Friday, July 31, 2009

Scotland's civil courts system is a mess and consumers have little access to justice, reports 'limited' Consumer Focus survey

Consumer Focus ScotlandLong awaited Consumer Focus research points to lack of access to justice in Scotland's civil courts. SIX YEARS after the Scottish Consumer Council began investigating the mess that is Scotland's civil justice system, the SCC’s latest incarnation, Consumer Focus Scotland, has reported to a rather unsurprised audience that Scotland's civil courts are indeed in the mess we all know them to be, and that access to justice in the civil courts is limited at best, descending to 'non-existent' for most Scots who try to pursue civil law issues on their own.

The research, funded by Consumer Focus Scotland, managed by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and implemented by market research group IPSOS-MORI, which was initially hoped would interview hundreds of people, eventually only took in the views of 35 court users, because the Scottish Court Service, as I reported yesterday, blocked the release of crucial documents on cases to the research team.

You can download & read a copy of the Consumer Focus Scotland research in acrobat .pdf format : HERE

The problem I have with the report is that there are too few numbers involved in the actual survey, and therefore too few experiences studied & reported to back up what should be wide ranging reform proposals we are all expecting to hear from the work of Lord Gill’s civil court review. The Consumer Focus report conclusion does highlight these shortcomings of a lack of interview subjects for the research, but as many pointed out yesterday in my report on the Scottish Court Service blocking the success of the Consumer Focus research, much more could have been done to attract people into the project.

The Report’s conclusion makes reference to a lack of interview subjects, twice : “This report contains the findings of a small scale, exploratory piece of research which has aimed to build on the existing weak evidence base of the experiences of civil court users in Scotland. Because of the difficulties involved in identifying and accessing court users, our eventual sample of litigants (a combination of those who had contacted an in-court advice service and litigants identified through Scottish Legal Aid Board applications data) cannot be said to be typical of the population of unrepresented litigants currently pursuing cases through the courts – in terms of factors relating to demographics, case and litigant type as well as their experiences, attitudes and behaviour.”

and here : “Lastly, because of the narrow range of sample available to us in order to conduct the research, those interviewed had gone through either a small claims or summary cause action. None had experienced ordinary cause procedure, and considering that these cases are likely to be more complicated, with no standard forms available to help unrepresented litigants, there is good reason for ensuring this group is included in future studies.”

Law Society of ScotlandMissing from the report is the fact that for now, consumers access to justice is controlled by the legal services market monopoly enforced by Law Society of Scotland and individual solicitors. The glaring omission in the Consumer Focus research, is the obvious fact that problems with the public’s access to justice in the civil court system can really be explained in one obvious sentence - a lack of access to trustworthy, transparent & accountable legal services & legal representation at a reasonable cost. Access to justice in Scotland, will always be restricted until the element of control the legal profession itself exhibits over the justice system is taken away from them.

A person’s right of access to justice should not be decided by a solicitor on the back of the legal profession’s business for profit model, brutally enforced as a monopoly by the Law Society of Scotland for far too long … a person’s access to justice should be decided by the court after a fair hearing on the individual’s case, with that individual having unrestricted access to the trustworthy, transparent & accountable legal services & legal representation at a reasonable cost which everyone deserves, regardless of wealth or status.

Reforming civil justice and the civil courts is one thing, but any such reforms are meaningless unless the legal services sector itself is reformed, and fully opened up to competition and effective independent regulation, so that people don't need to face the court alone and defend themselves against not only an adversary, but also the less than friendly court environment and also the usual opposing legal counsel who will use every trick in the book to prevent party litigants from gaining a fair hearing in civil court cases.

Now of course, the test comes on how exactly these findings, and indeed the experiences of tens of thousands of other Scots who have used or attempted to use the civil justice system in Scotland, will impact on the forthcoming Civil Courts Review, chaired by Lord Gill, the Lord Justice Clerk. Reform must take place, sooner rather than later - and this time, for the good of the public, not the legal profession.

Here is the Press Release from Consumer Focus Scotland which accompanies the release of the research :

Views and experiences of civil sheriff court users

What’s going to happen to me?

Snapshot of court users points to need for better information and guidance

A study involving people taking and defending civil cases in Scotland’s sheriff courts suggests people too often don’t know what’s going on around them. The snapshot study commissioned by Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board shows court users can find themselves believing what’s to come is going to be far worse than it turns out to be.

