Thursday, September 10, 2009

Scottish Govt. Finance Chief John Swinney blasts Legal Complaints Commission as liars over secret meetings with Law Society insurers Marsh UK

John SwinneyScottish Finance Secretary John Swinney condemns SLCC's secrecy over meetings with Marsh. Documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation reveal that John Swinney, the Scottish Government's Finance Chief has become involved in efforts to expose an extraordinary battle by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to keep secret the details of meetings between senior members & staff of the Commission and the well known US Insurance giant Marsh, who, along with Royal Sun Alliance, insure all Scottish solicitors, most Advocates, and even have little known links to the Scottish Government itself.

John Swinney 09032009 to SLCC 1Cabinet Secretary Swinney demanded explanations of SLCC's minutes contradictions. Letters written by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney dated March 2009 to the SLCC's Chief Executive Eileen Masterman brand her explanation 'contradictory' to details in the Commission's own minutes : "In your response on the 12th of December to *** subsequent letter on the 2nd of December in which *** had stated 'clearly you are saying that no date has yet been arranged for the Marsh presentation'. You indicated that a meeting took place with RSA (Royal Sun Alliance) in July 2008 but that no meeting had occurred with Marsh."

Mr Swinney then went on to state : "*** has drawn to my attention the fact that the minutes of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission dated 11th of March 2008 and 7th July 2007 indicated firstly in March 2008 that 'Jane Irvine confirmed she had arranged an introductory session from Marsh' and the minutes in July said that a meeting had taken place with RSA. I have to say that I feel there is a contradiction between the correspondence you have sent to *** dated 1st and 12th of December and the minutes of the SLCC meetings of March and July."

Eileen MastermanSLCC's Chief Executive Eileen Masterman's explanations over meetings with Marsh 'are contradictory' - John Swinney. The SLCC’s Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, herself a former Law Society of Scotland Committee member, issued the following statement in response to queries over Mr Swinney’s communications : “As you know, the SLCC came into existence on 1 October 2008 and a few weeks later, in early November, I attended a meeting with the SLCC’s Head of Investigations and a representative from Marsh. I considered that it was necessary and entirely appropriate for us, as senior members of the SLCC’s team, to apprise ourselves of the nature and workings of the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund as these come within our area of responsibility. However, the meeting did not relate to the means by which SLCC would ultimately exercise its oversight function. “

John Swinney 03062009 to SLCCSLCC's answers to Cabinet Secretary Swinney were far from clear. The SLCC's responses to Mr Swinney's allegations of contradictions between attempts to keep secret any meetings with the insurers, which fell through after the details emerged in later meetings of the Commission, led to further intervention by the Cabinet Secretary branding the Commission's explanations "far from clear". It has also emerged today the Cabinet Secretary is to make representations and possibly a complaint over the way his communications have been responded to, given the responses have in his words, proved contradictory to actual events.

Although Mr Swinney’s office declined to make further comment at this stage, a source close to the Cabinet Secretary today revealed that Mr Swinney is far from happy with the way the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has handled its relationship with the public to-date, and has also expressed 'significant dissatisfaction' that the Commission chose not to look into past cases of complaints abuse by the Law Society of Scotland, which themselves played a significant part in Mr Swinney's continued appearances during the 2006 Justice 2 Committee hearings into the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Bill, which ultimately passed into law in 2007 after considerable campaigning from Mr Swinney, in the face of stiff resistance from the Law Society and Scotland’s legal establishment.

The well placed insider said : "Clearly the SLCC didn't want to tell anyone there had been secret meetings with Marsh before they got their Master Policy monitoring job up and running but as time dragged on the details of those meetings had to spill out otherwise it looked like they were doing nothing."

He went on : "John Swinney is far from happy the SLCC has still not decided on how to pursue its role monitoring claims made against solicitors using the Master Policy, after the Commission has had over two years and several millions of pounds of taxpayers money pumped into it, with an end result of nothing achieved so far."

John Swinney’s approach to corruption at the Law Society of Scotland led to the quick demise of the Society’s Chief Executive Douglas Mill :

Law SocietySLCC refused to look at Law Society’s corruption for fear of revealing too much. From a study of the correspondence between the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which you can download HERE, it appears the SLCC is either unwilling or unable to perform an effective Master Policy oversight role, which it was tasked with handling in the legislation which created it in the first place. The ‘nothing doing’ time scale of January 2007 to now is enough on its own to show us this seems to be the case, where the Commission is seemingly more intent on talking itself to death on issues and cases, which, if properly resolved as they should be, would put an end to any doubt the Commission is honest in its endeavours to root out corruption in Scotland’s infamously corrupt legal services market.

Clearly, the results of the SLCC's recent investigation in to the Master Policy itself, which stunningly revealed the actions of the insurers and the Law Society of Scotland against claimants had actually caused suicides should have by now, prompted substantive action on the part of the Commission and the Scottish Government to address the issues raised by the University of Manchester investigation team, but as I reported recently, it appears Commission members and staff are now trying to bury the investigation's findings and discredit testimony given by consumers, out of fear of upsetting the Law Society itself.

