Monday, July 13, 2009

'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers

Law SocietyConsumer experiences in Master Policy report brands Law Society of Scotland & its insurers ‘rotten to the core’. The Law Society of Scotland and it’s insurers who handle claims against an ever growing number of 'crooked lawyers' have been branded corrupt and dishonest by clients who were interviewed for the completion of ground breaking research published today by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, on the role of the two client compensation schemes operated by the Law Society of Scotland, known as the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund. The report contains highly accurate accounts from victims of crooked lawyers of the torturous and often failed process of trying to make a compensation claim against a ‘crooked lawyer’ who have mishandled clients legal affairs or in a now almost daily event, embezzled clients money.

0048Insurers Marsh & Law Society imposed conditions on SLCC’s research team. However, in a startling revelation which gives an insight into the difficulties the research team faced in compiling the report, legal insiders allege that corruption is so rife in the legal services sector, the Law Society refused to hand over actual copies of the Master Policy to the research team, fearing disclosure of the highly secretive & sensitive documents would cause a rush of bad publicity to the Scots legal profession for its consistent cover up of claims & complaints against highly corrupt law firms and individual solicitors. In response to enquiries, Dr Angela Melville, who interviewed many clients for her final report, confirmed the research team did not receive a copy of the Master Policy, despite requesting it. Instead, a letter from Alistair J Sim, Director of the US Insurer Marsh, who had executives convicted of criminal offences in the United States , attached strict conditions to what little information was disclosed : “Please note that the consent of Marsh and Royal & Sun Alliance plc to the production of the enclosed documents is condition on the research team agreeing not to quote from the documents, or any part of them, whether text or figures, in the report to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.”

“The documents which are produced are confidential and are commercially sensitive. They are provided to the research team only and neither the documents nor copies should be provided to any other party nor should the content of the documents be disclosed to anyone outside the research team. At the conclusion of the research project, the documents should be returned with confirmation that foregoing conditions have been complied with and that no copies have been retained. If the research team is unable to agree to the foregoing conditions, the documents should be returned along with confirmation that no copies have been retained.”

Jane IrvineSLCC Chair Jane Irvine attacked 'conditions imposed by Law Society on research'. Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC condemned the Law Society's insurance brokers, Marsh for not handing over necessary documents which the SLCC itself will need for its 'monitoring role' if that is to be achieved successfully under its legislative powers. Jane Irvine said : “The research is unique as it is the first to examine how the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund function but we are very disappointed that conditions imposed on the data delivered by the Law Society of Scotland’s broker, proved unacceptable and the transparency of operation, which is key for all users, is not apparent."

The Law Society of Scotland today issued a statement confirming the conditions of secrecy imposed on the independent research team, claiming “During the course of this research, representatives of the Law Society were interviewed and various Master Policy documents were supplied to the researchers. Some of the information was commercially sensitive and confidential so the researchers were asked not to share it with other parties and that copies were not made or kept.". Surely such levels of secrecy imposed on independent investigations only serve to preserve the corruption which necessitated the investigation in the first place.

A legal insider who was briefed on the interviews taking place alleged the Law Society attempted to control what was said by the solicitors to the research team, claiming : "Anything to do with the Master Policy or the Guarantee Fund, the Law Society wants to control, to the point of rigging the results. Because this was an independent research team they couldn't control what was being reported by way of interviews from members of the public, but they did ensure they had a firm grip on what solicitors said and what information was released from the Law Society itself."

You can read Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report on the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, HERE :

Page 23Report reveals Law Society Chief Kenneth Pritchard, now a Sheriff blocked a client's access to justice. The highly controversial research report contains direct references to evidence revealed by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney in the Scottish Parliament’s debating chamber, showing the most senior officials of the Law Society of Scotland, including a serving Sheriff, Kenneth Pritchard, intervened in claims against corrupt lawyers, ordering solicitors & legal firms to drop courtroom litigation against colleagues in the legal profession who had negligently handled clients affairs, in some cases losing (or taking) millions of pounds of clients money for themselves. John Swinney said in Parliament : “I can also cite to you extracts from a petition that was made to the Court of Session for Judicial Review, in which there is a quote from a letter from a Mr Pritchard who was the Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland in which he writes to a firm of solicitors: “I am anxious that you should protect your back in this matter, because every solicitor who has acted for this particular person has ended up with a claim against them.’ You will appreciate that this is a private and confidential letter, not to be shown to Mr Macintyre, the sole purpose of which is to give what I hope is helpful advice to protect both you and your firm”.

