Tuesday, September 15, 2009

McKenzie Friends for Scotland 'a human rights issue' as petition response accuses Scottish Government of blocking access to justice reforms

Scottish GovernmentScottish Government officials accused of consistently blocking access to justice reforms. The latest responses to the Scottish Parliament petition to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland's courts, accuse current & successive Scottish Executive administrations of ‘deliberately and wilfully obstructing access to justice reforms in Scotland’ while identical legislative reforms which were implemented in the rest of the UK up to forty years earlier and without problem, before even being considered for action by Scottish Ministers.

So damaging have these forty year long delays been to Scots access to justice, the petitioner and indeed many others are now warning Holyrood's Petitions Committee "against leaving the introduction / issue of a McKenzie Friend to the Justice Department of the Scottish Government", citing several examples of horrific delays to law reforms in Scotland and a remarkable lack of action, giving way to an almost prejudiced approach by Justice Department officials to implementing legislation which has mostly passed without incident or obstruction in the rest of the UK many years ago.

0002McKenzie Friend response condemns political resistance to improving access to justice. In a direct quote from responses received by the Scottish Parliament, it is claimed : "The Justice Department and its predecessors have had a long held resistance to any attempt to create greater access to justice and they cannot be trusted to act in the interests of the Scottish people. In 1995 they ignored a direct instruction by the Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth, to commence Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc. Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, despite the fact that the [then] Lord President Hope had agreed to the commencement of the legislation."

You can download & read the latest response to the McKenzie Friend petition HERE and view other responses on the Scottish Parliament’s website here : Written Submissions for Petition 1247

michael forsythScottish Secretary Michael Forsyth’s instructions to enable access to justice laws were defied by civil servants. Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform Act 1990, commonly accepted as the first attempt to break open lawyers control over the legal services market, came to nothing due to resistance from both politicians, many of whom were too close to the Law Society, and civil servants, who themselves apparently wanted to leave the Law Society in charge of access to justice in Scotland, even to the point of defying Ministerial orders issued by the then Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth, to implement the access to justice changes in order to benefit Scots choice in the legal services market.

Swinney & MacAskillCabinet Ministers promised each other reforms were enabled but reality told a different story. Even though Scotland, England & Wales implemented the 1990 Law Reform Act in 1990, it took another 17 years (and having to survive one secret attempt by a serving Lord Advocate to repeal Sections 25-29) before the Scottish Government decided in early 2007 to enact those sections of the law allowing non-lawyers to enter Scotland's legal services market, while the same sections of law were enacted in England & Wales almost instantly in 1990. However, even after letters passed between Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and the Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney during mid 2007 alleging all was well with applications by non-lawyers under Sections 25-29, it took nearly 16 months of dithering, passing the buck and arguments between the Justice Secretary and the current Lord President, Lord Hamilton, before one single application from the Association of Commercial Attorneys under the 1990 terms being passed under being passed under highly restrictive conditions.

A litany of delays to other significant reforms in laws benefiting ordinary Scots have been attributed to the same 'resistance' at the Justice Department who seemingly wish to keep the dangerous Law Society of Scotland in charge of the individual's access to justice. Some examples of delays to legal reforms in Scotland follow :

Small ClaimsSmall Claims limits were delayed for 19 years in Scotland on the orders of the Law Society. The Small Claims limit, kept artificially low in Scotland at a meagre £750 for a staggering 19 years, as a result of intense campaigns from individual legal firms and the Law Society of Scotland, itself while the rest of the UK had a small claims limit of £5000. This huge & long lived discrepancy between Scotland & England effectively forced people to employ law firms across Scotland at huge expense to recover small debts that could otherwise be handled speedily and cheaply in the English Courts.

Sections 25-29Access to justice laws were held back for 17 years on orders from the Law Society & Scotland’s legal establishment . Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc. Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, enabling non lawyers to work in the Scottish legal services market were not implemented by the Scottish Government's Justice Department until 2007, a timescale of 17 years, whereas in England the equivalent 1990 Act was implemented in 1990 and worked very well.

Regulatory reform17 years delay to regulatory reform in Scotland. The first calls for reform of regulation of Scotland's notoriously corrupt legal profession were made in 1990 and yet it took another 17 years before the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 came into being, creating the half house and nowhere-near-independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which is now viewed by many as little more than an expensive copy of the Law Society itself. England & Wales however, gained independent regulation of their legal services market in 2007, with the creation of the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

McKenzie Friends40 years delay of bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland. McKenzie Friends were first used in England & Wales an incredible 40 years ago in 1970, but resistance from politicians, civil servants, and the Scottish legal establishment kept out of reach, the Scots public's highly sought after privilege of having a McKenzie Friend assist those who could not obtain access to justice, while the rest of the UK's population used the McKenzie Friend facility with little or no problems, and no resistance from lawyers south of the border.

Class ActionsClass Actions delayed by 27 years in Scotland after first proposals in 1982 from Scottish Consumer Council. Yet another area of Scots Law dragging its feet to the rest of the UK is that of Class Action or multi party action, which has been the subject of numerous recommendations over the past 27 years, by the Scottish Law Commission, Scottish Consumer Council, and now Petition 1234 at the Scottish Parliament, calling for their introduction to Scots Law. Earlier this year even the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen, supported the need for Class Actions in Scotland, although Mr Keen’s keenness to take on the Banks in multi party actions seems to have waned recently … leaving it to campaigners and members of the public to yet again pick up the trail.

While ‘delay’ has obviously been the main tool employed by Scotland’s legal profession against any changes which may encroach on its business market – that of representing individuals in Scotland’s courts & handling legal issues for clients, another important factor has been introduced into the debate on bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland – that of the question of Human Rights.

Having a McKenzie Friend is a Human Right in England & Wales but why not in Scotland ? In England & Wales, where McKenzie Friends have been used in the courts for some forty years, it is now widely recognised that the issue of an individual being able to call a McKenzie Friend to assist the presentation of their case in the courts system comes under the Human Rights Act 1998, with suitable advice given by the Lord President of the Family Division stating : “When considering any request for the assistance of a MF, the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch 1 Part 1 Article 6 is engaged; the court should consider the matter judicially, allowing the litigant reasonable opportunity to develop the argument in favour of the request.”

The only opposition so far to allowing McKenzie Friends for Scotland, comes from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, who both appear worried their members lust for ever higher profits through ripping off clients will be dented by the introduction of what may end up as a very cheap or even free service for thousands of party litigants in Scotland who either cannot afford or cannot secure the services of a Law Society controlled solicitor to pursue their case.

You can read my earlier reports on the Scottish legal profession’s opposition to the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland here : 'Control Freaks' at Law Society say “No” to McKenzie Friends as Holyrood submission signals resistance to Lord Gill's civil justice review & here : Legal profession ‘afraid of losing profits & control of access to justice’ as Faculty of Advocates protest against McKenzie Friends for Scotland

A Scottish Government insider today condemned many of his own colleagues for being slow to address the rights of Scots to access justice by their own choice, claiming “The general attitude in the Scottish Government is the Law Society controls anything to do with justice. Ministers and many civil servants are apathetic to calls to reform the system, preferring to simply let the legal profession steam roll along as it has always done. No wonder the public get a raw deal against lawyers in Scotland.”

A statement issued from the Scottish Human Rights Commission confirmed they would be addressing the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee on the question of McKenzie Friends, however Citizens Advice Scotland bizarrely claimed they did not have the resources to make a McKenzie Friends submission to the Parliament, although a CAS spokesman confirmed they support the idea.

All eyes are now on the approaching publication of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review, which is rumoured to contain recommendations on the introduction of McKenzie Friends for Scotland. Whether the Justice Secretary & the Scottish Parliament will follow the public interest by acting on Petition 1247, implementing Lord Gill’s recommendations on McKenzie Friends for Scotland, or perhaps instead attempt to maintain the legal profession’s monopoly over courtroom representation is something many will await with interest and expectation.