You can read my two earlier reports on the investigation here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night' and attempts by Commission members to derail evidence given by claimants & victims of the Master Policy here : Censorship & ‘frequent flyers’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal attempt to write off consumers evidence in Master Policy report

SLCCSLCC ‘are dishonest, anti-client’. A spokesman for one of Scotland's consumer organisations today branded the SLCC 'dishonest' in its approach to dealing with the public, claiming the Commission was acting more like a protector of the legal profession than the 'independent' regulator it was supposed to be. He said : "The SLCC will have little public credibility if all they do is try to hide meetings with elements of the legal profession and those financially connected with it who are causing all these problems with claims against crooked lawyers. There should be an inquiry into the SLCC’s poor performance to-date where in reality we are little further on after things began in early 2007."

He continued : "I would suggest the lack of progress and anti-client attitudes of Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have now effectively demonstrated it too needs oversight. Perhaps it is time the role of Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman should now be re-introduced, given powers to oversee the SLCC and the Law Society, and be given strong statutory powers which the SLSO should always have had available to use and intervene when the legal profession fails to deal with complaints and claims against its own members."

We therefore seem to be in the position now, two years on from the SLCC’s first steps as an ‘independent’ ‘new broom’ regulator of Scotland’s legal profession, the SLCC itself needs regulated because it too has fell under the spell of those it was tasked with investigating. A very sorry state of affairs indeed.


Anonymous said...

Great stuff.They have effectively lied to their paymaster (Mr Swinney)
He wont be happy about that one since hes paying for it all (though our money of course)

Anonymous said...

So SLCC Chief Executive misled Cabinet Secretary John Swinney and attempts to disguise the issue by claiming the meeting with the disgraced insurance provider Marsh 'did not relate to the means by which the SLCC will ultimately exercise its oversight function'.

Two questions;

1. When does it intend to begin
functioning in any meaningful
or honest way?

2. How can it perform an oversight
function of the notorious
Master Policy when it does not
have, and will not ask for, a
copy of the document?

Anonymous said...

Good to see Swinney back in the game against the Law Society.

Anonymous said...

So can we expect to see Mr Swinney complaining on the news that he has been deliberately misled by the SLCC?

Will the story appear in tomorrows papers?

Excellent article, and I suggest all who read it write to their MEPs, the Scottish Parliament has long since been in the back pocket of the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

However, the meeting did not relate to the means by which SLCC would ultimately exercise its oversight function. “

Well Miss Masterman, in my view you should never have been allowed into the SLCC. You will have the same mindset as Yelland and all of the other crooks. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is not fit for purpose, it is a facade set up, like the persuers panel to protect lawyers. I would never trust any of you people because you are not fit to be members of a legal profession.

Your secret meetings are aimed at protecting lawyers, insurers, and all of the dirty tricks your profession are fanous for. Graduate filth, another term for lawyers. Hope you do not find me offensive, Miss Masterman but quite frankly I do not care?

Anonymous said...

You do not put a diehard Nazi into the anti Nazi league, so why is Eileen Masterman in charge of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission? She is member of the Law Society.

I start a new evening class this evening Eileen, and I get to know people and point them in the direction of Mr Cherbi's site, Solicitors from Hell, and Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers. I hate lawyers are that is the driving force for warning others about the criminals spilling out of our university law schools. If I can pre warn people they may not suffer as I have and countless others have at the hands of Scotland's legal establishment criminals.

Anonymous said...

Scrap the SLCC and start again.The minute they start lying thats it lost forever so better with something new and no lawyers on it this time

Anonymous said...

Well Peter after managing to find the link to those documents you said you gained through FOI I wouldn't believe a word the slcc said on anything because if they can lie to a Government Minister they can lie to anyone.

Keep up the good work you two !

Anonymous said...

Masterman's quote isn't credible considering Swinney's reply.She should go.

Anonymous said...

If its of any value to you Mr Cherbi, the entire legal profession including the Law Society & Faculty of Advocates are in agreement with you that the SLCC is a waste of all our time money & effort.

Anonymous said...

How much money have these slcc wasters had from us ?

John Strickland said...

John Swinney is a canny speaker compared to the balloon brothers Salmond & MacAskill.If he ever leads the SNP again (assuming Alex will give it up sometime unless he thinks hes Hugo McChavez) I'll vote for them.

Anonymous said...

Where's the link to those documents please ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

If its of any value to you Mr Cherbi, the entire legal profession including the Law Society & Faculty of Advocates are in agreement with you that the SLCC is a waste of all our time money & effort.

7:20 PM

HAHA ! I'm sure that will fill him with joy !

Anonymous said...

Surely Masterman must go. "misleading" a Cabinet Secretary, former member of Law Society committees and who knows what else. I'm sure there are some good people in the SLCC, but when the management is rotten to the core what hope is there.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant investigation on a disgusting group of lawyers out for their own ends.
If any newspaper had some guts they would rip this lot apart along with Marsh and the Law Society.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments on this article.

# Anonymous @ 4.08pm

To answer your first question .... I don't believe the SLCC does actually intend to function in any meaningful or honest way.

After two years, I'd say the clock has ticked past any chance of that.

To answer your second question ... Correct .. and as I understand matters, the SLCC has still not asked for a copy of the Master Policy .. again, two years on !

# Anonymous @ 4.11pm

No .. because the Law Society will complain ... as usual.

# Anonymous @ 5.13pm

I agree with your comment.

# Anonymous @ 5.20pm

Yes, its good to spread the news ...

# Anonymous @ 5.33pm

I agree .. and so do a few MSPs, but whether they will do something is another matter ...

# Anonymous @ 6.03pm


# Anonymous @ 7.20pm

I'd suppose so, since you are all paying for it too ...