John SwinneyJohn Swinney’s revelations broke open the corruption at the Law Society of Scotland and insurance companies connected with the Master Policy. Mr Swinney concluded his statement by saying “So really quite active encouragement from an official of the Law Society of Scotland for a practitioner not to act and deliver legal representation to an individual concerned.”. Mr Swinney said he had no comment to make on the matter today, but Government insiders said the Cabinet Secretary “was satisfied the information he had revealed was accurate and that it clearly contradicted the Law Society’s version of events on Master Policy claims to the Justice 2 Committee & the Scottish Parliament.”

Policy is to protect both says Law Society - Kenneth PritchardFormer Law Chief Kenneth Pritchard claimed Master Policy protected solicitors & clients alike. While the ex Law Society chief, now Sheriff Kenneth Pritchard claimed that Master Policy protected both clients & solicitors, as I reported earlier HERE , the SLCC’s report issued today makes a nonsense of Mr Pritchard’s claims and the Law Society of Scotland’s continued policy of promoting the Master Policy as the “ultimate in consumer protection”. Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report reveals a much different picture of the motives of the Master Policy, clearly showing it exists to protect solicitors, no matter how corrupt they have become or what damage they have done to unsuspecting and overly trusting clients. An excerpt from the report issued today reads : "What is striking is that there is no mention of protection of interests of solicitors’ clients in Section 44 of the Solicitors Scotland Act 1980. Thus, the Master Policy is essentially an insurance scheme intended to provide professional indemnity insurance coverage for solicitors.The purpose of the Master Policy, the simple answer is to allow solicitors to sleep at night. It provides professional indemnity insurance cover for firms."

My own case, involving the complaint against crooked lawyer Andrew Penman, is reported in the research as follows : "Not content with slowing my case and claim against the solicitor, the Law Society of Scotland… directly intervened in my claim by letter and instructed my solicitor… not to take instructions from me… The Law Society, not content with intervening with my solicitors directly, proceeded to obstruct and cancel my Civil Legal Aid I had been trying to obtain for my case." You can read more on that HERE.

The findings concluded that clients of lawyers are left out in the cold, despite the Law Society of Scotland today continuing its claims that the Master Policy and the Guarantee Fund offers "unrivalled consumer protection. Clients of solicitors would now do well to consider their positions where what may appear to be a trusting relationship with their legal agent could break down in a calamitous manner at any second, From the report : "The overall impression given to the public seems to be that the Master Policy protects the interests of legal services clients, when, in fact, it protects the interests of solicitors."

Also contained in the report are fairly typical experiences of clients who find out they have been the victim of a 'crooked lawyer' but who then find it difficult to gain fair hearings of their complaints or claims : "The first step for most claimants was to try and resolve the case by speaking to the most senior partner in the firm. None of the claimants that we spoke to felt that the firm made any effort to address their concerns. Instead, they all described being met by partners who were aggressive, and this attitude also appeared to add to their sense of shock.”

One reported experience of a client who made a complaint against their solicitor : "So I phoned up the senior partner of the firm. He then started up investigations, and I made an appointment to see the senior partner. When I went in to see the senior partner, after having a brief conversation with him, he looked at me across the desk, and he sat back in his chair, and he folded his arms, and he said “I’m now your opponent.”

Clients of solicitors would now do well to consider their positions where what may appear to be a trusting relationship with their legal agent could break down in a calamitous manner at any second, rendering the one trusted solicitor an opponent who will stop at nothing to ruin their once so admiring client.

Another report of a client who found the Law Society constantly delaying their claim against a crooked lawyer, in an experience common to many clients, is highlighted in the following manner : "Additionally, from the time my claim was made, the Law Society of Scotland, who were still considering complaints made against the solicitor… constantly halted their investigations, putting forward excuses they could not investigate matters while I was raising a claim for negligence against the Master Policy. This stop-start investigation policy continued for well over a year and it was obvious there was an intentional go-slow on the part of the Law Society of Scotland in their investigations to prevent me from obtaining evidence from their investigations to put into my claim to the Master Policy against the solicitor."