105 comments:

Anonymous said...

3rd rate justice system for Scotland no matter who is in charge

Anonymous said...

I'm not so sure about the civil court review.I think it will end up a lot of talk and nothing doing just like everything else that happens up here.

Anonymous said...

You missed one - CLASS ACTION - first proposed in 1982 by Consumer Focus Scotland and more recently supported by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

A continuing delay of some 37 years.........

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 8.18pm

Thanks for reminding me !

Anonymous said...

This chronic descrimination Peter is a disgrace. The Government, The Justice Department like all lawyers, delay, the lawyers to make money from Legal Aid, the majority of politicians, civil servants, doing nothing to protect the public and giving the Law Society the green light to carry on is corrupt crusade.

This strategy of doing nothing to the Law Society to diminish it's power stinks. Politicians and the Justice Department are supporting an organisation responsible for client suicides, so this is a human rights issue, or rather the lack of human rights to allow a self regulating criminal cartel off with murder. This is called a justice system, it is descrimination and prejudice system for protecting crooks lawyers and politicians.

Surely this is a matter for the European Court of Justice, when people in Scotland have to take lawyer torture, because they have no defence to it.

Anonymous said...

Scotland's former Lord Advocate, Andrew Hardie QC, has been revealed as one of the chief obstacles in opening up the long standing solicitor & advocate monopoly on the public's wider access to legal representation and the court.

Well Andrew, you want to keep all of the lawyers business for the lawyers. There are laws about descrimination and organisations becoming too powerful, for the public's good. You lawyers are the greatest obstacle to justice I know of, followed closely by our corrupt politicians.

I wonder how many lives you have ruined on your way up the ladder? No one should be above the law but you lawyers are. So wrapped up in your self importance, you have had things your own way far too long.

At Nuremberg, the allies said to the Nazi's "what gives you the right to decide who lives and who dies"? I ask you Andrew, what gives you the right to control access to justice, to close the court doors because a case will ruin a member of the legal profession. My dictionary states,

Law--a rule supported by government power that members of society must follow. You do not have to follow many of these rules Andrew, and the reason is simple. No lawyer will ruin another lawyers career for a client. Self regulation Andrew is what makes lawyers criminals. If I cannot take you to court, (you are nothing special) when you ruin my life, then you can ruin lives at will. You Andrew are not an important member of the Legal Establishment, you are a member of Scotland's corrupt self regulators who like Thatcher over the community charge lost touch with reality. You Andrew are a senior member of Scotland's Legal Dictatorship. We clients are human, we demand this monopoly is smashed, so that ruined clients can obtain justice, not continued injustice from warped criminals who think self regulation was bestowed upon them by God.

Anonymous said...

Re 8.18 post; 27 years actually, but no doubt feels like 37.

Anyone care to bet we will still be waiting after 47 years if Swinney, Salmond and MacAskill remain in control?

Anonymous said...

quite disgusting really

all these lawyers and judges should be rounded up ......

Anonymous said...

To Scotland's Family Doctors,

you should all put up notices in your practice waiting rooms stating all doctors, lawyers, employers are insured by Royal Sun Alliance in Scotland.

But you will not, because you all want to make Legal Aid money if any of your patients try to sue their employer. You should tell patients GP's cover up what happens to patients at work because the GP's insurers Royal Sun Alliance would have to pay the patients damages, you are corrupt doctors.

Anonymous said...

So basically Scotland is at least 120 years behind the UK in its legal system ? That seems to tally up with Lord Gill's own description of a "victorian justice system" the SNP and everyone else seem content to carry on with.
What an affront.

Anonymous said...

40 years delay to keep lawyers in the money but bloody MacAskill can release a convicted terrorist mass murderer in a couple of weeks and bring shame on our country just so he can stand up and lecture the world on compassion.What a crook

Anonymous said...

MacAskill and co are too busy lining the pockets of their pals in the legal industry to bother about reform.

Anonymous said...

I'm beginning to think Scotland is stuck in the dark ages ?

Anonymous said...

Clearly with all of these delays most of Scotland's politicians love the legal profession, not their constituents.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I'm beginning to think Scotland is stuck in the dark ages ?

Well my friend you are correct as far as access to justice for victims of Scotlands lawyer criminals is concerned.

The MacAskill's want to keep it this way.

Anonymous said...

What a corrupt littel country Scotland is under seperatist rule
When does swastica begin to fly in Edinbrgh?

Anonymous said...

Alex Salmond, I am a unionist, I do not want Scotland to be independent. You are always telling the Scottish people we would be better off on our own.

This McKenzie Friends issue is only one area where you are as one politician said "economical with the truth".

On this issue and many more the large majority of Scottish politicians are with the Scottish lawyers. They want to maintain the power of the Law Society of Scotland.

I urge all Scots to cast their vote with great care, because Salmond's will rant at conferences but is silent on issues of profound importance, such as ending Scotland's legal dictatorship. The SNP are not nationalists, and we should remember all Scottish politicians could have pushed for McKenzie friends for four decades. We are electing oppressors to our parliaments.

Anonymous said...

Sometime last year Kenny MacAskill announced an initiative to encourage litigants to come to Scotland.The project was abandoned after it came to nothing.If you do an FOI for it you might find the whole thing cost around half a million.Money not very well spent !

Anonymous said...

"Citizens Advice Scotland bizarrely claimed they did not have the resources to make a McKenzie Friends submission to the Parliament" ????

Are they looking for a donation to do a statement in support ???

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8254912.stm

Reputation 'hurt by bank crisis'

Scotland's reputation as a major financial centre has been damaged as a result of the credit crunch, the UK's leading banking body has said.

Just the same for the law - Megrahi and crooked lawyers have killed off Scotland's reputation for anything hence why even Tweed or knitwear firms now claim they are "from Europe" and not Scotland !

Anonymous said...

With all of these delays in Scotland we have politicians serving their financial interests by collaberating with a judiciary licensed to torture clients.

Where serious reform of the legal system are required ie stripping the Law Society of it's powers most politicians sympathy is with the Law Society self regulators. Our elected criminals call Scotland a democracy, but protect legal dictators like the SS protected Adolf Hitler. Many people I know did not know if you complain about a lawyer in Scotland another lawyer investigates the complaint.

Lorna Jack is head of an organisation of legal dictators, where they happily cover up lawyer corruption because in her professions eyes only lawyers or people lawyers can make money out of can have human rights.

Their judges who some consider to be pillars of the community are criminals who are above the law, simply because of tradition and evolution. There is no justification for maintaining this system when there people act with impunity and their victims have no rights.

Terrorists have more rights in Scotland than the victims of the legal profession. But again that is down to lawyers using the Human Rights Act to help terrorists, because of the money the lawyers make, and the same profession deny victims of lawyers human rights, because it is not in the legal professions interest. Some legal system you MSP's support. You should all with, a few exceptions be kicked out of politics.

Anonymous said...

The small claims limit was raised by MacAskill to 3K in 2008 but England & Wales still have 5K as their limit.
Any improvement is better than nothing but why is there a 2K difference just because the Justice Secretary felt the Scottish market was unique ?

Unique in forcing people to spent 20K on a lawyer to recover 5K and clog up the courts ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 9.33pm

Well said ... and coupled with my article is evidence enough the Justice Department's loyalties lie with the legal profession and not the public, given these delays have endured through many administrations of varying political views.

It is time for change but we wont get that change with current Scottish Government until someone cleans up the Justice Department itself and removes the 'lawyer lovers' among its ranks.

Perhaps intervention from Europe is the only way to go ...

# Anonymous @ 9.56pm

Yes, quite ... and the Scottish Government fought against the release of those FOI documents revealing Lord Hardie suggestions to quietly repeal Sections 25-29, at a cost of at least £500,000 to the taxpayer, through its own legal counsel, those used by Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion, and Court time.