# Anonymous @ 6.03pm

Well it works out at over £2 million from the public purse via Kenny MacAskill, last year's subs from the Law Society membership at about £2.5 million, and this years subs at around £2 million so thats about £6.5 million or so .. and still they can't even ask for a copy of the Master Policy or fathom out how to monitor it.

# John Strickland @ 8.39pm

Quite ...

# Anonymous @ 9.49pm

Yes .. "a few" .. although by my reckoning they are outnumbered ...

# Anonymous @ 10.07pm

Yes .. one would think ...

The link to the letters between the Cabinet Secretary and the SLCC is here : Correspondence between Cabinet Secretary John Swinney & SLCC

I agree with those who suggest reform at the SLCC, and replacement of some of its figures.

I also agree with views expressed in the article the SLCC itself now requires oversight, although if such a move is to take place, there must be a much more powerful office in place than the former and rather toothless SLSO.

Keep your comments & suggestions coming in, and of course remember to write to your MSPs informing them of your own concerns regarding the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Anonymous said...

Now we know why the post of the Legal Services Ombudsman was summarily dispatched - 'nasty' people such as Linda Costelloe-Baker telling the truth year after year about the appalling wrongs daily committed by the legal profession in Scotland - obviously that had to go.

And absolutely no chance of any effective replacement appearing, unless of course Which Magazine and the mis-named Scottish Consumer Council can be persuaded to do their jobs.

Anonymous said...

comment at 10:07pm

Who cares about newspapers ?
They wont upset the Law Society or lawyers because they lose their adverts and proeprty ads so thats why we dont get stories about crooked lawyers or crooked accountants much.
Anyway much better to read the internet because you can watch Douglas Mill sweat out his lying ass on video which you dont get in any newspaper !

Anonymous said...

I've read through the letters between Swinney and Masterman.Easy to see someone is not telling Swinney the whole story because there is too much being said back.If it was Swinney who was wrong she would say so but she cant.
Sack her and the rest of them and as for overseeing the SLCC I prefer you Peter to do it.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing shocking about this article Peter, because lawyers and liars are the same. I would vote for Mr Swinney myself but I cannot as he does not represent the constituency I live in.

Contradictions from the SLCC, barefaced lies are the reality and Masterman should resign. This woman is typical of her profession, master twisters hell bent on protecting their own and their insurers. She is an ex Law Society member and she will be as crooked as the rest of them.

Do not call me offensive Miss Masterman, you cannot be denied legal representation because a lawyer will be ruined. Scotland's people are the ones who are offended by people who think it is their god given right to self regulate and cover up lawyer corruption no matter how clients suffer. Here you have been shown to be dishonest corrupt liars by a politician who has the guts and decency to stand up to the Law Society SLCC. Independent complaints handling, it can never happen as long as you or your lawyer friends are involved in receiving complaints.

I like deceased lawyers, they are harmless.

Anonymous said...

as a member of the legal profession - and believe me i disagree with a great deal on your website - but turing to the SLCC, it has cost each and every member of the legal profession a great deal of mone (I'm not looking for sympathy), but what has it actually done? It's not investigating any complaints, it's not monitoring the master policy or guarantee fund. strikes me it is no more than an excuse to pay a number of select individuals a great deal of money to do very little! £70K a year for Masterman - why?

Anonymous said...

£6.5 million ?? What a disgusting waste of money.

How many lawyers have been found guilty on that amount ?

Anonymous said...

First comment.

Yes I agree but if he is anything the man you all say he is he should now demand the return of all public money handed over to the SLCC.Peter now tells us they have 6.5m so they can afford to pay back the taxpayer.

Anonymous said...

Eileen Masterman's letters back to Swinney are a laugh.Did she forget you would eventually get your hands on them ?

The whole lot of them are not worth 10p never mind £6.5 million

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when lawyers like Masterman are involved in the complaints process.

This Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is not independent and the crafty strategy of secret meetings with Marsh RSA support that view.

I am pleased to see John Swinney standing up to them, and many other MSP's should be doing the same instead of supporting torturers and those responsible for client suicides. The SLCC website claims it is impartial and independent, and this is impossible because lawyers and lawyer sympathisers run it. Clients are wasting their efforts complaining to the Law Society or the Commission. Their strategy is to push to keep a tight grip on so called lawyer regulation so that even if the legal services market is opened up to competition the Law Society want to manage it. In this way they can keep covering everything up because they are dirty corrupt filth.

Someone in charge of the Royal Navy appointing a new captain to one of the fleets ships will know that captain will not wage war on British ships.

Just like Masterman, Scanlan, Smith and the others, they will not wage war on the Law Society, on the contrary they are enemy alien of all clients, who should have been kept out of the commission just like all lawyers. Please do not trust them. They have tunnel vision aimed at protecting their crooked colleagues. There is no such thing as an honest lawyer, they are parasites who prey on clients because they know that they have total protection.

Scotland has no protection for it's citizens from crooked lawyers.

Anonymous said...

+1 vote for Swinney

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

as a member of the legal profession - and believe me i disagree with a great deal on your website - but turing to the SLCC, it has cost each and every member of the legal profession a great deal of mone (I'm not looking for sympathy), but what has it actually done? It's not investigating any complaints, it's not monitoring the master policy or guarantee fund. strikes me it is no more than an excuse to pay a number of select individuals a great deal of money to do very little! £70K a year for Masterman - why?