Head of Policy at Consumer Focus Scotland, Sarah O’Neill – herself a solicitor and former in-court adviser – says the research points to an urgent need for better information for the public, and wider access to support services in all courts:

“People who bring their civil cases to court, or defend cases brought against them, who are often representing themselves, told us that it can be worrying and bewildering. While solicitors and some businesses that use the courts a lot may find it all straightforward, the lack of information, and sometimes advice and help services, are disadvantaging people taking or defending a civil case in court, often for the first time.”

Due to advice from the Scottish Court Service that for data protection reasons they were unable to allow us access to court records, the research was confined to in-depth interviews with 35 people contacted through the Scottish Legal Aid Board and In Court Advice Services.

“This can only be a snapshot as we did not manage to reach the numbers and variety of court users needed to create a bigger picture,” says Sarah O’Neill. “However, it is very rare indeed for anyone to ask court users in Scotland for their opinions on the system – there has been little previous research into these issues. A consistent message we got back was that few knew what to expect and many were deeply concerned about understanding the language and procedures.”

In Court Advice Services, now funded by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, were generally praised by users who suggested they needed to be better publicised. Some litigants felt the services were over-stretched and lacked connections with the court’s own staff.

Sarah O’Neill says courts themselves are not seen as user-friendly:

“One complaint was that little thought seems to be given to what is convenient for court users. As one person who pursued a small claims action and represented himself put it: ‘It’s always ten o’clock and it’s always on a Thursday, but you can sit there for two hours.’

“Of course, what no research with court users will ever tell us is how many people are put off pursuing their case as a result of their preconceptions about what’s involved. This is another reason why investment in giving people a deeper understanding of the Scottish legal system is essential to opening up civil justice.”

The findings of the study are being submitted to the Civil Courts review being led by Lord Gill, and to the Scottish Government.

Notes for Editors

The interviews undertaken by Ipsos MORI with litigants covered:

* Accessing civil justice
* Appearing in court
* Fairness of process
* Self-representation
* Information provision
* Court staff
* In-court advice services
* Cost of litigation
* Timescales

Those interviewed had been involved in a variety of case types, including small claims actions, debt, housing and eviction cases and mortgage repossession proceedings. The court users interviewed fell into categories:

respondent TYPE

Civil Legal Aid Applicant : 19

Received advice from in-court advice service : 16

LITIGANT TYPE

Defender : 26 Pursuer : 9

COURT HEARINGS

Case heard in court : 17 Case not heard in court : 17 Not sure whether case heard in court : 1

Representation in court

Of 17 cases heard in court Represented by solicitor in court at some stage in proceedings : 6

Represented self in court at some stage in proceedings : 9 Case heard in court but did not attend : 2

Quotes from Interviews:

[About the prospect of going to court] They seem to use a lot of legal jargon…I’m pretty much a straight talking person, I’m not one for the words that they use….I could possibly have used the wrong word or put it in a different way and it wouldn’t have helped me.

Pursuer, small claims action, received advice from in-court advice service, case not heard in court

I wouldn’t have a clue what to do anyway, they’re professionals so they know the ins and outs….I’d rather they did it and did it correct than I did it and made an ass of it.

Defender, mortgage arrears, represented by solicitor in court

“I was actually shaking to be quite honest with you….What was going to happen to me, was I going to go to jail? I was sitting outside the courtroom and I was biting my nails and I was like, ‘what’s going to happen to me?’. I was in a terrible state and the boy next to me said, ‘nothing’s going to happen to you’, and I was actually crying. I thought honestly….I thought I was going to jail. Nobody had said what would happen to me”

Defender, rent arrears, received advice from in-court advice service, represented self in court

“Perhaps a leaflet or some form of information about what to expect, you know, how the process runs through….along with my letter to appear in court.”

Defender, rent arrears, represented by solicitor in court

In-court advice services

The Scottish Consumer Council, one of Consumer Focus’s predecessor organisations, established the first in-court advice service in Edinburgh alongside Citizens’ Advice Scotland, and has been a key supporter of their expansion. There are now six in-court advice services in Scotland, in Aberdeen, Airdrie, Dundee, Edinburgh, Hamilton and Kilmarnock. The Scottish Legal Aid Board assumed funding responsibility for these services in April 2009 and is working with them to build capacity where needed and ensure that they are responsive to the needs of those appearing in court unrepresented.

