said he would get a court order to get the expert in. We found out later Fyfe did nothing.

He refused to obtain a medical report from the NHS, which he asked me to get. This report blamed my employer for my injuries. Fyfe said I had to see one of his doctors, who said he could not find anything wrong with me. (A cover up).

Months later Fyfe wrote to me stating he was getting an ergonomics expert. I asked him why, my employer did not allow the first expert onto the premises. Fyfe was stringing me along.

Fyfe did not tell me my medical records had been sequestrated by the court.

There was no record in the court file Ross Harper Solicitors ever represented me. A member of staff told me there was something seriously wrong.

Fyfe mostly did not return my calls.

He did not help me when my doctor stopped my money.

The Law Society for Scotland refused to investigate the way Fyfe dealt with my case.

The way Cameron Fyfe dealt with my litigation against my employer, made me wonder who's side he was on. I have no doubt now. Mr Fyfe I have the documents, and if I find out you have treated anyone else in the same way I will go public. You know who I am, but you do not want to fight because the documents I have verify what I am writing here.

12:03 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a member of the public has a dispute with their GP, they have a dispute with all GP's in the practice.
If a member of the public has a dispute with their Lawyer, they have a dispute with all Lawyers in the the legal profession.
This is why self regulation must end.

10:59 AM

Yes I'd agree with that.Especially since lawyers control all access to the law and twist it the way they want it to go

Anonymous said...

A Warning to the Public. The following is what Litigation Lawyers and Doctors will NEVER TELL YOU.

Our Law firm is insured by the same insurer as your GP Practice. Your employer is also insured by the same insurer.
If you want to sue your employer for RSI or something else that is not visible, we will send you to see consultant doctors. They are (that's right) insured by the same insurers. These cases cannot go to court without favourable medical evidence. Medical Evidence = Medical Coverup.
So if the consultants say you have been injured by your employer, all of these professionals insurance premiums will increase. So your employer has a team of lawyers and doctors, who will protect the insurance company. You may think your lawyer is your lawyer but you would be wrong. Your litigation to doctors and lawyers is holiday money from the taxpayer, or to give it its proper name legal aid. YOU WILL NEVER GET DAMAGES BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS SET UP TO FINANCIALLY KICK THE PROFESSIONALS WHO DECIDE IF YOUR CASE GOES TO COURT.
You may even have to pay a £2,000.00 bill when the medics cover up what happened to you.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE = MEDICAL LIES.
Doctors who provide medical reports in litigation cases cannot be sued even if the lie about you. This is called Legal Privilidge.

If you still want to sue your employer, I have predicted how your case will go, and I hope you don't have to pay the legal bill.
Doctors and lawyers will string you along, cover up what has happened to you, and will not care if you can work again. They will do this to you for MONEY. Health & Safety at work is important but in cases where you have been injured it will be covered up. Doctors and Lawyers do not like people suing their employers, because they want lower insurance premiums for their law firms and practices. The insurance company will tell them their premiums will go up if the case goes to court.

Anonymous said...

In response to 1.11 PM

This person is right, but if the person who is injured has to pay the £2000.00, they are penalised again by paying their employers legal fees.
You are 100% correct Medical evidence = Medical coverup.
The doctors and lawyers can sleep at night because they are simply evil. That is why when I see a lawyer or doctor has been killed in a car crash I am compassionless, just like them.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi,

I hate lawyers and doctors, but the public should remember the Sally Clark, Anita Pattel and Angela Canning cases. We must all protect children, but these women were victims twice over and Mrs Clark was a lawyer.
Their children died and they were wrongly convicted of killing them. Professor Sir Roy Meadow's expert witness evidence was clearly flawed. He had legal privilidge so he could not be sued. The General Medical Council struck him off, the high court reinstated him.
Dr David Southall told the police Mr Clark had murdered his son, by watching Mr Clark body language on the television. What planet is this doctor on, clearly a lunatic full of self importance. In my view Southall was a man with mental health problems as he thought he could get a man who had lost his son prosecuted by watching him on television. Doctors talk about patients with mental health problems, I think in many cases they are barking up the wrong tree, there are many loonies who carry a stethoscope in their cases.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers have their Legal Defence Union, doctors have the Medical Defence Union.

What do patients and lawyers clients have. NHS Primary Care and The Law Society for Scotland.
Primary care and The Law Society will cover up what the medics and lawyers do. Do not complain to them, you will be wasting your time.

Anonymous said...

Yes the Clark, Canning, Patel cases show the horrific power expert witnesses have, and this can happen to any parent who loses a child, if the case is decided on medical evidence.
Mrs Clark was a lawyer, she died, I hate lawyers but I feel compassion for her and the other women in this case. The doctors should have been given 20 years each.

Anonymous said...

Yes Mr Fyfe you are a crooked lawyer, insured by the same company your clients are trying to sue for damages. Nice conflict of interest situation,(you cannot have your insurance premiums increasing can you)?
You were my lawyer and you helped my employers legal defence team, and I can prove this in court. The documents support that view. Too many things happening that helped the defenders, not the actions of a lawyer who wanted to prosecute my employer.

Dear members of the public,

This man will cover up what has happened to you, and will not care if your injuries prevent you from working again.
He refuses to get evidence that he has asked for, and your case never gets to court. He is evil encarnate, as are all lawyers because they all cover up what happens to you at work. Trust this profession at your peril. Have a nice day Mr Fyfe, you have done to many others what you have done to me. One day your reputation will be in tatters.