To the member of the legal profession,

I agree with you on the £70K for Masterman, and I understand you are not looking for sympathy. Neither are we, we are looking for a fair unbiased complaints system so that corrupt lawyers are prosecuted not protected, and anything less is an infringement of our human rights.

The SLCC is as you point out not doing anything and regarding lawyers paying for it this is a result of Law Society CORRUPTION.

If the Law Society protected clients the LPLA Act and SLCC would not have been necessary and the pressure groups would have had nothing to campaign about. So what you pay Masterman and her entourage would not have happened if The Law Society were honest. I do not know you, but I believe all lawyers are corrupt especially if a colleagues reputation is on the line. The cover up culture of the Law Society of Scotland, has done more to ruin the reputations of all lawyers than anything else. You pay them for your practising certificate and they are shooting you in the foot, because the public cannot trust you. We see you as all being the same which is a pity, because perhaps you are one of the most honest lawyers in Scotland. We do not know?

You are correct about the SLCC is set up as an excuse to pay a number of select individuals a great deal of money to do very little!

I am a Surveyor, you are a Lawyer, line millions of other taxpayers we have paid our taxes to this quango for Mr MacAskill to leave it doing nothing. Perhaps you can offer Mr MacAskill a position in your firm?

Anonymous said...

Personally I think Swinney should just shut the whole thing down and spend the money on hospitals instead of letting this lot pay themselves huge salaries for DOING NOTHING !

Anonymous said...


Thursday, 10 September 2009 13:53 UK

An Edinburgh lawyer who supplied drugs to a man who later died of a suspected overdose has been sentenced to carry out 150 hours of community service.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers destroyed my belief in people, I hate them, they are the most warped people, ruin lives and think that is acceptable.

Glad to see Mr John Swinney is rocking the boat, a man of decent character, not a yes man like MacAskill.

Anonymous said...

Does Scotland require a Human Rights Commission ?

Certainly Yes. There is currently no one organisation for anyone to go to in the event of a breach of Human Rights or a failure to comply with ECHR.

Yes, of course, one can go to a solicitor - but what happens if the legal profession don't want to take the case ? (PETER THIS HAPPENED TO ME, MONEY CUT OFF IN A LITIGATION CASE TO STARVE ME INTO SUBMISSION, NOWHERE TO TURN AND THE LAWYERS WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY, 5 MONTHS WITH NO MONEY AT ALL) That means you have no access to justice therefore no avenue to redress the issues of Human Rights and since there is currently no other service on offer to look into or represent those whose Human Rights have been breached, that's it.



Anonymous said...


Obsession for control divides legal profession over opening up of legal services monopoly in Scotland.

Over the past few weeks I have covered the important issue of access to legal services in Scotland - which is currently the well controlled monopoly of solicitors & advocates.

Put simply, if you need access to legal services, only a lawyer or advocate will do, and if they don't want to take your case, that's it - no access to justice for you - (CORRECT PETER NO HUMAN RIGHTS) so, forget about using a lawyer to sue a lawyer, or take any controversial case anywhere near a court because if it's not in the legal profession's interest to take the case on, you are left out in the cold - along with many of the Scottish public who now can't get access to legal services.



Anonymous said...

The Law Society used to supply the general public with copies of the Guide to The Master policy.This Guide was designed to inform lawyers on how the are supposed to behave,especially if they believed they may have committed an offence that could result in a clain against the Master policy.I have never met a lawyer whose has read it.Clearly none of them feel the require its guidance.It is an excellent document for any potential complainant against a lawyer or Counsel.The Law society have now withdrawn the circulation of the Guide to the general public,perhaps because I have quoted extensively it in a long running legal battle I have waged against a major legal firm in Scotland and Counsel.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for your continued comments.

I agree that John Swinney's support for independent regulation of Scotland's legal profession is by far the most positive view expressed by a member of the current Scottish Government.

Such a view must be built on, so that changes are effected in the area of regulation of Scotland's legal services market so that everyone benefits. It may well be that the legal profession itself benefits from such changes, but as several senior solicitors have expressed over the past few days to me, the membership's views are mostly buried by the Law Society of Scotland's attempts to preserve its own status, at great cost, as "The Boss" of anyone & everyone who practices law in Scotland.

Clearly things would change much quicker, and for the better, if the Law Society were stripped of their regulatory powers, rather given the duties of being little more than a 'trade union' for its members .. freeing up external and independent bodies to regulate the legal services market, now and after the "Tesco Law" improvements.

However, the SLCC will itself have to be cleaned up if it is to take on that responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation is the reason for soaring lawyer criminality. These people must be stopped from dealing with complaints from clients.

This will also deal with poor legal service, by independent policing dealing with the crooks.

Lawyers make a lot of money from the Human Rights Act. They protect human rights with the exception of clients. If I buy a car from a dealer, and get poor service and shoddy treatment I can go to another dealer, and also Trading Standards. The Law Society are trading standards, and with the revelations of corruption from that body, clients need alternative competitive legal services, NOT CONTROLLED BY LAWYERS. If the legal services industry is opened to competition lawyers protectors, the Law Society/SLCC cannot have any control over those services.

In 2009, if a member of the public is ruined by a lawyer, he or she has to complain to lawyers, so justice is impossible. No legal protection for clients is tyranny, where Scotland's legal dictators ruin lives with impunity.