Debating chamberMSPs at the Scottish Parliament are also accused of failing to help constituents who get into difficulties with the legal profession. Members of the public interviewed by the research team also criticised politicians and consumer groups for not doing enough against a very strong legal profession, when even the most horrific cases of client abuse by lawyers went unresolved : "These claimants explained that after discovering that the legal system was not necessarily going to provide a route to justice, that they had attempted to try other avenues to get their cases resolved. They had campaigned for their cause to various consumer interest groups, had approached their MSPs, participated in Government inquiries, turned to the newspaper, and yet they felt that these efforts had met with little avail. For some, this failure provided further evidence of the deep ‘corruption’ and influence of the Law Society."

SLCCThe Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was condemned by members of the public in the report as just another Law Society. Unsurprisingly, people who were interviewed by the research team felt the SLCC was of no help to them, reported in an excerpt here : "The SLCC is made up of people with jobs connected to the ‘Law Society Inc.’. It is not independent. That is what we wanted. The Law Society is a law unto their own, they are protected. And the SLCC is part of that. The new SLCC won’t help me… From October to now, how they exercise their remit, there is a cosy relationship between the SLCC and the Law Society… They are supposed to be at arm’s length. But documents released under FOI, these documents show that they aren’t."

Eileen MastermanSLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman. The SLCC’s Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, commented on the research saying : “The research is very much exploratory and this is due to the short time-span and the small number of claimants and solicitors it was possible to interview. The research is a useful first step in providing the SLCC with a meaningful insight into the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund and how it can affect complainers. Members of the SLCC Board will now benefit from this important first-stage research which will develop our role overseeing the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund.”

The research team conclude their report by stating : “ What has clearly come through these interviews has been the very divergent views of solicitors and claimants/consumer groups as to the primary function of the Master Policy. The former tend to see it as simply a professional negligence insurance designed to protect individual members of the profession. The latter see that its primary purpose should be to protect the public against incompetent members of the profession. Whilst these are not incompatible aims we have come to the view that the rhetoric of the Law Society of Scotland encourages the latter perception but practice is more inclined to the former. In other jurisdictions there is a more explicit statement that it is the former.”

“Those claimants to whom we spoke were very much of the opinion that it was difficult to establish liability of a solicitor for professional negligence. It would be desirable to test this claim by looking at the record of the Master Policy in terms of claims and compensation paid. Data which would have allowed us to do this was requested from the Law Society of Scotland but was only made available the day before this Report was due to be submitted. Furthermore the Law Society of Scotland and Marsh put conditions on the use of the data in this Report which were unacceptable to us and to the Chief Executive of SLCC.”

“We would recommend that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission undertake a longer term research project which will allow researchers to examine the experiences of a representative sample of claimants and solicitors as well as analyse data on claims provided by the Master Policy’s broker under reasonable conditions of use.”

So, now what ? Will the SLCC actually do something for people who have had their claims destroyed by the Master Policy ‘protection racket’ ? Will SLCC members such as Margaret Scanlan who it was revealed, tagged claimants to the Guarantee Fund as “chancers” learn that just because victims of ‘crooked lawyers’ try to claim compensation for their stolen funds does not necessarily make everyone a chancer ?

Well, for now, it appears the SLCC will do nothing .. and wont even seek a copy of the Master Policy itself, so there is much more campaigning to be done on these issues to ensure that cases involving claims, and also complaints against crooked lawyers, are considered and regulated properly by a wholly independent organisation free of any involvement with the legal profession .. and that is most certainly not, the SLCC.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Report reveals Law Society Chief Kenneth Pritchard, now a Sheriff blocked a client's access to justice.
==================================
In a court of law this would be perverting the course of justice, so Pritchard is a criminal. This is an example of the low life wig wearing trash who has power to hold members of the public in contempt of court, when he is clearly a criminal himself.

Anonymous said...

If ever a profession deserved the label ULTIMATE CRIMINALS lawyers are that profession. I can assure every reader the NHS Primary Care complaints system protects crooked doctors, as much as the Law Society protects its criminal membership and corrupt insurers.
The Law Society, the masters of the cover up.

Anonymous said...

sounds like the lawyers have had it too easy for too long

hound them out of their offices folks !

rules but not for the rulers said...