‘McKenzie Friends’

Consumer Focus Scotland is also submitting its written evidence to the Public Petitions committee of the Scottish Parliament on the introduction of ‘McKenzie Friends’ to assist unrepresented litigants The evidence states that Consumer Focus Scotland supports the introduction of McKenzie Friends, and that while the research does not purport to offer a definitive conclusion on the views of court users, it does suggest that unrepresented litigants might benefit from the opportunity to have a McKenzie Friend with them in court, who could provide them with moral support and other appropriate assistance. Having such support available could help take away some of the fear associated with appearing in court and therefore potentially improve the experience of unrepresented litigants in court.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

I will force myself to read the Consumer report but looking at your quote of their press release it sounds like they limited themselves to asking questions about experiences and not actual access to justice issues.

In one word "bollocks".

Next time maybe they will get some victims to write the damn thing and save everyone a lot of money !

Anonymous said...

The glaring omission in the Consumer Focus research, is the obvious fact that problems with the public’s access to justice in the civil court system can really be explained in one obvious sentence - (a lack of access to trustworthy, transparent & accountable legal services & legal representation at a reasonable cost). CORRECT PETER WE CANNOT TRUST LAWYERS, THERE IS NO TRANSPARENCY AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR NOW. Access to justice in Scotland, will always be restricted until the element of control the legal profession itself exhibits over the justice system is taken away from them. THIS CONTROL MUST BE TAKEN FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY CAN AND DO CAUSE HORRENDOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR CLIENTS, WHO HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS. THEY ARE SLAVES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION, A TRANSGRESSION OF THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THIS MUST END NO MATTER WHAT LAWYERS OR POLITICIANS WANT.

Anonymous said...

6 years and 35 people

hell i could find more coming out of my local wh.smith in a morning !

Anonymous said...

Yes Peter you are right about access to a lawyer being probably the primary cause of lack of access to court.Pity the report didn't emphasise that obvious one!

Anonymous said...

Is this the silly season for inconclusive surveys ?

How about something more definite like "Scotland's courts are a f*ck up and we all know it so lets do something about it!"

Anonymous said...

While this research tells us what many have know and complained of for decades it nonetheless represents a missed opportunity, the result of the Scottish Court Services refusal to co-operate with Consumer Focus Scotland.

Past experience strongly suggests that this report's recommendations will, together with all those previously presented, find their way into the laps of the very individuals and Public Institutions which have been responsible for the travesty of Civil Justice in Scotland and are pleased to allow it to continue.

Anonymous said...

£857 per person for that survey if I have my sums right (£30,000 for 35 people)

Telling us what we already know - I think I'd be asking for my money back !

Anonymous said...

Sarah O’Neill says courts themselves are not seen as user-friendly:

Sarah, I would like to point out that the courts are hostile, in my opinion. Many members of the public, myself included have no prospect of a hearing, never mind justice if we have a dispute with a lawyer.

The MacKenzie Friend would be a better option for us because many of us do not trust lawyers. The setup of lawyers, the Law Society and insurers RSA barr us from justice or even tha possibility of justice. It is a corrupt system designed to protect lawyers, and that is why it needs to change.

Regarding the survey, it is clear from the comments that if 3500 people were asked about the civil courts system the findings would have been overwhelmingly supporting reform. The current system does not serve the people of Scotland, it enslaves them to corrupt lawyers who have draconian legal protection. The stranglehold of the Law Society must end, so that we have legal services we can trust, instead of a smoke screen for protecting crooked lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Those quotes in the report sound like they came from 6 year olds.Couldn't they have done a bit better getting some more coherent comments from the 'court users' ?

Anonymous said...

THIS WAS TAKEN FROM AN EARLIER ARTICLE BY MR CHERBI. MY COMMENTS IN BRACKETS.