I read Eileen Masterman said campaingers were offensive. Well Miss Masterman, I consider you to be an immature person because you expect ruined clients to do nothing. Let me try to get into your warped mind. I am a lawyer, you are my client. I ruin you financially, and you complain to the Law Society of Scotland. Douglas Mill, Phillip Yelland, Kenneth Pritchard, all tell law firms not to help you. In desperation you write with photocopies of your documents which incriminate me, to the court. The court write to you stating you need to consult a solicitor, but you have been repudiated by countless legal firms. Now you understand why self regulation is totally corrupt, you have no legal remedy against me because all of my colleagues are protecting me. The Master Policy underwriters are delighted because without proper unbiased legal representation you cannot obtain damages. The legal system is designed to protect it's practitioners, and to hell with the clients. Now that you have read this Miss Masterman, it would be interesting to hear your opinion on what I have said here.
I do not expect you to post a response to this because you know I am right.

This is the situation Miss Masterman clients find themselves in. Tyranny within the law, where criminals who practice law are protected by their own colleagues. No lawyer can retain any credibility talking about human rights, unless those human rights give clients justice against the legal profession.

Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC’s Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, herself a former Law Society of Scotland Committee member,

How can the SLCC claim to be independent and impartial with a former Law Society committee member as it's Chief Executive? She thinks campaigners are offensive, which means she thinks clients are offensive. She is one of Scotland's protected lawyers, but she is not so clever or she would not have been caught being dishonest. If you have any decency Eileen resign and take your lawyer colleagues with you.

Anonymous said...

We need a Justice Minister who will strip the Law Society of their regulatory powers. Get MacAskill out, who would you recommend for Justice Minister Peter?

Anonymous said...

The Law Society are control freaks, and if they had controlled their members as tightly and prosecuted the crooks as they want to control access to legal services, lawyers in general would not be considered the crooks they are.

The Law Society are undermining the legal profession as a whole by their crooked culture of self protecting all lawyers. When lawyers, doctors and accountants can treat people anyway they want, those victims have no one to turn to. Lawyers have the law society, doctors, the GMC and NHS Local Resolution coverup, Accountants have their professional body, medical defence unions, legal defence unions. Clients and patients have lawyers who will not represent them, and no other alternatives. It is a draconian one sided system and I urge other politicians to stand by Mr John Swinney, and end self regulation of professions who have the power to ruin people's lives. The people of Scotland also need a human rights commissioner, to protect them from these professions.

I also warn people of the facade that is called litigation. If you are injured at work and you sue, you will need medical reports because your injuries are not visible.

All Scottish lawyers are insured by Royal Sun Alliance, through the Law Societies Master Policy.

All Scottish doctors are insured by Royal Sun Alliance.

All Scottish employers are insured by Royal Sun Alliance.

Cameron Fyfe of Ross Harper did not fight for me. This is because he and his doctors covered up my injuries because Fyfe's insurers would have been paying my damages. You cannot win a litigation case in these circumstances.

Here is what happens,

The lawyers and doctors take your case on knowing they will cover up your injuries to protect their insurers. The case is valuable to them because of the Legal Aid funding. Cameron Fyfe like every litigation solicitor in Scotland is a barefaced crook. They use victims of occupational injury to make legal aid money, cover up the injuries for their insurers, and the Law Society of Scotland did not want to know. Do not get injured at work, if you do not leave in an Ambulance, you have no chance.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the commission is that the people appointed to it by MacAskill want to protect lawyers. That is why there is little information in the register of interests. As far as Masterman is concerned she is the same as the top brass at the Law Society, that is why she is a liar. This woman like her lawyer colleagues cannot bear the thought of a lawyer being prosecuted, and organisation that states it is independent must be free from the shackles of the people the complaint is about.

Lawyers, doctors. accountants feel compassion for colleagues in trouble, they would burn clients and patients to death before they would expose each other. Are you on the public's side MacAskill? Get the lawyers out now and you go too because this independent (I can hear clients laughter) Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is doing what you want it to do Kenny. Inaction also protects lawyer crooks. The old saying "action speaks louder than words" applies here and inaction and lies from the Chief Executive screams to us the commission is a Law Society front, like it's Persures Panel. The latter did not want to persue my lawyer.

Mr MacAskills Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, a safe house for bent lawyers.

Finally Kenny you said the Lockerbie Bomber's fate was in the hands of a higher power. Personally I am an athiest, no disrespect to believers, but if you believe there is a higher power Kenny he may do to you what you have done to the victims of Pan Am 103, and the Banana Republic that is Scotland. Scotland's Justice System is in the dock any you may have to answer to that higher power one day, for your treatment of the Lockerbie victims and their families and the suicides caused by that crook Phillip Yelland and his infamous Law Society of Scotland.

You do not act in my name, you are not fit for the position you hold.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers never miss a business opportunity. People misold morgage protection or credit repayment insurance, lawyers act for them. The only time I see professional inaction from lawyers is against their own.

A lawyer in trouble, their brethern all throw a lifeline, a client ruined by a lawyer remains ruined. Walk into any law firm and ask a lawyer to take your crooked lawyer to court. They will not help you because all lawyers are crooks. They are reviled. That is why we need more politicians like Mr Swinney. To all of Scotland's 10,000 lawyers, self regulation will end, for all professions because the current system is tyranny. The only difference between lawyers and the Nazi's is that the former do not have military power.