From the report I see the papers in Scotland come in for a bit of criticism,justified by the looks of it too :
Page 28

A lot of people have tried to say that the Master Policy is corrupt, Which,
OFT, Consumer Focus, they have all tried. But nothing. The Law Society is
too strong. The same thing happened to the reporters for the Scotsman
and the Glasgow Herald. There was one… he wrote some good stories,
and then suddenly he moved South. He had been given the job of editor of
the Legal Times in England, they had given him that in order to persuade
him to shut up. The Scotsman used to write a page a week, and also there
were stories in the Glasgow Herald, but they are all written by lawyers. The
Law Society has been buying up advertising in the newspapers. They
wouldn’t publish our letters. Everything was one-sided. We can’t get our
voices heard in the media. Lawyers pay for the advertising, it must have
cost them millions.

Anonymous said...

So Marsh's cosy little monopoly is commercially sensitive and confidential? - more like a conspiracy against the public interest from start to finish, and one which the politicians of every major party and now the SLCC have been pleased to see perpetuated for decades.

Write to your MEP NOW!

Anonymous said...

As far as I am concerned, the Police should be called in to investigate the Law Society and Marsh over this very corrupt insurance scam because that's what it is - a scam.

When you have one side calling something an "ultimate consumer protection item" and the victims of it floundering against fraud and corruption it is definitely A SCAM.

Anonymous said...

Good thing John Swinney came up with all that otherwise the report would have been a dead duck in favour of lawyers again.
See Peter only someone who values Scotland like an SNP MSP would have stood up to corruption in the legal world !

Anonymous said...

Thanks for a complete version of the report.Now I hope you rattle the SLCC's cages until they actually do something!

Anonymous said...

Nice for everything to be confirmed by the law profs you've been saying for years but reading their report the lawyers who commented came over a bit thick and maybe too well organised.

Keep up the good work Peter!

Anonymous said...

As far as I am concerned, the Police should be called in to investigate the Law Society and Marsh over this very corrupt insurance scam because that's what it is - a scam.
==================================
I agree with you but if the police report them to the procurator fiscal, the latter is insured through the law society. The fiscal is not going to recommend prosecution, cosy relationships as you say. The more I read on this legal establishment of ours, the greater my conviction that it is a corrupt web of criminality. I would lose my life, before I would give in to this self regulating scum, because they have evil power which they use ruthlessly. They destroy lives and are protected as if they are angels. I hope every lawyer gets cancer. Lawyers are a cult, self protection for them and no protection for clients.

Anonymous said...

Peter, you and all victims of crooked lawyers have right on your side, that is why they cannot prosecute you.

Excellent work, thanks for your reporting on this most important of subjects. Victory to the pressure groups.

Anonymous said...

Good posting as usual Mr Cherbi.
I wonder how Dr Melville really felt when she was interviewing these people who had been victimised (or should I say abused) by the legal profession, then having to go and listen to all that bullshit from the lawyers themselves about how great they are and how its such a privilege for the public to be able to use their highly skilled services.

What a bloody disgrace the whole thing is and needs as you say to be sorted out now or are we in for another of Lord Hamilton's 40 year waits for justice ?

Anonymous said...

Scotland's Lord President Lord Hamilton asked Holyrood 'to defer' McKenzie Friend petition.

Well Mr Hamilton, you want delay? How much money have you criminals who are answerable only to yourselves made because the Law Society has blocked McKenzie friends in Scotland?

I can assure you irrespective of your legal training I could give you a run for your money on intellect. You have power because the system bestows that upon you. That does not mean you or the system are right, honest, or decent. According to Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers www.sacl/info you are a crook, and I know you lot have tried to shut down protest group websites. Democracy, freedom of expression and speech, you should open up your law books again. Freedom of expression and speech applies to the legal profession too. Freedom of speech is our fundamental right.

Honest men clear their names. You have not. William Wallace would have dealt with you the proper way. Mr Hamilton I am a joiner, I am also articulate and intelligent and I see many people in our society deprived of legal rights, and therefore human rights. Why, you know why, because some lawyer has robbed them and the legal establishment are hell bent on protecting the lawyer. Self regulation protects you and your subordinates, and the consequences for clients is horrendous. Self regulation will end, David can beat Golliath.

Anonymous said...

Not the version the Law Society or Marsh will like to read !

Anonymous said...

If a sheriff blocked lawyers from representing someone he should lose his seat on the bench immediately and there should be an inquiry into why he was appointed in the first place as I'm sure his bosses knew all about what he did.