While the legal profession itself is now subject to a degree of independent regulation though the
Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, Scotland's Judiciary have little or no independent systems to regulate appointments or cases of judicial misconduct - most of those powers being centred on one person, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, (THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF CRIMINAL. ADOLF HITLER RULED GERMANY AND WAS ALSO ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE. THIS HAMILTON CHAP, IS JUST A MAN WITH AN EXTAORDINARY DICTATORIAL AMOUNT OF POWER) who appears to believe the position of one man running an entire Judicial system in a democracy is a natural thing which should worry no one ...
(WELL IT WILL NOT WORRY HAMILTON BUT IT SHOULD, BECAUSE ONLY DICTATORS ARE NOT ANSWERABLE TO OTHERS. HAMILTON HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF CORRUPTION please see the Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers website www.sacl/info rogues gallery where there is a picture of Hamilton. NOW HAMILTON WHY DO YOU NOT WANT TO CLEAR YOUR NAME? YOU CANNOT THAT IS THE REALITY AND YET YOU ARE UNACCOUNTABLE. THE SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM IS IN THE STONE AGE, RUN BY CRIMINALS WHO ARE SELF PROTECTING AND CORRUPT. THIS MUST END AT ALL COSTS, A BANANA REPUBLIC INDEED.


SEE sacl/info rogues gallery,

Peter Cherbi said...

There is little doubt the Consumer Focus research tells us what we all already know, in that the civil courts system is a mess and access to it is restricted.

Given the work Lord Gill has undertaken on the civil court review I would have expected something more than this, given the quality of previous research carried out by the Scottish Consumer Council.

I agree with the strength of comments so far on this article, and particularly

# Anonymous @ 3.05pm & # Anonymous @ 4.52pm.

I am sure those in the legal system who have a need to protect their positions and business markets have already twisted the findings beyond belief for their own ends of self preservation, making a further mockery of justice in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Parliament have a duty to protect the electorate from extremists.

Lawyers are extremists so why are their agents in the parliament at all. They are not there to help their constituents, they are there to promote the Law Society, therefore lawyers interests. It is time for people to vote for non lawyer candidates, and rid the parliament of this scourge.

womble said...

Anonymous said...

Those quotes in the report sound like they came from 6 year olds.Couldn't they have done a bit better getting some more coherent comments from the 'court users' ?

9:57 PM

My feelings exactly !

Anonymous said...

I am very disappointed with this survey.More could have been done and I think we have to get away from what are effectively anonymous polls on how the legal system works if we are to change anything.
The public would appreciate real people and real cases which would make understanding the issues a lot easier.As far as this survey goes as someone already said it will just be used by those who are causing the problems in the court system to back up their positions and blame the public for everything so the same failures continue anon.

Anonymous said...

There are 49 Sheriff Courts in Scotland - only 6 have in court advice services.

This disgraceful imbalance is not even mentioned in a report which impiles that while there is more to do but everything is moving along satisfactorally.

Nor do the researchers mention that while a minority do have a limited access to in Court advice for claims under £5000, those who find themselves involved in much larger and often much more complex claims at the Court of Session where sums involved must exceed £5000 have absolutely no such support.

I smell a cover-up.

Anonymous said...

A WARNING TO THE PUBLIC,

NEVER TRUST AN ACCOUNTANT, DOCTOR OR LAWYER. THESE PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS, THEY ARE CHRONIC LIARS, COMPELED TO PROTECT EACH OTHER, SOME OF YOU MAY LAUGH, THAT IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN LITIGATION. WHEY YOU FIND OUT WHAT THESE PROFESSIONS ARE REALLY LIKE IT IS TERRIFYING.

IF ANY OF YOU THINK THIS IS AMUSING, YOU ARE FORTUNATE FOOLS WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE MISFORTUNE TO BE INVOLVED WITH THESE CRIMINALS. IT IS TRULY SHOCKING TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY ARE REALLY LIKE, DISEASED MINDS THAT LIE ABOUT YOU WITH NO COMPUNCTION.

Anonymous said...

Sarah O’Neill says courts themselves are not seen as user-friendly:

Sarah,

lawyers are not user friendly, so the courts cannot be either. There is more chance of me becoming a concert pianist than getting a fair hearing in court.
The courts are where clients need lawyers. I do not know you Sarah, so please do not take offence. Let us be hypothetical, you have made serious errors handling my legal business. I want to sue you for negligence. Here are the hurdles.

I need a lawyer who will not help me if another lawyers reputation is at stake.

If I get a lawyer I will be trying to claim against the Master Policy, you and all Scottish lawyers pay into this for your practising certificate. If by some miracle I get to court, the Sheriff will also pay into the same insurance arrangement. I would have more chance of winning Euromillions than being compensated. It is a draconian system designed to protect you and your 10,000 colleagues.