People of Scotland, beware, these filthy warped crooks ruin clients for fun and profit. Lawyer loyalty created the pressure groups, they are victims of their own immoral ways. It is fine for them, they are not ruined, but what I hate intensely is they do not care how a lawyer victim is left. That is why they are Nazi's, that is why lawyers are professional scum.

Anonymous said...

A senior Law Society official is recovering after a frenzied knife attack outside his home in Edinburgh.

Leslie Cumming, 62, fought off the masked attacker as he was about to enter his home in Murrayfield Drive on Monday afternoon.

Mr Cumming, a chief accountant of the Law Society of Scotland for 26 years, was stabbed several times in the body and received cuts to his face.

He is in a stable condition in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

The attacker ran off towards Ormidale Terrace and the Roseburn area.

He was described as being in his 20s, of stocky build and was wearing dark clothing and a dark balaclava.

Police are appealing for help to trace the attacker.

It was fortunate that he was able to fight off his attacker or the consequences may have been far worse.

A statement issued by the society said: "The best wishes of colleagues and friends at the Law Society of Scotland are with Leslie Cumming, the society's chief accountant and his family.
Did the Law Society order the attack, and the police scaled down the investigation on Law Society orders?

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that people who belong to the so called professions are entrenched in those professions.

Their corruption seems to be mirrored by their denial of any wrongdoing.

Mrs Masterman is like this, trying to worm her way out of her secretive meetings. She is not very intelligent. Having secretive meetings with the Law Societies insurers, demonstrates the boss of the commission is against clients.

What is the saying about the cats that do not change their spots?

Not a very intelligent woman in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

A message for the patients of Britain's family doctors and consultants.

Try and sue your employer for computer based RSI or any occupational injury. You will fail because if you have been injured the doctors will cover up your injuries because they are insured by the same company as your employer and lawyer. Your GP and lawyer knowing you have been injured will take legal aid money and cover your injuries up for their insurers ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE. Doctors and lawyers may as well be employed by RSA, because they will kill off your compensation for them.

If you have tried to sue your employer and you went to consultants for medical reports, the doctors have covered everything up. IT IS A MASSIVE LITIGATION SCAM TO LEAVE PEOPLE INJURED AND PROTECT THE INSURERS. THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE YOUR GP, ASK HIM OR HER WHO THEIR PRACTICE IS INSURED BY, IT IS ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE, YOUR EMPLOYERS INSURER.


Anonymous said...

All self regulators suffer from denial, get one cornered with evidence, they argue they have done nothing wrong.

The most serious example of this was Harold Shipman. When questioned by detectives, he stood up, turned his chair round and sat with his back to the detectives. He was then shown a photograph of one of his victims. The detective said for the record "Dr Shipman's eyes remain closed".

I think there is a strong link between the training of these self regulators are their refusal to face reality. It is evident in my experience in lawyers, doctors, and accountants. Corner them with facts, and they try to distort evidence further to get themselves out of trouble. Masterman is also in denial, in her current role. All these people want to see is the protection of the profession. Client injustice is what they are in denial about.

Douglas Mill swore on his grannys grave, he had done nothing wrong, then resigned from The Law Society of Scotland. Honest people do not run Douglas.

Yelland send the farmer to the law firm for defending lawyers and the Master Policy. People with mental health problems, that is self regulators the world over. They expect forgiveness for their corruption. They should try being a victim, with their mentality they would shoot their lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Swinney does not get my vote, he has known about this corruption for years, only spoke openly about it when in opposition and has kept his mouth firmly shut in public ever since.

Anonymous said...

SLCC ‘are dishonest, anti-client’. A spokesman for one of Scotland's consumer organisations today branded the SLCC 'dishonest' (YES HELL BENT ON PROTECTING THE LAW SOCIETY) in its approach to dealing with the public, claiming the Commission was acting more like a protector of the legal profession than the 'independent' regulator it was supposed to be. (BY LAW PERHAPS IT IS INDEPENDENT, BUT THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE SLCC ARE ONE. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO).

Anonymous said...

If you complain to the Law Society or the Commission you are complaining to people who only see your lawyers side of things. Self regulation, a liars, and cover up charter.

To the Law Society and the Commission, please keep looking after your lawyers, because you differ from us. Personally I hate lawyers.


Anonymous said...


Lawyers love lawyers. doctors love doctors, and accountants love accountants.

These people will put a client or patient through hell. For example Yelland will think he has no blood on his hands, but he has for the farmers suicide, blood red hands Yelland, I detest you, god knows how the farmers family feel. Yelland will feel no guilt for the farmer and his family, but MacAskill's higher power may deal with Yelland one day.

Clients have killed themselves because this cancer called self regulation tortures people until they can stand no more. A thousand dead clients is small sacrifice to save lawyers reputations, and incomes. That is the lawyer mentality. Self regulators are fortunate indeed, I would gas all of you with Xyklon B, watch you die, and sleep at night knowing the world is a better place for it.

Anonymous said...

Swinney has the power to do something about Masterman and the SLCC but will he actually do it or is this just another bunch of big talk and no action?

Anonymous said...

Complaining about lawyers. New legal complaints office is a victory.

17 October 2005.

News that lawyers will soon cease to handle their own complaints is a great victory for consumers, says Which?. (THIS TERRIFIES SCOTLANDS LEGAL ESTABLLISHMENT).