Anonymous said...

some of this is a bit difficult to digest but i can see there is no way in hell anyone is going to be allowed to claim against a thief lawyer

take this as far as it goes please !

Anonymous said...

“Those claimants to whom we spoke were very much of the opinion that it was difficult to establish liability of a solicitor for professional negligence. (THAT IS BECAUSE SOLICITORS INVESTIGATE SOLICITORS SO COVER UP IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY).

It would be desirable to test this claim by looking at the record of the Master Policy in terms of claims and compensation paid. (YES STATISTICS DO NOT LIE. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF MONEY GOING IN BUT LITTLE GOING OUT. VICTIMS OF CROOKED LAWYERS CANNOT OBTAIN ANY FORM OF JUSTICE. Data which would have allowed us to do this was requested from the Law Society of Scotland but was only made available the day before this Report was due to be submitted. (CLEARLY THEY HAVE MUCH TO HIDE, A CRIMINAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES INDEED. THEY WILL NOT LIKE THE ACADEMICS FINDINGS).

Furthermore the Law Society of Scotland and Marsh put conditions on the use of the data (YES THEY WANT TO KEEP THE CORRUPTION THEY ARE MASTERS AT HIDDEN) in this Report which were unacceptable to us and to the Chief Executive of SLCC.”

THIS MUST BE THE MOST CORRUPT PROFESSION IN SCOTLAND, AND THIS IS DUE TO SELF REGULATION. THE LAW SOCIETY IS A LAWYER PROTECTING CRIMINAL ORGANISATION, AND I AM CONVINCED THAT THE SLCC WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO HELP CLIENTS AS LONG AS LAWYERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS ARE PART OF IT. CLEARLY THE ACADEMICS HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE LAW SOCIETIES MASTER POLICY INSURANCE IS CORRUPT, AND THE PUBLIC MUST NEVER TRUST LAWYERS. MONEY AND REPUTATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE, THAT IS WHY THERE IS FORMIDABLE RESISTANCE FROM LAWYERS. WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE MASTER POLICY NEVER PAYS OUT, AND THIS SENDS ALARM BELLS THAT INDEPENDENT REGULATION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. WHAT ARE THE PRESS DOING? ARE THEY CONTROLLED BY THE LAW SOCIETY. WE NEED JOURNALISTS TO BE JOURNALISTS, AND REPORT THIS SCAM. THEY SHOULD HAVE A HEADING ON THEIR FRONT PAGES, "NEVER TRUST A SCOTTISH LAWYER".

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 5.48pm

Yes I agree. I will be raising the issue further given Mr Pritchard's role as a Sheriff.

# Anonymous @ 5.54pm

Yes I agree, having many cases of complaints to the NHS drawn to my attention where the involvement of lawyers has certainly done away with any access to justice for victims families, as quickly as the doctors 'did away' with victims of medical negligence ...

# Rules but not for the rulers @ 7.49pm

Yes I saw that ... changed days at some newspapers but don't worry .. those titles such as the Sunday Mail, with the real circulation and influence still break the stories where it matters !

# Anonymous @ 8.37pm

Yes, the confidential monopoly must end, and a good idea for everyone to get their MEP and Europe involved in this long running scheme the legal profession and insurers have been running against the public.

# Anonymous @ 9.53pm

In my experience, the Police seem distant in relation to pleas by members of the public to investigate crooked lawyers.

The thing is, even if they do investigate, the Crown Office will come along and sit on the investigation and probably cancel any prosecution .. favours to colleagues in the legal profession on the other side of the fence no less ...

@ Anonymous @ 10.13pm

Yes, Mr Swinney did do a lot of good, but it would be in the public's best interest if he continued to press the issue in a more overt manner than is currently being undertaken.

I do of course appreciate Mr Swinney's position in that he may have received a 'talking to' from the Law Society over what he did .. but time moves on and surely the public interest of each & every Scot is of more importance than a bunch of crooked lawyers at the Law Society, right ?

# Anonymous @ 11.57pm

Yes ... it is.

# Anonymous @ 12.07am

Comment a bit strong in places, but well .. if you read the report through, you will see the Law Society Master Policy claims process has actually caused suicides of clients - which has to be criminal.

# Anonymous @ 12.35am

Thanks ... all for one and one for all ...

# Anonymous @ 12.54am

She probably felt like the rest of us .. disgusted at the whole thing.