# Anonymous @ 9.56pm

Probably ...

# Anonymous @ 10.14pm

Yes ... no wonder Lord Gill called Scotland's Civil justice system "Victorian" ... but his soon to be published Civil Courts Review will fix all that, if he goes as far as he should and the politicians act accordingly on his recommendations ....

# Anonymous @ 10.18pm

Money talks ...

# Anonymous @ 10.34am

Kenny MacAskill stood up in Parliament and claimed this Scottish Government owed the legal profession a debt to be elected ... so we can conclude from that this Scottish Government will prioritise the interests of the legal profession over those of the public.

You can watch Kenny MacAskill say those exact words here : Kennny MacAskill says SNP Scottish Govt owes Law Society a debt to be elected

Beat that for a confession !

# Anonymous @ 10.51am

Thanks for the tip. I remember the 'campaign' to bring cases to Scotland .. it didn't do much other than throw public money at legal firms by the sounds of things ...

# Anonymous @ 11.22am

Yes ... very odd indeed.

# Anonymous @ 11.48pm

You can blame all that on the Justice Secretary himself ...

# Anonymous @ 12.09pm

As long as the Law Society of Scotland remain in control of regulation of the legal profession, and have such an obvious hold over whichever Government or Executive we have in power in Scotland .. that will be the case.

# Anonymous @ 12.18pm

Money talks (as long as its going into legal firms profits)

Punch & Judy said...

Good capture of MacAskill in the Parliament although I feel its more of a bought & paid for statement by the Law Society than a "confession".

Proves where the man's loyalties lie and its definitely not with the people its with the lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Peter you said, Yes, quite ... and the Scottish Government fought against the release of those FOI documents (YES THE LAW SOCIETY RUN THE GOVERNMENT)revealing Lord Hardie suggestions to quietly repeal Sections 25-29, (THE SECTION THAT ALLOWS NON LAWYERS TO ENTER THE LEGAL SERVICE MARKET) at a cost of at least £500,000 to the taxpayer, through its own legal counsel, those used by Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion, and Court time.

So Hardie uses the legal system, to protect the lawyers monopoly, victims of crooked lawyers still have no rights, and have no alternative legal representation, so they are barred from justice.
He does it with the taxpayers money. Beggars belief, this bent system is used by crooks to protect cooks).

Yes protection of the legal establishment is the order of the day. If we had a fair unbiased legal system many of the current legal system would be in the dock.

Do we need a lawyer to take these prejudiced lawyers and politicians to the European Court of Justice, especially on McKenzie Friends. We are dealing with dictators supported by elected members of parliament. People of Scotland look deeper into your politicians motives for independence, especially Salmond, he is a fox.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill has no shame making such a statement in the parliament.
So does that mean they dont really give a shit about the voters because they won the election by the hand of lawyers ? One thing now certain I wont vote SNP after watching MacAskill say that.

Anonymous said...

12:52am

The Swastika is already flying in Edinburgh with Private Alex Gaddafi's name on it and hopes of a 1000 year SNP Reich.
You can see it here http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_buildings_s/0_buildings_-_scottish_government_office_028794.htm

If theres ever been a need for a tsunami its NOW or NEVER

rules but not for the rulers said...

Digby Brown were among the lobbyists to keep small claims limits low in Scotland.If you hunt around you will find the 2006 Paul Rogerson Herald article on it which I think was probably one of the best written at the time.

Positive proof the legal profession were and still are dictating the pace of reform to Scots Law.

Get out and do something about it folks!

Anonymous said...

I'd have to ask the question : If McKenzie Friends fall under ECHR in England & Wales why not in Scotland or is it just because the Law Society say they dont ?

Anonymous said...

Good posting as usual.
Obviously Scotland is going backwards at 100mph on law issues and therefore best to be avoided.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Yes Peter you are right again about Richard Keen.He isn't so keen now on promoting Class Actions against the banks.Wonder why ? *Sponsorship* is returning !

Anonymous said...

So the Citizens Advice Bureau 'lack the resources' to even write a letter to the Parliament about these very serious abuses of proper process?

I would suggest that rather than increase its funding we would all be far better off if this was withdrawn immediately and given to someone who wants to do the job properly.

Anonymous said...

Michael Forsyth should have sacked those uncivil serpents who refused to activate the 1990 law and anyway why did they refuse to do it and get away with that ?

Investigation into this cover up is required !

Anonymous said...

Good evening Lord Hardie, you legal dictator, The LPLA Act meant to protect clients and the Scottish Government fought against the release of those FOI documents revealing your request, or order to quietly repeal Sections 25-29, at a cost of at least £500,000 to the taxpayer.

Yes Hardie you want to keep only lawyers selling legal services. That and self regulation is what has created the mediocrity in legal service provision. Lawyers looking after lawyers, and the politicians in bed with them. A lot of criminals, that is what you are. You are not slow to spend taxpayers money to protect yourselves, but ruined clients are solicitor barred from justice.

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine who is an attorney in Newark, NJ told me many years ago the Scottish legal system was corrupt so its no surprise to me what you are writing about.

Anonymous said...

4 Years waiting here for a decision from Philip Yelland of the Law Society on my complaint and still no further forward.

Law Society are crooks and they tried to order my new lawyer to drop representing me.

Anonymous said...

Why all the fuss from the LSS and FOA over McKenzie Friends ?
Everyone here in England welcomed their use years ago and trust me the legal profession have no problems with MFs down here.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

4 Years waiting here for a decision from Philip Yelland of the Law Society on my complaint and still no further forward.

Law Society are crooks and they tried to order my new lawyer to drop representing me.


Correct criminals who are not accountable to anyone, and our politicians support this fiasco dubbed a justice system.

Anonymous said...

To the 1.58pm post;

Would that be the Paul Rodgerson formerly of the Glasgow Herald who is now an employee of the the Law Society of Scotland editing their newsletter?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"Citizens Advice Scotland bizarrely claimed they did not have the resources to make a McKenzie Friends submission to the Parliament" ????



Perhaps Citizens Advice Scotland have been offered sweetners too?

Anonymous said...

I really cannot understand why a law past in 1990 in England & Wales did not make it to Scotland until 2007.Something must be very wrong up there.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what people overseas think when they read your diary Peter. We have a legal system, not a justice system, as victims of the legal profession know.

As it is impossible to take any self regulating profession to court in Scotland, the country is a Banana Republic, where the self regulators commit crime against clients and patients, and are answerable only to their own professions.

Self regulation, a liars charter, which allows criminals to keep practising and blocks any path to justice for the victim. Scotland is a Legal Dictatorship.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine who is an attorney in Newark, NJ told me many years ago the Scottish legal system was corrupt so its no surprise to me what you are writing about.
5:35 PM

You and your friend are correct, it is a rotten facade of a legal system, as that criminal MacAskill knows full well. I believe that Scottish lawyers would gas lawyers victims if the latter ruined the lawyers career.

It is impossible to get legal rights in Scotland if that means ruining a lawyer and MacAskill will keep it that way, with his justice department and his friends in Edinburgh.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Why all the fuss from the LSS and FOA over McKenzie Friends ?
Everyone here in England welcomed their use years ago and trust me the legal profession have no problems with MFs down here.

To answer your question I think the Law Society are terrified of losing their tenacious grip on the legal services market. What the Law Society and MacAskill cannot see, is that they are responsible for the protesters. Lawyer corruption has created pressure groups. Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers www.sacl/info, Peter's brilliant work, Name and Shame Scotland etc. Solicitors from Hell is another site, which highlights crooked lawyers from all over the UK.

The fact that members of the public need to go to these lengths to obtain rights, demonstrates how Victorian the legal system is. Personally I would burn lawyers in hell before I would trust any of them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

4 Years waiting here for a decision from Philip Yelland of the Law Society on my complaint and still no further forward.

Law Society are crooks and they tried to order my new lawyer to drop representing me.