Even if I could go to court on my own, what chance would I have against legal professionals who will protect their insurers by dismissing my case. The legal system Sarah, is a closed shop of powerful criminals (I am not saying you are one of them) who can and do, do as they please, because there is nothing to stop them. You should try being on the client side of the fence, any one of us would have more chance of going to the moon than beating a lawyer in court.

Anonymous said...

The civil court system is a mess and will remain so as long as Scotland's client hating legal establishment, the Law Society of Scotland control access to justice.

These people crush clients who want justice against the legal establishment. They hate clients as much as Hitler hated the Jewish people, like Hitler they are bastards. If the Law Society were fit to self regulate in a way clients got justice, the chances are Peter's website and many other pressure groups would not be in existence today.

The Law Society of Scotland are therefore VICTIMS of their own corrupt ways. Like I say, self regulation really means self protection. Keep saving crooked lawyers, Law Society, your reputation as a lawyer protection society, is permanent.

Anonymous said...

Simply to agree with what those who have already commented have said.Scotland was better served by the Scottish Consumer Council who did better work than this.

Anonymous said...

To those who passed the ECHR into law. If an individual has to complain about a lawyer, the European Convention of Human Rights is of no use to that person because no lawyer will enforce those rights.

We need a clients legal system to protect clients from the lawyers legal system, if you know what I mean. It is their system because they are protected by self regulation.

Those people out there who think no lawyer can damage them, we were non victims once. This profession can affect you, your family, a friend, anyone who is not a lawyer, and there is as much secrecy around the Law Society as Stalin's Soviet Union. If any of you think you are immune from lawyers actions, you are fools indeed.

Most of you have mortgages, wills, even if you do not have lots of money you are like a swimmer in warm seas, where Great White Sharks swim. The only difference is the shark attacks through hunger and instinct, the lawyer through greed. If you fall victim who will help you, lawyers from the self regulating Law Society of Scotland, a cesspit of secrecy and coverup. Mr Phillip Yelland is a master of this.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are the same. Check it out when Mr Cherbi posts evidence from clients who have complained to the commission about their liar, oops lawyer, same thing. No client or potential client in Scotland is safe from lawyer criminality.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland control the press. How many papers have reported about client suicides after dealing with Mr Yelland and his colleagues?

Anonymous said...

Cambridge Online Dictionary.

Constitution (LAWS)
(a written document which forms) the set of political principles by which a state or organization is governed, especially in relation to the rights of the people it governs:
Britain has no written constitution.
=====================================
Lord Wheatley said of the appointments process at the SLCC, Outsiders should not be allowed into the process because it was "constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy".

As Britain has no written constitution Wheatley means people outside the legal establishment, who are subject to the legal establishments decisions must have no rights against lawyers. Who the hell does this bastard think he is? Like the Sun King beheaded by the French, perhaps Wheatley thinks the sun comes up in the morning for him.

If we had a written constitution or bill of rights which stated "No profession in the United Kingdom can have the power of self regulating it's own members", the Law Society would be stripped of it's current role.

Wheatley would have been as well saying "Outsiders cannot be allowed into the appointments process for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, because lawyers are and will remain above the law. The many instances like Haggarty, Colin Boyd etc show this to be the case, where lawyers help their own avoid prosecution.

Those who oversee legal process ensure as far as practicable, that they are above the law. Wheatley and Hamilton are such men. No human being is above the law if legal process is fair, but this is clearly not the case in the UK.

Anonymous said...

The letter about Marsh UK and the Law Society Master Policy.

So the figures would demonstrate that Marsh UK Royal Sun Alliance NEVER PAY THE VICTIMS OF CROOKED LAWYERS and the information is commercially sensitive, MORE LIKE INFORMATION THAT WILL SHOW THIS SCAM FOR WHAT IT IS, LAWYERS PROTECTING INSURERS, AND LAWYERS PROTECTING EACH OTHER. THESE REVELATIONS WOULD ALSO BE DAMAGING FOR MACASKILL, WHO IS A SUPPORTER OF THIS SYSTEM, SOME JUSTICE MINISTER.

THE RESEARCH TEAM COULD LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS, BUT NOT SPILL THE BEANS ON A SYSTEM FILTY WITH CORRUPTION. IF EVER A LETTER PROVED BEYOND ALL DOUBT THIS SETUP IS CRIMINAL THIS IS IT. HAS THIS PERSON KEPT HIS JOB? THE RESEARCHERS CANNOT PUBLISH CLAIMS STATISTICS, STATISTICAL REVIEW ETC. SINISTER TO SAY THE LEAST.