There will have to be a lot of hard campaigning to ensure this "protection racket" of the Master Policy as some call it is ended and people's rights respected.

# Anonymous @ 1.08pm

I agree that self regulation is the cause of all this ... which certainly must be ended for the legal profession and every other profession which hides its dirty secrets in the closet of self regulation.

# Anonymous @ 9.39am

Yes I will be taking that issue up soon ... and would encourage others to do the same ...

# Anonymous @ 12.51pm

I agree .. and certainly yes, of all those I have investigated so far, the legal profession itself seems to be the most corrupt .. followed hot on the heels by ICAS, the regulator of accountants in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Good reply Peter.
I think the SLCC could do with someone like you aboard to actually defend the public's interests rather than lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine so busy criticising Marsh and the Law Society for restricting the research but what is she going to do about it ?

Rabbit Masterman at it too and puts the whole thing down to a beginning of more info needed ?

Christ how many victims do they want before they are going to do something ?

Anonymous said...

Report reveals Law Society Chief Kenneth Pritchard, now a Sheriff blocked a client's access to justice..........

Kenneth Pritchard, again we see an abuse of power, and the press should report this because you are not fit to oversee court proceedings. You belong in the dock, not behind the bench and in a fair unbiased democracy you would be charged and tried by jury.

This man is an example of two tier justice in action and the public must have the right to know the background of all sheriffs and lawyers in Scotland. If a member of the public lied under oath in your courtroom Kenneth they would be jailed for perverting the course of justice. You blocked a clients access to justice, that makes you a protected criminal, because you are a member of our sacrosanct legal profession. Many people are tried in court but you lawyers are clearly immune from prosecution because of your so called status. Maggots have more class than you warped people. The legal establishment self protect, that is why justice against lawyers is impossible through the courts. Make no mistake it will not stay that way.

Anonymous said...

Page 6 "We attempted to contact a
number of randomly selected solicitors, however, we did not receive any
replies to our invitations to participate."

I know a solicitor who was asked to participate but he was told to ask the Law Society for permission by the Complaints Partner and they refused .. so no participation from invites is not such a great surprise to me.

Anonymous said...

Comment a bit strong in places, but well .. if you read the report through, you will see the Law Society Master Policy claims process has actually caused suicides of clients - which has to be criminal.

Suicides do not surprise me, as you said Peter individuals against these criminals, it is the loneliest place to be, frightening because they can treat you any way they want. My comment is strong, because we are dealing with the worst of humanity.

Anonymous said...

After having read that I don't see why the legal profession should be allowed to regulate itself.NO doubt now that lawyers are totally corrupt when it comes to handling complaints against themselves and as for claims against lawyers there's no hope for them too.
Criminalise the whole procedure and have a jury hearing cases of claims against lawyers then we'll see how the public react to how those who claim to serve the court are actually bloody criminals themselves.

Anonymous said...

So Peter if I am to understand that report correctly the master policy has caused suicides among claimants ?

I sincerely hope anyone who has caused that goes straight to hell.

Who gets the big fat brown envelopes ? said...

The letter from Marsh says it all - once you get a letter like that with something you just know its completely corrupt so now we have established that why is Marsh still involved with the Scottish Government ?
Are they supporting corrupt insurance schemes too ?

Ken MacDonald said...

A fine write up Peter proving yet again you are the best writer on legal issues in Scotland no matter who says what.

I dare say Marsh,the Law Society and the rest of their pack will be displeased but that is just too bad.Good work and keep it up (as if I need to tell you that !)

Anonymous said...

Mr Pritchard’s claims and the Law Society of Scotland’s continued policy of promoting the Master Policy as the “ultimate in consumer protection”. (THE JOKE OF THE CENTURY, PRITCHARD YOU ARE A LAIR). Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report reveals a much different picture of the motives of the Master Policy, clearly showing it exists to protect solicitors, no matter how corrupt they have become or what damage they have done to unsuspecting and overly trusting clients. (DR MELVILLE AND PROFESSOR STEPHEN'S REPORT SHOWING IT PROTECTS LAWYERS IS WHAT WE EXPECT. PRITCHARD IS NOT FIT TO BE OVERSEEING COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Anonymous said...