----------------------------------
I am shocked you got new lawyer. To be honest I know you have no choice but I could not trust any lawyer.

Yelland sent a ruined client who wanted to sue his original solicitor to a law firm which represented the Legal Defence Union. The client got nowhere (just like you) and eventually killed himself with a shotgun. So you waiting four years and Yelland doing nothing is Yelland's method of working, like all lawyers, if the case is not in their interest, stall, stall, stall. Yelland keeps his job, his colleague Douglas Mill lied to John Swinney at the Justice 2 committee meeting, swearing on his grannys grave he had not intervened against a complain from John Swinneys constituent.

They are a criminal cartel, professional criminals unworthy of the slightest fragment of respect, who belong in Saughton prison. No client has a lawyer they can trust especially if another lawyers career is at risk. Graduate vermin parasites, who are above the laws they expect society to live by.

Anonymous said...

McKenzie Friends for Scotland is a European Court of Justice issue, because the Scottish Government will stand by the Law Society, that den of criminals.

Anonymous said...

What we are dealing with are politicians who do not want victims of the legal profession to have human rights. Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

'Bloodgate' doctor is suspended

Tom Williams used a fake blood capsule so he could leave the pitch

A doctor at the centre of a fake injury scandal which occurred during a big rugby match has been suspended by the General Medical Council.

Wendy Chapman is alleged to have cut Harlequins wing Tom Williams' lip to hide his use of a fake blood capsule.

The incident occurred in the Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster, who won the game 6-5 in April 2009.

Quins have been fined £259,000, their director of rugby received a three year ban and Williams a four month ban.

Dr Chapman was Quins' match day doctor for the Leinster game.

Williams, who saw an initial one year ban cut to four months on appeal, told a European Rugby Cup hearing into the so-called 'Bloodgate' incident that he asked Chapman to cut his mouth after he had used a blood capsule during the match.

The use of the capsule, which had been concealed in Williams' sock, allowed the introduction of a specialist goal kicker with Harlequins trailing Leinster 6-5.

A spokesman for the GMC said Dr Chapman, who is an accident and emergency consultant at Maidstone Hospital, has been given an interim suspension.

"We are not able to confirm what it is in relation to due to our duty of confidentiality," the spokesman added.

The GMC has up to 18 months to consider whether to take action against Dr Chapman.

Last week, the Rugby Football Union announced that Harlequins would face no further charges over the scandal.

Homecoming to robbery is a joke said...

Alex Salmond's Homecoming Scotland should feature this : "Come home to Scotland bring all your money and get robbed by our bent lawyers while we let them do it"

This is the best way to see Scotland (Approach & GO) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsqNCQbMI1I

DONT BOTHER LANDING WHILE THE SNP ARE IN CHARGE !!!

Anonymous said...

To the Law Society and Faculty of Advocates, your resistance to the inplementing of McKenzie friends in our courts, only highlights you do not want any client being helped by a non lawyer.

You have yourselves to blame, your ruthless corrupt ways, have backfired on you so that the day will come when no member of the public trusts lawyers.

My children are young but they get told regularly lawyers steal people's money. By the time they are grown up, they will trust no lawyer, and that is the way I want them to be. No person in their right mind should trust any profession which deals with complaints from members of the public about it's own members.

Anonymous said...

Clearly these delays are no accident.Its the work of the Law Society and the legal profession out to make as much money for themselves as they can.Robbers.

Anonymous said...

Dont forget that ICAS (the Institute of Chartered Accountants) actually withdrew their 25-29 application after seeing what the ACA had been put through.

Evidence enough the legal profession are keeping the doors firmly closed on competition and access to justice.

Anonymous said...

Douglas Mill, A barefaced crook.

Mr Douglas Mill wrote "Mr Cherbi is clearly a person with an interest to complain and was entitled to make his complaint. It is for the Law Society in terms of the relevant legislation, to determine firstly whether the complaint can be upheld (YOU HAD NO CHANCE PETER) and then determine the appropriate penalty. The complainer does not have a part to play in determining penalty." (SO SLAP ON THE WRIST MILL GOT UP TO THE USUAL LAW SOCIETY STUFF, STOPPING PETER'S LEGAL AID AND TELLING LAWYERS NOT TO HELP HIM. WELL DOUG YOU HAD TO RESIGN BECAUSE YOU ALSO LIED TO MR SWINNEY.

DOUGLAS MILL YOU SAID "The complainer does not have a part to play in determining penalty." WHO DOES, LAWYERS WHO ADORE EACH OTHER, IN A PROFESSIONAL SENSE OF COURSE. YOU MILL DETEST THE PROSECUTION OF CROOKS, LIKE YOU. THE LAW SOCIETY IS A CESSPIT OF DOUGLAS MILL'S. PLEASE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DO NOT TRUST THEM.

Anonymous said...

To the very first post;

I trust you flatter to deceive?

Anonymous said...

http://www.d1041561.dotsterhost.com/index.php?s=wst_page4.html

VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION WEBSITES

Anonymous said...

Douglas Mill - made ridiculous suicide jibe in the Scotsman after Herald reported the Justice 2 confrontation between Swinney & Mill over interference in claims & access to justice.

Good evening Douglas,

I would just like to quote an Irish friend of mine who would say to you, if you were going to deliberatley meet your maker

"You won't be missed". Eleven years and more covering up what your lawyers do to the public. You have no shame you scoundrel.

Anonymous said...

THE LAW SOCIETY
http://www.corruptlawyers.co.uk/home.aspx?p=thelawsociety

The Law Society is a body set up to promote and protect the interest of its members, who are solicitors. It would also like us to think that it regulates solicitors.

The bible says:

“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. [Matthew 6:24]

Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to have any dealings with the Law Society, will know that they do not in fact regulate solicitors. Solicitors are not regulated at all.

How they Bull**** us:

“The Law Society has powers and responsibilities from Acts of Parliament and from professional rules of conduct to ensure that all solicitors observe proper standards of behaviour and service when dealing with their clients and other solicitors. These powers and responsibilities have been delegated to the Bureau to provide impartial and fair investigation of complaints.”

“Solicitors are in a position of trust. They provide advice on matters that are enormously important to their clients, so it is essential that their advice is expert, independent, efficient and courteous.”

“You should not worry about going to see a solicitor. Remember they are there to help you and offer you advice.”

“You should view your solicitor as a guide and advisor – providing expert help on the law and the legal system”.

“As a client you are entitled to expect high standards of professional service from your solicitor – supported by the high level of consumer protection provided by the solicitor’s profession.”

“As a client you have certain rights, for example your solicitor must act in your best interest.”

Have you ever wondered why simple tasks take solicitors so long to deal with?

“More often, the bill will be worked out on an hourly basis – the longer it takes, the more it costs.”

THE COMPLAINT’S PROCEDURE

Over the years the Law Society has set up various organisations and given them responsibilities to investigate complaints from the public. These organisations have very little powers and in practice the only purpose they serve is to obstruct the public and to introduce as long a delay as possible, before the public finally realises that they are being taken for a ride.

SCB [Solicitors Complaint Bureau]

The SCB was established by the Law Society in September 1986, to handle complaints about solicitors independently of the Law Society.

The SCB was heavily criticised for being too slow at dealing with complaints and having a tendency to find reasons for not handling complaints, rather than finding aspects of complaints that it could do something about.

OSS [Office of the Supervision of Solicitors]

The OSS was set up in September 1996 by the Law Society to replace the SCB.

Former Law Society President, Michael Mears, wrote:

“The OSS operates on the basis of the fiction that the vast majority of its customers are worthy citizens, a great numbers of them, however, are typical Mr and Mrs Modern Brit, wingers and grievance mongers whose primary object in making a complaint is to avoid paying the bill.”