ALL THE MORE REASON THE PUBLIC MUST NEVER TRUST LAWYERS.

Anonymous said...

‘McKenzie Friends’

Consumer Focus Scotland is also submitting its written evidence to the Public Petitions committee of the Scottish Parliament on the introduction of ‘McKenzie Friends’ to assist unrepresented litigants The evidence states that Consumer Focus Scotland supports the introduction of McKenzie Friends, and that while the research does not purport to offer a definitive conclusion on the views of court users, it does suggest that unrepresented litigants might benefit from the opportunity to have a McKenzie Friend with them in court, who could provide them with moral support and other appropriate assistance. Having such support available could help take away some of the fear associated with appearing in court and therefore potentially improve the experience of unrepresented litigants in court.
-----------------------------------
McKenzie friends are vital for people because we are not lawyers clients, we are all lawyers victims, and potential lawyers victims. This scum from their first days in law school to retirement are like parasitic organisms which seek out new victims to exploit. I could never be a lawyer, not that it needs a great intellect, but someone would have to be scum to do what they do. Just like Lord Hamilton, the man in charge of Scotland's Mafia. A man who is answerable only to himself is a dangerous legal despot.

Anonymous said...

I know how some of the people must feel in that report.I have spent the better part of 2 years trying to sort out the mess my solicitor left me when he failed to win against our neighbour over their building on our property.We later found out he used to represent our neighbour until he took us on and now hes back to representing them while I have to go back into court myself because I can't get another lawyer to take us on.
Those of you considering a lawyer - forget it.They are the corrupt bastards everyone here claims them to be.

Anonymous said...

Those of you considering a lawyer - forget it. They are the corrupt bastards everyone here claims them to be.

Not only are lawyers corrupt, those who are meant to regulate them are 100 times worse, than those in lawyers offices across Scotland. Professional scum who would sell their own kids if the price was right.

The legal system has been engineered to prevent clients obtaining justice against crooked lawyers. Their idea of a fair legal system is one where lawyers can do what they want and avoid prosecution. Welcome to Banana Republic Scotland in 2009.

Anonymous said...

WARNING, LAWYERS AND DOCTORS DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS, BECAUSE THEY WILL LOSE LEGAL AID MONEY

If you try to sue your employer when your injuries are not visible this will happen.

You’re GP, all consultants you see who prepare medical reports, your lawyer and your employer will be insured by MARSH UK Royal & Sun Alliance.

These people will lie in medical reports; your GP will state you have mental health issues even if you have never seen a psychiatrist.

How can they do this and get away with it?

If you complain to NHS Primary Care they will protect your GP, and all NHS Consultants.

If you complain to The Law Society of Scotland/Scottish Legal Complaints Commission they will protect your lawyer. Mr Phillip Yelland of The Law Society of Scotland sent a farmer trying to sue the Law Society, because his original lawyer was negligent, to lawyers acting for the Lawyers Defence Union. How is that for corruption?

If you complain to the General Medical Council they will protect all doctors. The GMC are also insured by Marsh UK Royal & Sun Alliance.

If you could eventually prove in a court of law these people have lied, covered up what has happened to you, you will NEVER GET TO COURT, because,
The Sheriff will be insured by Marsh UK Royal & Sun Alliance

You will need a lawyer to take your case who is a paid up member of the Law Society of Scotland. Mr Yelland, still at the Law Society Mr Pritchard now a Sheriff, Mr Mill now at Glasgow University, have all instructed law firms not to help clients, when their lawyer has been corrupt.

All lawyers are insured by Royal & Sun Alliance, so they will not seek damages for you for two reasons,

Professional loyalty. If you do not believe this go into any lawyers office and ask them to take your crooked lawyer to court.

Lawyers insurers would put their premiums up if they have to pay damages to you. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS YOU CANNOT BEAT THROUGH OUR CURRENT LEGAL SYSTEM., BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT ALL OF THE ABOVE.