THE LAW SOCIETY ARE UNFIT TO DEAL WITH CLAIMS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND THIS POWER SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM THEM AND GIVEN TO A TRUE INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS HANDLING BODY FREE FROM LAWYERS OR THEIR SUPPORTERS. KENNY MACASKILL, WILL BE EMBARRASSED BY THE ACADEMICS CONCLUSIONS, HE SHOULD RESIGN.

Anonymous said...

“Please note that the consent of Marsh and Royal & Sun Alliance plc to the production of the enclosed documents is condition on the research team agreeing not to quote from the documents, or any part of them, whether text or figures, in the report to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.”

Justice minister, apply the Freedom of Information Act to the Law Society of Scotland now.

Anonymous said...

A very good report by Dr Melville & Prof.Stephen.They seem to have been remarkably honest no doubt due to your influence in writing about these matters.I hope some good comes of it and these victims of the Master Policy have their cases properly resolved.

Good work all of you and please pass on my compliments to the research team.

Anonymous said...

THE PERSUERS PANEL.

I would like to advise readers that I told a solicitor from this panel a member of my family was solicitor barred, because no lawyer would help her. We found it was impossible to get a law firm to take action against Ross Harper Solicitors.

The persuers panel solicitor would not help either, so we concluded this panel was pointless. Let us be fair, perhaps other ex clients have had help from this panel, but we doubt it. A lawyers first priority will always be to protect other lawyers so that this loyalty is reciprocated.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers hate clients who report them as much as Hitler hated the Jewish people.
This rabid hatred ensures that justice will be out of the reach of clients because lawyers only have loyalty to other lawyers.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for your continued comments.

Due to many points raised, I will be writing a second article on the Master Policy report, highlighting some more of the issues, along with new information received over the past couple of days.

There is one thing that is certain ... the claims procedures of the Master Policy, and the Guarantee Fund show both to be completely corrupt, a far cry from the Law Society's claim of "unrivalled consumer protection" ...

Lets also not forget that a lot of taxpayers money also goes into the Master Policy, via the Scottish Government paying the subscriptions of members of the Government Legal Service for Scotland (GLSS) .. and probably a few other 'hangers-on' we don't know about yet ...

Anonymous said...

This is a message to the legal scum that ruin lives with impunity.

We clients are human beings who need help and are powerless against the self regulators. How would you people feel if you were on the receiving end of your decisions? You would want to put a bullet through your lawyers head. Make no mistake you are intensely hated, and one day you will reap your karma. This is a war without bloodshed, and you cowards who have been named and shamed will eventually have no clients, no income just like your many victims. Death to you all.

Anonymous said...

People of Scotland when you go into a court of law are the legal professionals not the real criminals? When people see the Law Society for the cesspit of liars they are, how can the public trust anyone involved in law as a profession?

Kenny MacAskill is a man who cannot protect the layperson. He would be deserted by the profession he loves so much. Alex Salmond is a traitor to a fair legal system for appointing MacAskill. Traitors to Scotland, that is what they are.

Salmond used taxpayers money by claiming expenses to try and impeach Tony Blair over the Iraq war. Salmond going against a lawyer who is the British Prime Minister. Why not the Law Society Mr Salmond? Obviously you have an agenda. You should have used the backhander money from the Law Society.

Anonymous said...

Suicides due to the Master Policy, here is a warning to all people.

Lawyers, family GP's other doctors, are evil when money or reputations are involved. These people have the morals of Harold Shipman, they will kill you to protect their own. You may think I am an extremist due to my views, but how can a person get help when,

Lawyers and doctors stop your money to stop you fighting a legal battle, because their insurers will have to pay your damages.

These people can cut your right to eat, it happened to me and you will find every door shuts in your face, no rights, they have total power. That is why Mr Cherbi said "it is the loneliest place to be". No legal rights because those with total power are answerable only to themselves, so criminal conduct is covered up. It is like being back in the dark ages. What happened to me will happen to someone else, perhaps someone is going through this now. I had no money for five months because my GP covered up what happened to me, and my lawyer was working with him. They were both insured by the same company as the employer I was suing for injuring me. They are all still working with patients and clients, The Law Society would not investigate. I survived this because my family supported me. You need to go through an experience like this to realize you have no rights. Criminal charges should have been brought against these professionals, the evidence is there but no lawyer will ever put that evidence before a court. If you try to sue anyone and you need medical evidence your GP and your lawyer will be your worst enemy. The only person on your side will be you. I promise you will never win damages, it is impossible, they will cover everything up.