Performance of The Law Society and The Office for The Supervision of Solicitors (OSS)

In spite of substantial new initiatives, the complaints-handling performance of the OSS has continued to deteriorate:

The OSS’ backlog has increased from 4,434 in January 2002, to 8,545 in September 2003;

The OSS currently has a total of 281 complaints within its caseload that are more than two years old, of which 28 are more than three years old;

The OSS is substantially underperforming in all but one of the performance targets set by the DCA for turnaround times, and has missed its satisfaction rating target by 18%.

CCS [Consumer Complaint’s Service]

As of 19 April 2004 the Law Society has again re-branded the SCB/OSS to the newly named Consumer Complaints Service [CCS].

Anonymous said...

http://www.crookedlawyers.com/index.php#item1

VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION SOCIETY.

History of the Society

The Victims of the Legal Profession / Victims of Irish Solicitors Society is a rapidly growing organisation with more than 500 members. The Society was started by Mary McDonnell from Galway, John Gill from Clare and John O'Connor from Tipperary in early August 2001. The first meeting was held at the Hudson Bay Hotel, Athlone on August 17th, 2001.

A critical analysis of the immoral and unethical conduct of many members of the legal profession was made. Examples include:

Large sums of the Client's money being removed from Trust accounts without the Client's knowledge, and every effort being made to cover up.


Large-scale perjury in the Courts by members of the legal profession, in many cases with the wholehearted support of the Judiciary.


Altered and distorted Contracts and Wills - falsified to deprive clients of most or in some cases all of what they were worth.


False registration of property and in many cases small, inaccurate prices appearing on the Deed of Transfer; in effect, denying the State the full amount of Stamp Duty.


In many cases, files going missing and many old people and some not so old being left with the loss of the Sale of their entire property or inheritance.


While our research and investigations are ongoing, we can safely say that a substantial section of the Irish legal profession is seriously corrupt, and we will do our very best to keep you informed and updated.
-----------------------------------
THERE IS MUCH CORRUPTION IN THIS VILE PROFESSION AND THE ANTI LAWYER INTERNET INDUSTRY GROWS DAILY.

Anonymous said...

Best thing I've read all week because its impossible for anyone to argue these delays in Scotland are justified while the rest of the country has a workable justice system.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

4:09pm
ICAS cancelled their application because the Law Society were against it (secretly of course)

I wonder how Lorna Jack squares up on that given her background.

Anonymous said...

Called into battle

Yvonne Hossack has become a hate figure for the establishment, but the fearless solicitor risking bankruptcy to challenge cuts and closure of care services tells David Brindle how she is driven on by 'a more ancient set of laws'


Peter this lady has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Law Society. I am pleased about this because she is no coward, standing up against politicians other lawyers etc. For once the Law Society has done the right thing. Perhaps you can do an article of this decent woman.

Anonymous said...

Solicitors from Hell...This is how they operate

Move slowly.

Risk your deal if you need to move fast.

They don't read the documents carefully.

Your phone calls won't be returned.

Your questions won't be answered.

Your instructions will be ignored.

They won't alert you to any potential problems.

...sound familiar?
Don't let them do it to others!

Post your complaint on the website Solicitors from Hell

The Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are also from hell, they looke after corupt lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation results in victims with no human rights against the self regulator.

Self regulation is therefore a criminal setup to protect the perpetrators of injustice. End it now.

Scotland's lawyers, you are victims of your own dishonesty. We want your grip of the legal services marked overhauled, and we want an end to lawyers receiving complaints about your colleagues.

Self regulators cannot be neutral when dealing with complaints as Mr Douglas Mill demonstrated with his resignation from the Law Society.

Self regulation is corrupt, and your days for enjoying this setup are numbered, and you all know that.

Anonymous said...

Any person who reads this site will never trust a lawyer again, I know I won't.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers, what a profession they are, they control access to justice, fear competition, ruin clients and expect forgiveness, and call clients and pressure groups offensive.

If we clients were doing this to lawyers, they would be calling for the return of the death penalty.

I think some psychiatrists are needed at the Law Society of Scotland, at their AGM.

Anonymous said...

Yvonne Hossack regarding her work to stop carer home closures, was cleared of professional misconduct by the Law Society in England

She said that only a few witnesses for the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) which brought the case, thought she had brought her profession into disrepute out of 61 million people in the country.

“The people who have a direct interest in these proceedings are the local authorities who may otherwise face challenges to their cuts to services for disabled people. (Money again).

“I don’t want to see them hurt by the very people who complain of me, and that is my duty as a solicitor, to use all proper and lawful means.

“If a person is high-profile and a person is effective, is it right or fair that their clients should be abused by complaints being made by their opponents, to remove their advocate of choice?

Yvonne, The people of Scotland need a lawyer who will stand up for what is right, we need McKenzie Friends, an end to self regulation.

The Law Society of Scotland have caused client suicides, they are as ruthless as the people you have been fighting who represented the local authorities who complained about you. I admire what you are doing, and the Law Society in England have cleared you, they are correct.

If we live long enough we will be old, and any person could be disabled at any time. I have never said this to a lawyer but you have right on your side, you are a woman of high values, and it is sad we do not have anyone like you in the Legal Profession in Scotland. Would you expose a corrupt lawyer though, I do not think so.

It is the Mill's Pritchards, Yellands, in Scotland who are ruining clients lives, and this has to stop too.

Best wishes Yvonne,

Anonymous said...

aAn earlier article by Mr Cherbi.

Lawyers say rise in legal aid will jeopardise fair trials.
-------------------------------------
Well lawyers I think it is rich when you people refer to "fair trials".

Let us use the phrase fair trial in a context which is too close for comfort.

When a ruined client complains to the Law Society about their lawyer does the latter get a fair trial? No what the lawyer has done is covered up to protect the Lawyer and the Master Policy. The client gets a raw deal, on top of the suffering already endured.

Lawyers do not talk about fair trials, you people do not understand the meaning of that term.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

Lawyer keeps up care homes fight
Yvonne Hossack

Miss Hossack says she has acted at all times "in the utmost good faith"

A solicitor cleared of breaching rules of professional conduct related to fighting care home closures has vowed to continue her work.

Yvonne Hossack said news of a closure and having to move home could bring on heart attacks and strokes in residents.

"How can that ever be right?" said Miss Hossack, 53, of Kettering, Northants.
===================================
You are correct Miss Hossack, and we admire what you are doing. Client suicides caused by Phillip Yelland of the Law Society of Scotland, "How can that ever be right". Scotland's 10,000 legal professionals think it is right, because they support Yelland.

It is a pity lawyers in Scotland are happy to leave the torturers of clients, The Law Society of Scotland in control of things.

Scottish clients have no human rights, like the people you are fighting for, so much so Scotland has been called a Banana Republic.

South of the border McKenzie Friends have helped party litigants in court, but your Scottish colleagues want to maintain their stranglehold on legal services.

If you had sued another lawyer for a ruined client, the outcome of your diciplinary hearing would have been different.

Best wishes.

Anonymous said...

Yvonne Hossack said she is driven by a 'a more ancient set of laws'.

We understand Yvonne, the campainers, ruined clients, are driven by 'a more ancient set of laws'.

Justice, fairness, rejection of predjudice, all of the values the Scottish Legal Establishment do not have, because lawyer protection is their values, no matter what they do.

You see Yvonne, I detest lawyers, but not you, because you are not a run of the mill lawyer. You put lives above money, have compassion for your clients, and take risks with your career because the ancient set of laws, that drive you make you a decent human being.

I ask you, how many lawyers say this about clients, not many, if any. We want justice for lawyers victims, but you are an example that not all lawyers are bad. We are mature intelligent human beings, when a lawyer is decent we say so. Please carry on with your important work.

Anonymous said...

The right to justice, a fair hearing is a human right. How can lawyers clients have rights, when the Law Society of Scotland and their members control access to justice?

We will never quit, we campainers must spread the word, protect our friends and relatives from this scourge, The Law Society of Scotland. The revulsion you lawyers feel when you are asked by a client to take the clients ex lawyer to court, we feel that revulsion too, that is why we are fighting.