We've campaigned on the issue for years and have been working closely with the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) on legal reform. Now we're delighted that the proposed Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) will give consumers access to the independent redress system they have lacked for so long.

Legal professional bodies - such as the Law Society (IN MY OPINION THEY ARE CRIMINALS) and the Bar Council (DITTO CRIMINALS) - regulate their members (THIS MEANS COVER THEIR CRIMINALITY UP) and represent their interests at the same time. (NOW READ THAT AGAIN, AND CONSIDER THIS, LET US SAY A COMPLAINTS BODY SHOULD BE COMPOSED OF LAWYERS VICTIMS, THAT IS THE SAME AS THE LAWYERS HAVE NOW). Many consumers felt they were getting a raw deal (THAT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT) from such bodies when it came to making a complaint about one of their members.

Ministers say consumers need to be satisfied that complaints are handled independently, efficiently, fairly and quickly and they believe the OLC is the best way forward. They have yet to reveal the timetable for the handover. (WELL MINISTERS LIKE CASH FOR HONOURS, THE EXPENSES SCANDAL. THE LAW SOCIETY PROTECT THEIR CRIMINAL MEMBERS, THE GOVERNMENT REDACTED DOCUMENTS ON EXPENSES. FUCK ME, (excuse the language Peter) DO YOU THINK THE ELECTORATE CAME UP THE CLYDE IN A BANANA BOAT? NO MINISTER WOULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT CLEANING UP EXPENSES , IF THE FOI DID NOT APPLY TO EXPENSES.


Anonymous said...

Lawyers remind me of John Wayne Gacy, in the sense that they are compassionless evil, and they would be serial killers of clients who want justice against them for their tyranny.

Anonymous said...


Let the Scottish Government set up a brand new complaints body totally independent of lawyers influence. Let us call this The Lawyers Victims Legal Complaints Commission. How do we staff it? With lawyers victims of course.

Lorna Black, I hear you and the Law Society and the SLCC screaming, "none of our members will have a chance of fair treatment, if lawyers victims consider the complaint".

Well Lorna, no client has a chance of unbiased treatment when they complain to lawyers about a crooked lawyer who has ruined their life. You see Lorna, I am a great believer in turning a situation around. This is not unreasonable Lorna, as I am sure you will reluctantly agree. It is simply the opposite of the current complaints setup. But you will not react to my suggestion, because you know I am correct. Au Revoir.

Anonymous said...

Kenny MacAskill if you believe in the higher power, remember this,

Thou shalt not lie.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not kill.

These three commandments are broken by the Law Society, and you MacAskill condone this, shame on you.

Anonymous said...

The Duty of Care Principle. Yes lawyers I am not a lawyer but I understand Delict.

Donoghue v Stevenson, (The decomposed snail in the ginger ale bottle case which was settled in the House of Lords).is considered to have defined the concept of duty of care. To whom do we owe a duty of care? Donoghue says that we owe this duty to our neighbours; in legal terms your neighbour can be defined as:

“The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes, in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.” Lord Atkin, 'Donoghue v Stevenson
Well Scotland's lawyers, you need not worry about a duty of care to your clients, because your masters, The Law Society of Scotland only see they have one duty of care. Protecting you corrupt lawyers. The phrase above "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour" is ignored by the Law Society and all lawyers because of the corrupt system of corruption called self regulation.

Anonymous said...

Remember and get a hold of those reps Swinney is making to Irvine so we can see what he actually says about this.
I'm betting he cant do much because this all leads back to his cabinet pal MacAskill although the SLCC has no credibility now that's for sure!

Anonymous said...


Friday May 8,2009

OF ALL the public services that waste taxpayers’ money, none does so as freely or with such a lack of conscience as the courts system.

Whether it be through authorising enormous legal aid bills for ne’er-do-wells of every variety, ordering disproportionate compensation payments for minor or self-inflicted injuries, or allowing the wheels of justice to grind slowly on for years in straightforward cases, the courts have become money-eating machines.

The granting of nearly £600,000 in legal aid to allow three Al Qaeda suspects to fight extradition to the USA for questioning about mass murder is a case in point.

None is a British citizen and there is no good reason for failing to implement extradition orders.

But predictably, the suspects are using Labour’s human rights legislation (LAWYERS MAKING MONEY OUT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AGAIN, BUT NO HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE VICTIMS OF LAW SOCIETY CORRUPTION, MR BROWN TAKE NOTE).to attempt to remain beyond the reach of justice in America, massively enriching their legal teams in the process. equally control orders – the hastily arranged alternative to holding terror suspects in custody for extended periods after that was ruled unlawful by the judiciary – have turned out to be vastly expensive to enforce, open to protracted legal challenge and yet not to offer the public sufficient protection against dangerous extremists.

Every time the story is the same: the public is left at risk while lawyers merrily become millionaires. We cannot go on like this. DAILY EXPRESS PERHAPS YOU CAN BECOME INVOLVED IN PUBLICITY TO OPEN UP THE LEGAL SERVICES MARKET, AND CRUSH THE POWER OF THE LAW SOCIETY?

Anonymous said...

As a Minister in the 'Government' Swinney should have the power to have the slcc cleaned up ?

Anonymous said...

Swinney :"I have to say that I feel there is a contradiction between the correspondence you have sent to *** dated 1st and 12th of December and the minutes of the SLCC meetings of March and July."

Fiddling the minutes and we are paying for this ??

Anonymous said...