Anonymous said...

There is one thing that is certain ... the claims procedures of the Master Policy, and the Guarantee Fund show both to be completely corrupt, a far cry from the Law Society's claim of "unrivalled consumer protection" ...

THE REALITY PETER IS THAT LAWYERS HAVE UNRIVALLED PROTECTION FROM CLAIMS AGAINST THEM. A PROTECTION RACKET AL CAPONE WOULD BE PROUD OF. TOTALLY CRIMINAL AND THEY SLEEP EASY AT NIGHT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE BASTARDS.

Anonymous said...

I have honestly not heard of these kinds of problems in England and it just seems morally wrong to me this master policy is allowed to continue.If what you are saying is the case and in this independent report there should be arrests for what has been going on against people who complain against their lawyers in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society's claim of "unrivalled consumer protection" ...

Mr Cherbi they should have told the truth, The Law Society displays "Unrivalled consumer hatred and hostility", unrivalled lawyer protection is the reality. The lawyers tell us "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", and the legal profession is composed of some of the most corrupt human beings in Scotland.

They understand the law, it is their job, but the rules applied to the layperson, are not applicable to the lawyers. Kenneth Pritchard and Lord Hamilton are just two examples of legal establishment double standards. Imagine being in a witness box giving evidence, and being told "you are under oath" from this pair of criminals. Hamilton on the video you told us to look at is answerable only to himself.

I see also the MP's are claiming independent regulation of their expenses claims will violate their human rights. It is not only terrorists who use the ECHR Act to protect their interests. Perhaps Douglas Mill is a part time spin doctor at Westminster. He also thinks lawyers human rights will be violated by independent regulation. Criminals, all of them only fit for Saughton or Barlinnie.

Kenny MacAskill, you should be resigning today, because the profession you say we owe a great debt to, protects your legal colleagues. The decision makers are the politicians so the insurers must remunerating you.

To use a legal term you are HOLDING OUT as justice minister, because your loyalty lies with Pritchard and Hamilton etc, not with the constituents who elected you to represent them. You are the same as Douglas Mill, a facade purporting to be for the electorate when you are in bed with the Law Society of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Christ how many victims do they want before they are going to do something ?

If 1000 victims of crooked lawyers hanged themselves, Masterman would not care, on the contrary there would be 1000 fewer claims against her profession. Masterman does not like the academics findings because she is a lawyer. The latter are the same as the Nazi party without military power. They are omnipotent is all other areas. They are the architects and masters of injustice. Martin Luther King said "Injustice somewhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The injustice of the Law Society, has spread to the commission to the extent it needs overhauled.

These lawyers are desperate to hold onto power, because their lifestyles depend on it. Their victims life's depend on independent complaints being truly independent, free from the poison lawyers are.

The academics in my view have demonstrated that those who oversee court proceedings, should be in prison, and are totally unfit to prosecute members of the public.

The Master Policy Insurance has been condemned with the Law Society of Scotland. Corporate insurance finance looking after corrupt lawyers, and the latter protecting colleagues and consequently the insurers, financiers. A scratch each others back situation that protects the money pot and crooked lawyers from prosecution. A justice system, these people do not understand the meaning of that term.

Anonymous said...

I saw a man wearing a white shirt today, which has a statement on the back as follows.

"The Law Society of Scotland Protect Crooked Lawyers"

That is one way of getting the message across to the public.

Anonymous said...

I see the police are reluctant to question lawyers on behalf of the public. Does this mean if a lawyer murdered a member of the public the police would turn a blind eye? It seems to be the case with the attack on Mr Cummings, which raises the question, does the Law Society control the police?

Regarding the findings of the academics, the Law Society and insurers have shot themselves in the foot. Supplying data regarding the master insurance policy the day before a report is published, is an attempt to undermine the report findings. They have undermined their own position as self regulator of the legal profession. Justice for them is covering up everything crooked lawyers do to their clients. When McKenzie friends are introduced people will have professional but not legal help. Any attempt by MacAskill to prevent the introduction of McKenzie friends will reinforce his loyalty to his profession. Go MacAskill you are in the wrong job.

Anonymous said...

The Sunday Mail should report on Sheriff Kenneth Pritchard protecting crooked lawyers from clients. He should be forced out to make an example of the rest of these criminals.