Thursday, November 26, 2009

First use of McKenzie Friend in Scotland as Court of Session sweeps aside 40 years of lawyers monopoly over public access to justice

Lord WoolmanLord Woolman granted Scotland’s first Civil Law McKenzie Friend request FORTY YEARS after McKenzie Friends were first introduced to UK courts as a result of the 1970 McKenzie v McKenzie decision which set a legal precedent for court users in England & Wales to request and receive the invaluable assistance of a McKenzie Friend, Scotland’s Court of Session has finally, albeit grudgingly fallen into line with the rest of the country and many international jurisdictions by granting what many say is the first successful request for a McKenzie Friend to appear in Scotland's civil courts.

The unexpected turn of events in the Court of Session last Tuesday, 17th November 2009 saw the sitting judge, Lord Woolman allow the attendance of Scotland’s first ever McKenzie Friend in a long running civil damages action which named Motherwell College, North Lanarkshire Council & Edinburgh Law firm Simpson & Marwick as defenders. The case, a medical injury claim recently heard 'potentially explosive allegations' against the College from the witness box.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts Service confirmed the first use of a McKenzie Friend in Scotland, issuing the following brief statement : "I confirm [the party litigant] was allowed to be assisted in the manner associated with the term “McKenzie Friend”. [The litigant's] supporter was advised by the Court as to the nature of his role and is seated behind [the litigant] in court in the place where an instructing agent (solicitor) would sit.”

The Scottish Courts Service was further asked to confirm this was the first successful use of a McKenzie Friend in a civil damages action in Scotland. However, the SCS said they did not keep such statistics or data, and therefore could not confirm one way or another.

A senior official of one of Scotland’s consumer organisations welcomed Lord Woolman’s decision to allow the use of a McKenzie Friend. He said : “The rights of party litigants in Scotland’s civil courts have been greatly enhanced by Lord Woolman’s decision allowing what we understand to be the first ever use of a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish court. We hope this will be the first of many successful applications to the Scottish courts for the use of McKenzie Friends in cases were consumers have found it difficult or too costly to obtain the services of a solicitor to represent their legal interests.”

However, Lord Woolman’s decision in requiring the McKenzie Friend to ‘sit behind’ the party litigant came in for criticism, due to the fact that in England & Wales, and most international jurisdictions were McKenzie Friends are allowed, the party litigant requesting the advice & assistance of a McKenzie Friend usually find their McKenzie Friend sits beside them, rather than behind them.

A senior barrister from England said today : “I have often attended hearings where McKenzie Friends have assisted party litigants, seated next to them. I have not attended a hearing where an English court has insisted or required that a McKenzie Friend must sit behind their party litigant. Such a seating arrangement would be counterproductive to the litigant who would be put in a position of having to constantly turn around, seeking advice on what to say or asking to see notes taken by the McKenzie Friend. I would think the judge’s patience would fray a little at such a constant head turning prospect, and therefore on that basis I would have to say your Scottish judge got it wrong on who sits where.”

A former party litigant whose experiences were recently reported in a Consumer report on Scotland’s Civil Courts today said : “I found the entire system stacked against me in court and it will come as no surprise I lost. If I had been able to use a McKenzie Friend I might have won my case, or at least come to a settlement but the judge in my case said I could not have a McKenzie Friend. The lawyers laughed at me when I was forced to drop my case and to this day I feel very bitter about it.”

He continued : “Where a Scotsman living in England or Wales, can enter an English court with a right to have a McKenzie Friend by his side to help him in his hour of need, yet a Scotsman living in Scotland asking for the help of a McKenzie Friend will still have to face the discretion of individual courts who may seat his McKenzie Friend miles away to the rear .. is not fair. This lack of fairness has to be put right.”

Lord gillLord Gill recommended McKenzie Friends be introduced in his Civil Courts Review. In the recent Civil Courts Review, conducted by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Brian Gill recommended that McKenzie Friends should be introduced in Scotland, not only being allowed to sit beside a litigant but also to be granted a right of audience in some circumstances, to speak for litigants. However, Lord Gill’s detailed recommendations on the introduction & application of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts conflicts severely with claims made by the Lord President to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, where Lord Hamilton claimed that such assistance as provided by McKenzie Friends had always existed in Scotland, when in fact, no recorded use of McKenzie Friends in Scottish Civil Courts has taken place until now, this now confirmed by the Scottish Courts Service itself.

You can read my earlier articles on Lord Gill’s recommendations for the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, here : Scots Law 'shake up' as Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review supports McKenzie Friends, Class Actions & wider access to justice for all

You can read my earlier reports on the battle to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland - A battle worthy of a McKenzie Friend

As legal experts in Scotland continue to assess the impact of Lord Woolman's ruling on McKenzie Friends, and the precedent the decision has now established, the race is now on to set rules and guidance for the Scottish Courts on the general application & acceptance of McKenzie Friends to provide unrepresented party litigants with advice & assistance during court appearances.