I think we should all be asking ourselves why the slcc chose to keep the meetings with Marsh secret months before they were pressurised into having an independent investigation into the Master Policy they are now trying to discredit after Marsh backed out of it.

Anonymous said...

Quite simply Swinney is, and has ever since the SNP were elected, 'followed orders' from Salmond, MacAskill and Co. He has repeatedly failed to voice any concern about the Law Society and the continuing denial of the Scottish voters right to a reasonable and proper access to justice.

In doing so Swinney has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to abandon any principles he might otherwise have laid claim to - not to mention the rights of his constituents - and all in order to remain in high office.

The 'I was only following orders' defense was deemed no proper excuse at Nurenberg, and remains so now.

The SNP are a disgrace to Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Lengthy reading on those exchanges between Eileen Masterman & John Swinney.
Suffice to say Mr Swinney is being led up the garden path by the SLCC so the question is how far will he allow them to go before he puts his foot down or appears weak and tacitly backing what we all now know is just another crooked regulator ?

Anonymous said...


Law Society of Scotland will intervene against legal aid claims. Just try suing a lawyer or a professional on legal aid and see how far you get. (IMPOSSIBLE PETER) Hundreds of people over years have come to me with such a situation, and guess what ? the Law Society of Scotland has killed off their legal aid at every turn ... although only when their case was about to get to court, (YES MILK THE TAXPAYER, AND SHUT DOWN THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT DATE, LEGALISED EXPLOITATION) to make sure their own solicitor could dredge as much civil legal aid for advice & assistance before actually dumping the poor client in the street on orders from the Law Society's HQ in Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh. (THIS IS SELF REGULATION IN A NUTSHELL, THE LAWYERS TAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN, WHEN THEY NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF REPRESENTING THE CLIENT IN COURT FROM THE START, NOW THESE PEOPLE ARE AS EVIL AS HITLER. LEGAL RIGHTS FOR CLIENTS, IMPOSSIBLE AS LONG AS THE LAW SOCIETY EXISTS, IN IT'S PRESENT FORM. I HEAR PEOPLE SAY MY LAWYER WILL DEAL WITH SUCH AND SUCH, NO CLIENT HAS A LAWYER, THEY WOULD KNIFE YOU AS QUICK AS LOOK AT YOU).

Anonymous said...

We hear about dictators at times on the television news. We have dictators in Scotland, they are

The Law Society's HQ in Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh.

A place where clients evidence against lawyers goes in the shredder. A den of iniquity.

Anonymous said...

Kenneth Pritchard, Douglas Mill's predecessor as Secretary & Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, admitted as far back as 1994 in the media the Master Insurance Policy professional negligence insurance scheme was primarily "... there to protect the solicitor, his practice and his family..."
No client protection for a profession with dictatorial power.

Mr Pritchard how can you be a sheriff when you interfered with claims against the Master Policy, by protecting crooked lawyers like yourself? If I was in your court I would tell people this. Would you jail me, hold me in contempt. I think so because there is one law for the layman and another law for people like you. A dishonest man overseeing court proceedings. Criminal, that is what it is.

Anonymous said...

Honestly Swinney looks a bit slow to me.These letters have been going on for months and still obviously nothing done about it.
How many lies does some lot who got 2mil from Swinney have to tell him before he takes action ??

Anonymous said...

BBC News 2007

Probe lawyer avoids legal action
No legal action is to be taken against a prosecution lawyer at the centre of an investigation into a dropped case.

Morag Stuart, 34, resigned from her job as procurator fiscal depute in Dundee following the inquiry.

She was suspended last September after Tayside Police launched an inquiry into an alleged attempt to pervert the course of justice.

A Crown Office spokesman confirmed that no action would be taken against Ms Stuart.

He said: "Following full and careful consideration of all of the facts and circumstances, Crown Counsel have instructed that no proceedings are to be taken in this case."

Hundreds of files were reportedly seized from the fiscal's office as part of the police investigation.

I think I will do a law degree, it is a keep me out of jail card for most of the people who possess it. The legal establishment look after their own. What does that tell the public?

Anonymous said...

Court Aide Says Boss Wanted To Flaunt Law

Feb 3 2008 By Derek Alexander

A COURT official has sparked a probe after he accused his boss of ordering him to break the law.

Sheriff clerk Bert Salisbury claims David Moran, 58, told him to get photocopies of trial papers after the originals went missing.

Salisbury, 43, refused as it is illegal for the sheriff clerk to use copies in a trial in case they have been tampered with.

He claims Moran then told him to quit his post.

Salisbury is using whistleblower legislation to lift the lid on the row at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court.

He says Moran, head of the court's Criminal Department, told him to obtain copies of three trial indictments - official lists of defendants' charges.

Clerks are meant to look out indictments a week before a trial.

If it is lost the clerk must apply to the High Court for an official replacement.

The move comes just weeks after a drug trial at Kilmarnock collapsed when an indictment was lost by the sheriff clerk.

A court insider said: "The indictment is one of the cornerstones of the legal system.

"So much happens in a court case that it's important that the original is used.

"To give a sheriff a photocopy could be seen as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

"This has caused a real stir. It could end up costing one or more people their jobs."

Last week Salisbury, of Kilmarnock, went off work with stress after being interviewed by the Scottish Court Service, who are expected to announce their findings soon.

Anonymous said...

I was less than impressed with Swinney's perfomance today at the parliament on the budget.