If you have been injured at work, and your injuries were not visible, your GP and all of the above have covered up what happened to you TO PROTECT THEIR OWN INSURANCE COMPANIES. THIS IS WHY EMPLOYERS ARE ALWAYS INSURED BY MARSH UK ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE BECAUSE THEY KNOW IN LITIGATION OTHER PROFESSIONALS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY WILL COVER UP WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU THE EMPLOYEE. THE OUTCOME OF YOUR CASE IS ALWAYS DECIDED BEFORE YOU START LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS; THESE PEOPLE ARE TORTURING PEOPLE TO MAKE MONEY.

Anonymous said...

If Consumer F*ckup were only going after the "oh I'm so confused" brigade in court then they did a good job.
However they seem to have missed the point that most people cant get into court because as is fairly evident they cant get a solicitor.Exploring that issue over a few pages might have proved more useful to consumers and taxpayers who paid for the report!

Anonymous said...

Lord Gill's review sounds interesting but not this 35 person survey.

Anonymous said...

Cash for woman sacked for her age

Ruth McNeil said she was very upset when she was sacked

An Edinburgh medical receptionist has settled her age discrimination claim against a doctor's surgery for £6,000.

Ruth McNeil, 66, was asked to leave her part-time post in the capital when her employers discovered she was over 65.

The practice, which cannot be named as part of the out of court settlement, sacked her just a week into the job. (SECRECY AGAIN, THE PROFESSIONALS PROTECTING THEIR REPUTATIONS, IT COULD BE ANY PRACTICE IN EDINBURGH).

The grandmother-of-two, who left a permanent job for the new role, said she was in a "terrible state" when she was told in October 2008.

Speaking to the BBC Scotland news website, Ms McNeil said: "I was doing the training and they took me aside and told me I was too old for the job, i just could not believe it.

"I was in a terrible state as it was going through my mind how I was going to pay my bills, as the state pension is not enough to live on in these modern times.

I feel I got the job fairly and what they have done is just so unfair, my friends just can't believe it.

"I had given up a secure job with Marks and Spencers, which lets you work for as long as you are capable to do the job, because this job was nearer my home, it even paid about the same.

"I did the interview and got the job over other people but they never asked me my age at the time.

"I feel I got the job fairly and what they have done is just so unfair, my friends just can't believe it."

Ms McNeil has been trying to get another job but she said it was hard in the current economic climate and she said Marks and Spencer was not hiring, so she was unable to get her previous job back.

She was supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland and the three day case was due to be held but the practice settled out of court beforehand. (PERHAPS THIS COMMISSION COULD HELP THE VICTIMS OF CROOKED LAWYERS)?

Muriel Robison, Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland's head of legal enforcement, said: "Sadly, despite legislation aimed at tackling age discrimination, people can still be treated unfairly at work because of their age. THERE IS ALSO THE LEGAL AID AND LEGAL PROFESSION ACT TO HELP WITH LAWYERS VICTIMS, BUT THE NEW SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION IS AS BENT AS THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND.

"Ruth McNeil may be over 65 but has many skills of great value to employers. The EHRC believe that people with skills and ability who are able to work and who want to work should be allowed to do so. WELL SAID I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT.

"We hope that by supporting this case we are able to highlight to prospective employers that through the appointment process and in the workplace itself people should be treated fairly regardless of their age."

Anonymous said...

On the strength of that poll I'd say consumer focus have not done very well and probably you are right - the whole purpose of this was to undermine the Gill review.

Anonymous said...

THE OUTCOME OF YOUR CASE IS ALWAYS DECIDED BEFORE YOU START LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS; THESE PEOPLE ARE TORTURING PEOPLE TO MAKE MONEY.
11:47 AM

I have noticed comments like this before. Why are no lawyers or doctors sending messages denying this, and what about the people mentioned from the Law Society not denying this, it must be true.

Anonymous said...

Why such a low turnout for something as good intentioned as this ?

I think MacAskill took it over long time ago !

Anonymous said...

I hadn't a clue as to what to expect from any court I had the misfortune to find myself in, our representives failed miserably in their duty to inform us as their clients as to what we could expect,
As for legal aid, that was just a joke,
we were unemployed when we got it and unemployed when they decided to use clawback,
In short, all the litigation we were forced to endure because our lawyers would not accept our instruction and over a period spanning seven years cost us our home, our dignity and our compensation!
In hindsight, I wish we had represented ourselves, at least that way their lordships and ladies would have had access to the truth and not some trumped up story told in legal jargon by our lawyers.