It is fine for lawyers, left squeaky clean to ruin someone else. We have had enough, look at the internet sites against lawyers. You are reaping what you sow, and you are losing.

I urge people to wear T shirts, print leaflets which state Justice Secretary we demand McKenzie Friends in Scotland. People will ask you what are McKenzie Friends? We will answer, someone who can help you in court, without a hugh legal bill.

You lawyers are fighting a battle you WILL NOT WIN. People have taken enough. No more torture from the Law Society of Scotland. Please see their details, I beg the public do not trust these criminals, they are a scourge.

Contact Details
Edinburgh Office

26 Drumsheugh Gardens
Edinburgh EH3 7YR

telephone: +44 (0) 131 226 7411
textphone: +44 (0) 131 476 8359
fax:+44 (0) 131 225 2934

email: Edinburgh Office
legal post: LP1 - EDINBURGH 1

office hours: for some staff, the surplus will have new positions in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to help Miss Masterman protect the Lawyers of Scotland, and destroy your complaint. Offensive Miss Masterman, my advice to you, grow up. 09.00 - 17.00, Monday to Friday.

Mr Kenny MacAskill, I am sure Lorna Jack, will stand down so you can step into her shoes. You do belong in the Law Society of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Oh god !
The minute I hear Ian Smart on about something I usually go out the door or switch off. What an awful choice of President this time around considering all we are facing including of course YOU !
=====================================
What a vile evil profession clients are facing. You lawyers are facing your nemisis. Clients deserve a lot more than a legal dictatorship, William Wallace would have sacked the Law Society of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

God help lawyers if there is a creator, as MacAskill thinks. I do not believe there is.

Anonymous said...

Former Lord Advocate Andrew Hardie revealed as major obstacle in removing lawyer-advocate monopoly on legal representation.
=====================================
Right Hardie, easy for you, you cannot be legally barred from justice, and I am not talking about the Limitation Act. I am talking about Scotland's legal criminals, who are against competition in the legal services industry to maximise YOUR PROFITS. You abuse taxpayers and clients by taking on cases you know will never reach the courts. You use people are then rob them of justice. You protect all crooked lawyers, that is why there are so many of them. Your profession administer justice, and turn a blind eye and create client injustice. It is crooks like you that have the legal professions reputation in the gutter. Shame on you.

Anonymous said...

Alex Salmond, I am a unionist, I do not want Scotland to be independent. You are always telling the Scottish people we would be better off on our own.

This McKenzie Friends issue is only one area where you are as one politician said "economical with the truth".

On this issue and many more the large majority of Scottish politicians are with the Scottish lawyers. They want to maintain the power of the Law Society of Scotland.

I urge all Scots to cast their vote with great care, because Salmond's will rant at conferences but is silent on issues of profound importance, such as ending Scotland's legal dictatorship. The SNP are not nationalists, and we should remember all Scottish politicians could have pushed for McKenzie friends for four decades. We are electing oppressors to our parliaments.

10:34 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sometime last year Kenny MacAskill announced an initiative to encourage litigants to come to Scotland.The project was abandoned after it came to nothing.If you do an FOI for it you might find the whole thing cost around half a million.Money not very well spent !

10:51 AM

Someone needs to look into that and find out which legal firms got all that public money and why.State assistance for lawyers is out of the question.

Anonymous said...

TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND

These paragraphs have been taken from am Irish Website.

Large sums of the Client's money being removed from Trust accounts without the Client's knowledge, and every effort being made to cover up.

Large-scale perjury in the Courts by members of the legal profession, in many cases with the wholehearted support of the Judiciary.

Altered and distorted Contracts and Wills - falsified to deprive clients of most or in some cases all of what they were worth.

False registration of property and in many cases small, inaccurate prices appearing on the Deed of Transfer; in effect, denying the State the full amount of Stamp Duty.

In many cases, files going missing and many old people and some not so old being left with the loss of the Sale of their entire property or inheritance.
-----------------------------------
The anti lawyer internet industry grow, grow, grow, this is happening all over and the reason is simple.

Self regulation, that motherlode of corruption that facilitiates legalized theft and more. You warped lawyers think clients are unreasonable for wanting justice, and an end to self regulation. You should all be booked into a psychiatric hospital, oh I nearly forgot, you do that anyway when you land in the brown stuff. Lawyers, the scourge of humanity. Trust none of them, because you will pay a terrible price if you do.

Anonymous said...

Legal aid is important but also bizzare.

A contractor who dragged their heels on a construction contract would be in breach of contract, and would face arbitration, adjudication, or litigation, if the delay was the contractors fault.

Legal aid is the opposite of this, no penalties, no liquidated damages to pay because there is no date for the completion of the legal action. So lawyers have a blank cheque, deliberatley slow the legal process down, screw the taxpayer to maximise revenue.

The add insult to injury, dump the client and stop the case getting to court. Some justice system, as Dire Straits named one of their songs "Money for nothing". That is what lawyers get, and many clients are barred from court.

McKenzie friends in Scotland would mean party litigants could go to court without a lawyer, the lawyers legal aid gravy train would be derailed, and the Law Society of Scotland's (The sworn enemy of all clients) members would earn less. That is what they fear, losing revenue, they do not care about clients, we are money to them, that's all, they care passionatley about the money they make exploiting us. It stinks.

YES CORRECT PETER, MCKENZIE FRIENDS FOR SCOTLAND, A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.

Anonymous said...

Accident Claims Advice: If you believe your health has been affected by your work place and thinking about contacting a Solicitor about making a Claim against your Employer, (DO NOT GO TO A LAWYER, YOU WILL END UP WITH A LEGAL BILL. IF YOU TRY AND SUE YOUR EMPLOYER, ALL LAWYERS, DOCTORS AND YOUR EMPLOYER ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE) you will need to clearly document everything about how your health problems came about. Printed documents are best as hand writing can be hard to read by anyone other than the person that wrote it.

If you have had an Accident or Work Related Illness, you must bring a claim within 3 years of the incident or the Court has the power to refuse to allow your Claim.

BREAK A LEG AT WORK, YOU GO AWAY IN AN AMBULANCE, MAKE A CLAIM, YOU HAVE A CHANCE OF GETTING DAMAGES.

GET AN INJURY THAT CANNOT BE SEEN, YOUR GP IS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY AS YOUR EMPLOYER. YOU WILL NEED MEDICAL REPORTS, THE CONSULTANTS OR EXPERT WITNESSES ARE ALSO INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY. THE RESULT, YOUR INJURY IS COVERED UP, YOUR LAWYER AND GP DO NOT WANT THEIR INSURERS PAYING YOUR DAMAGES.

ALL CASES OF THIS NATURE RESULT IN A COVER UP, TO PROTECT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. IF YOU TRY AND SUE YOUR FAMILY DOCTOR AND LAWYER ARE YOUR WORST ENEMIES.

ALL LITIGATION LAWYERS WILL STRING YOU ALONG FOR THREE YEARS OF LEGAL AID, BECAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY OUT OF YOU, BUT DAMAGES FOR YOU, NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society & SLCC have one common purpose, the protection of Scotlands lawyers.

A wicked evil profession which attracts the scum of humanity.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are cowards, accused of corruption, they can open the court doors for each other, but they do not.

Accepting the accusations of corruption condemns you all.

Anonymous said...

SUNDAY MAIL
Bad lawyer is a real ass

Jun 7 2009

The Judge I'll get it sorted.

I went to the Law Society after my lawyer messed up the purchase of my new house. I still don't have title deeds in my name and it's cost thousands. I asked for my file but he refuses to return my calls.

DEMAND the file back. If you don't get it contact another lawyer to take the matter up on your behalf. You may be able to reclaim your losses and the Law Society will help..

THE LAW SOCIETY ONLY HELP LAWYERS.

Anonymous said...

SCOTLAND AGAINST CROOKED LAWYERS STATE

"Of all the professions that have evolved in our society, none have ever come close to matching the legal profession for downright deceit and dishonesty. The legal profession is immutable, intransigent, self-protective, unaccountable, incompetent and corrupt. For over 500 years this profession has been tyrannising, misleading and oppressing the Scottish people".

Visit www.sacl/info where you will see the crooks running out legal system.

Anonymous said...

Chief Executive of Law Society of Scotland to leave in October 2008.

Douglas Mill, has decided to leave his position as Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland in October 2008.

Until that time Douglas, who joined the Society in 1996, will continue to undertake some of his duties and commitments as Chief Executive and will also undertake some project work for the Society.

In addition Douglas will continue to act as an ambassador for the Scottish Solicitors profession in undertaking his duties as President of ILACE (International Institute of Law Association of Chief Executives).

Richard Henderson, President of the Society said: "I would like to put on record the considerable debt which the Society owes to Douglas for his work over the past eleven years.

"The Society is a more business like and modern organisation than the one Douglas joined as Chief Executive and under his leadership the organisation has met many significant challenges.

"It is indicative of Douglas' professionalism that he is ensuring that the transition can be as smooth as possible."

Douglas Mill said: "It has been an honour to be the Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland for the past 11 years. It has been a time of much change and there is a great deal more to come. (AYE DOUGIE PROTECTING CROOKED LAWYERS LIKE YOURSELF) I wish the Society all the very best for the future and look forward to seeing it continue to thrive."

(WE CLIENTS LOOK FORWARD TO IT'S DEMISE).

Anonymous said...

LAW SOCIETY WEBSITE

Consumer and Professional Protection

Scottish solicitors, with the support and guidance of the Society, strive to ensure that their clients receive a quality service. (BULL****). This is supported by the training requirements and standards met by Scottish solicitors. A number of measures are also in place to provide consumers with unrivalled protection. PERHAPS THE SOCIETY BELIEVE THIS, BUT CLIENTS TRUST THIS LOT AT YOUR PERIL.

Anonymous said...

Alistair Sim - Director of Marsh UK, (BROKER FOR THE INSURERS OF ALL SCOTTISH LAWYERS) once said to Peter .. "there isn't a lawyer in Scotland who hasn't had a complaint made against them". So, if you want a lawyer who hasn't had rolls of client complaints made against them .. hasn't been at the fiddle, had their fingers in the 'till, been embezzling clients funds behind their back .. etc .. you are going to have to ask for a written declaration from the solicitor or legal firm you go to as to their regulatory history. Should be as easy as that .. but of course, even the most charming small town lawyer, may have some deep dark secrets up their sleeve .. of faking up file papers to get out of complaint investigations or swindling a few banks ... and they certainly wont want you to find out about that !

EVEN IF THEY GIVE YOU A WRITTEN DECLARATION THEY ARE CLEAN, WHO WILL TAKE THEM TO TASK IF THEY LIE TO YOU. ANOTHER LAWYER, YOU HAVE NO CHANCE, AND THIS IS A JUSTICE SYSTEM.

IT IS A SYSTEM THAT REWARDS SCOTLAND'S LAWYERS FOR BEING CRIMINALS.

I WOULD TRUST A MCKENZIE FRIEND BUT NEVER A LAWYER.

Anonymous said...

Good you mentioned small claims Mr Cherbi.
I have been trying to take a builder to court via the small claims court for 2,000 but his lawyers are arguing I must have a lawyer before the case proceeds.Strangely enough the Sheriff agreed and said I should look for a lawyer.I am still looking but I have all the letters telling me that the amount I am contesting is over the limit when it isnt as you say its 3,000 in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/26/law.jonrobins

'I hear my clients sobbing'

A campaign against care home closures has cost solicitor Yvonne Hossack her marriage and her home. Now, she claims, the body running legal aid is trying to put her out of business. Jon Robins reports

Last week Yvonne Hossack, a solicitor who has campaigned for seven years against care home closures, had to sell her much-loved Y-reg Vauxhall Astra to keep her Northamptonshire-based law firm afloat. "It's no Porsche but I'm going to miss it," she says. When it comes to totting up her personal sacrifices, that one is strictly minor league. Hossack reckons she is now facing bankruptcy. She is also splitting up from her husband and selling her share in the family house.

"I've given my life for this work, gladly, and lost everything - business, marriage, home. But I've done it for a reason. I hear my clients sobbing. I come in to work to letters telling me they've died. We all have to die. It is important, though, to die a good death - not in the hands of strangers in unfamiliar surroundings."

Read the rest of this report on the above link.

Yvonne Hossack proves one thing, a person can be a lawyer and have high morals. Your support is growing Yvonne day by day.


That is how they operate, if the cases cost lots on money, shut down the Legal Aid. Yes Yvonne they are going to sever the money supply to stop you, I have been there, I know what you are dealing with.

She hears her clients sobbing because, they have no rights without a solicitor, so it is Yvonne's career or her clients welfare. We support you Yvonne, you are a lawyer in a million, driven by life not money. Do not let your enemies crush you, you are stronger than that.

Anonymous said...

Comment left at 9.17

This is why we need McKenzie friends, then lawyers could not do this, they want you to get a lawyer, what happens if you cannot? No legal rights.

Anonymous said...

This is without doubt one of your best postings ever on the subject of delays in Scotland on justice matters and it speaks volumes several of the top people in Scots law continually mention your McKenzie Friends campaign and all the trouble it is causing them.
Good luck!

Anonymous said...

I've read the petitioners reply to the committee and he is right - the Scottish Executive have put the brakes on all these reforms just as you have reported it.
The glaring thing is that not one solicitor in Scotland has mentioned any of these failings.Wondering why ? Its all about money of course.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Alistair Sim - Director of Marsh UK, (BROKER FOR THE INSURERS OF ALL SCOTTISH LAWYERS) once said to Peter .. "there isn't a lawyer in Scotland who hasn't had a complaint made against them".

Mr Sim, what you are saying is that

All lawyers are corrupt.

The Law Society have had (assuming a complaint for every lawyer in Scotland) at least 10,000 complaints made against their members. Over the years it will have been millions of complaints. Lawyers are still practising, readers draw your own conclusions.

Anonymous said...

Multi party actions are still problematic at best in England but at least we don't have an outright ban.

Scotland does look antiquated & foolish as a jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

The McKenzie Friend prtition is important but the legal profession could easily cope with a mute McKenzie Friend - who are not allowed o address the Court in normal circumstances.

CLASS ACTIONS however are a different matter entirely - there the forces are equal, many dissatisfied clients can band together in a single action AND ENGAGE QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

Anonymous said...

26th Jun - ***Some English Legal News***

English judge GERALD PRICE QC thought nothing of allowing his 250-pounds-a-day rent boy to sit on the bench in court trials he presided over. Married Price, who stood unsuccessfully for Parliament as a Tory candidate in three general elections, showed the same level of contempt for his judicial code of conduct as that shown by his Scottish legal counterparts, week in week out. As his rent boy lover aptly pointed out: "His business was truth but he lived a lie. He was at real risk of being blackmailed. Imagine the power a criminal could wield over a judge with info like this."

Anonymous said...

SCOTLAND AGAINST CROOKED LAWYERS STATW www.sacl/info

We have received over 100 complaints about the conduct of Philip Yelland in his capacity as Law Society 'Client Relations Director'. Victims of crooked solicitors refer to him as "the most corrupt man in Scotland" and such strong feelings are supported by overwhelming statistical, documentary and eyewitness evidence. The evidence proves, beyond any doubt, the Law Society deny victims justice by protecting rogue solicitors from the consequences of misconduct and collude with the Insurers to limit or negate payouts to victims.
-----------------------------------
Correct SACL, the Law Society is the scourge of humanity.

Anonymous said...

Kenneth Pritchard OBE, WS. Former Secretary and Chief Executive Law Society of Scotland. Part-time Sheriff. Former Chairman of the Temporary Sheriffs' Association.

Pritchard's covert attempt to defeat a perfectly valid solicitor negligence claim was recently exposed in parliament by John Swinney MSP. In his capacity as Law Society Secretary, Pritchard actively encouraged a firm of solicitors NOT to act for an individual whose life was effectively ruined by crooked lawyers. The victim, Iain McIntyre, was ultimately successful in his damages claim - a settlement that we cannot comment on for "legal reasons" i.e. Mr McIntyre was forced to remain silent about the legal crookery in order to receive just partial recompense.
-----------------------------------
People of Scotland, if you are called for jury service this man Pritchard may be the Sheriff, can this be right when he was involved in dishonesty? I think not.

Anonymous said...

After having sat through the BBC's misdiagnosis investigation tonight I think they should get off their fat taxpayer funded a*ses and go investigate all this delay to justice just because the bloody Law Society says so.

Anonymous said...

Website www.sacl/info

The Ken Pritchard Scandal

In February 1996, 49 members of the UK Parliament signed an early day motion condemning the operation of the Law Society of Scotland's master policy as fundamentally hostile to the underlying principles of Scots law.

Their number included several high-profile politicians: David Steel, Charles Kennedy, Ken Livingstone, Martin O'Neill - a former chairman of the Department of Trade and Industry Select Committee - and even the current UK parliament speaker, Michael Martin. One signatory, Malcolm Chisholm, who coincidentally attended George Watson's School with Law Society of Scotland Client Relations Director, Philip Yelland, went on to become Minister of Health and Community Care in Scotland.

The late Gordon McMaster MP tabled the motion after learning of the plight of Paisley housebuilder Iain McIntyre, a constituent who suffered losses of £2.7million following a 10-year legal nightmare involving a string of incidents of negligence and bad faith at the hands of various law firms.

The motion stated:

"Inherent conflicts exist between the Law Society of Scotland's duties to guard the public interest and protect its members' interests, which have forced Mr McIntyre to endure the loss of his business and the forced sale of his home ... it is unjustifiable that the Law Society holds the master professional indemnity insurance policy which has built into it penalties and bonuses which give solicitors a vested interest in minimising negligence claims at unfair levels".

The MPs were "convinced that the principle of Scots law that everyone is entitled to independent legal representation has been breached by the Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland actively encouraging one firm of solicitors to cease acting for Mr McIntyre". They were of course referring to the actions of Ken Pritchard.

John Swinney exposed Pritchard's actions during a 2006 Scottish Parliamentary debate.

----------------------------------
Pritchard, should be behind bars, not sitting in judgement over court proceedings. The Law Society should be disbanded.

Anonymous said...

SELF REGULATION IN THE USA

http://www.perkel.com/pbl/letter1.htm

Want to make a difference? Want to do something that will get results in reforming the court system? Want to do something that won't cost a lot of money or take a lot of time? Good! Write some letters. Letter writing actually works. When you let your state representatives know what you think, sometimes they actually listen. What I need is a lot of people writing a lot of letters. What I'm proposing in this letter is somewhat new and unique. It's not another letter with nothing new. This letter will help them start thinking about external regulation of the courts. And this is an important concept that needs to be promoted.

People before Lawyers There are a lot of things wrong with courts and lawyers in America. But most all these problems have one root cause. The root cause is that the judicial system is self regulating. Self regulation doesn't work. The solution is external regulation of lawyers and judges. Every other profession, like doctors, are regulated by administrative agencies that are under the executive branch of government. Only lawyers are regulated by the judicial branch. Because they regulate themselves, their really is no regulation. Here in Missouri, the Disciplinary Counsel is really the Coverup Counsel. The only lawyers who are disciplined in Missouri are lawyers who are convicted of a felony, and lawyers who blow the whistle on other lawyers.

It's going to take a lot of effort to break the self regulation of the courts. There are a lot of lawyer who are making a lot of money because they can break the law with impunity. There are a lot of judges whom enjoy having the power of kings to do whatever they want without fear of being held to legal and ethical standards. These people are powerful and are entrenched. However, you can cut down a mighty redwood tree with a hatchet if you hit it enough times. And that's what this letter is intended to do. Every member of the House and Senate of every state needs to get 10 copies of this letter from 10 different people. And ever member of the United States Congress needs to get 100 copies from 100 different people. We need to get the subject of external regulation of the courts on the table. So please take the time to send a few letters off.

Anonymous said...

Is lawyer self-regulation a Canadian anachronism?
By Karen McDougall
Edmonton
November 16 2007 issue

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=573

The jealously guarded sacred cow that is self-regulation for Canadian lawyers could ultimately end up at the slaughterhouse, a recent panel on the regulation of the legal profession heard. Should that happen, Canadian lawyers would be joining a growing number of jurisdictions that have looked closely at self-governance for lawyers, found it wanting and axed it, according to Richard Devlin, Associate Dean, Graduate Studies and Research at Dalhousie Law School in his paper The End(s) of Self Regulation?

Devlin delivered his paper at the Alberta Law Society’s 100th Anniversary Conference, “Canadian Lawyers in the 21st Century”, held at the University of Alberta on Oct. 27 and 28.

Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, England and Wales, South Africa, the U.S. and Ireland have already killed the old heifer, according to Devlin. However, we in Canada don’t seem to want to talk about it. We steadfastly cling to the belief that self-regulation is, as Devlin puts it, “the only game in town” and that considering other alternatives is pointless.
-----------------------------------
Self regulation (the liars charter) in Scotland will end, it is simply a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

http://sacl.info/eyewitness.htm

Submission No 60

"It is my strong belief that complaints against and about solicitors can only be made fair, workable and transparent if it is taken away from the Law Society and dealt with independently."

Giles Davies (a former solicitor)

Anonymous said...

Submission No 24

http://sacl.info/eyewitness.htm

"I submit the following facts and circumstances, and evidence, that self-regulation of the legal profession is nothing less than a national disgrace, an affront to justice, and must be removed."

Name originally witheld by Parliament's Lawyers - but we can reveal it was Stewart MacKenzie, who is subject of the infamous leaked Law Society Internal Memo.

Stewart's written submission to parliament included quotes from an Annual Report published by the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, in which the SLSO was highly critical of the Law Society and legal self regulation. Parliament's lawyers "censored" large portions of this report, despite this document being available to the general public. Parliament's Chief Exec, Paul Grice, apologised for what he termed "an oversight". Hmmm, even parliament's lawyers appear willing to go to extraordinary lengths to protect their professional body!
==================================
Self regulation, the scourge that keeps lawyers wealthy and clean and destroys clients lives.

A curse on the laws of natural justice. IT MUST END AND IT WILL.

Anonymous said...

“The general attitude in the Scottish Government is the Law Society controls anything to do with justice. Ministers and many civil servants are apathetic to calls to reform the system, preferring to simply let the legal profession steam roll along as it has always done. No wonder the public get a raw deal against lawyers in Scotland.”

Not to mention civil servants getting sweet finance deals for helping out to keep self regulation by the LSS in force.

Anonymous said...

Class actions are not allowed in Scotland because politicians of all parties are too busy soliciting donations from industries like finance,law,medical & transport which are funnily enough the same industries which give most to political parties.
Bare faced corruption I'd call it.

Anonymous said...

When do we get to hear Lord Gill's 'savage' attack on his own justice system ?

Anonymous said...

Philip Yelland, director of standards at the Law Society of Scotland, said the "vast majority" of solicitors adhered to high professional standards.

That is rich coming from a man who sent a farmer to the legal defence union to claim against the master policy, because his original lawyer was a crook. I do not think Yelland cares about the suffering he and his profession cause.

You are lucky Yelland, I would send you lot to Auchwitz if I had that power. You have great compassion, but only for lawyers.