A legal insider pointed out today that in England & Wales, as soon as a litigant makes a request to have a McKenzie Friend assist their litigation, the English courts must consider that request on a Human Rights basis, as contained in the Lord President of the Family Division’s guidance to the English Courts, which clearly states :

• When considering any request for the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, 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 litigant in person should not be required to justify his desire to have a McKenzie Friend ; in the event of objection, it is for the objecting party to rebut the presumption in favour of allowing the MF to attend.

• A favourable decision by the court, allowing the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, should be regarded as final and not as something which another party can ask the court to revisit later, save on the ground of misconduct by the McKenzie Friend or on the ground that the MF’s continuing presence will impede the efficient administration of justice.

What a McKenzie Friend May Do :

• Provide moral support for the litigant
• Take notes
• Help with case papers
• Quietly give advice on : points of law or procedure ; issues that the litigant may wish to raise in court & questions the litigant may wish to ask witnesses.

What a McKenzie Friend May Not Do :

• A McKenzie Friend has no right to act on behalf of a litigant in person. It is the right of the litigant who wishes to do so to have the assistance of a McKenzie Friend.

• A McKenzie Friend is not entitled to address the court, nor examine any witnesses. A McKenzie Friend who does so becomes an advocate and requires the grant of a right of audience.

• A McKenzie Friend may not act as the agent of the litigant in relation to the proceedings nor manage the litigant’s case outside court, for example, by signing court documents.

The full guidance from the Lord President of the Family Division on the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales can be downloaded here : President's Guidance: McKenzie Friends

One of the most important issues with regard to the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales, is that when a litigant makes a request for a McKenzie Friend, the request is considered with regard to Article 6 of Human Rights legislation. Currently, this is not the case in Scotland, and as yet, no guidance has been released from the Lord President’s office addressing these issues.

This Human Right of a McKenzie Friend to the unrepresented people across our country must not be separated by the hills of the Scottish Borders, simply on the basis the Scottish legal establishment, and the legal profession feel they will lose control over the courts and perhaps more importantly to them, control over access to justice and law firms profits.

Given the confused and contradictory claims by the Lord President, Lord Hamilton and the Scottish Government in its responses to the McKenzie Friend petition, and Lord Woolman’s following to the letter of Lord Hamilton’s ‘sit behind & far away’ policy, a right and entitlement to a McKenzie Friend in Scottish Law is long overdue and can no longer be allowed to remain 'in the the gift' of the Court. Give Scots the right of a McKenzie Friend.

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good work.Finally getting somewhere with this mob I see !

Anonymous said...

Nice one Peter.Keep the pressure up !

Francisco Castelo Branco said...

In Portugal we also have a lot of injustice in the courts..

Anonymous said...

I think the newspapers must be working on the 30 year rule now ie report the news 30 years later because I never see a bloody thing about this in print !

Anonymous said...

Interesting development.
Who is the litigant and what is the case all about ?

Anonymous said...

Happy to see a breakthrough on this but 40 years .. well I hope someone else besides Peter thinks its worth asking the question "Why so long ?"

Peter Cherbi said...

# Francisco @ 6.18pm

Indeed .. injustice is a universal issue and must be addressed by all countries.

Here in Scotland, change is so slow, the judge who conducted the recent Civil Courts Review, Lord Gill, commented our judicial system was over 100 years behind the present day ...

# Anonymous @ 7pm

Yes .. I'm sure there will be some searching questions ... I hope !

# Anonymous @ 6.21pm

The case is an injury claim against Motherwell College. More details to come soon ...

# Anonymous @ 6.17pm

Perhaps Lord Gill's criticisms of the Scottish justice system may also be applicable to some parts of the media ...

# Anonymous @ 5.18pm

A small victory I'm sure will be reclaimed elsewhere ...

Anonymous said...

“Where a Scotsman living in England or Wales, can enter an English court with a right to have a McKenzie Friend by his side to help him in his hour of need, yet a Scotsman living in Scotland asking for the help of a McKenzie Friend will still have to face the discretion of individual courts who may seat his McKenzie Friend miles away to the rear .. is not fair. This lack of fairness has to be put right.”

TOO BLOODY TRUE !!

Anonymous said...

Congratulations and good luck to whoever is suing Motherwell College.They are a real shower of **** !

Anonymous said...

Someone likes your stuff (as do I) :
http://www.mckenziefriend.com/2009/11/progress-for-mckenzie-friends-in-scotland-but-still-a-way-to-go/

Progress for McKenzie friends in Scotland but still a way to go
by MCKENZIE on NOVEMBER 26, 2009

Following on from our post about where McKenzie friends should sit Peter Cherbi has just announced on his blog that for the first time since the seminal judgment in McKenzie-v-McKenzie in 1970, a McKenzie friend has been permitted to assist a litigant in person in a Scottish Court. Bizarrely however Lord Woolman decreed that the McKenzie friend sit behind the litigant, rather than beside!!!

How embarrassing for the Scottish senior judiciary to fudge this issue, whether by design or otherwise. If by design we have a word for such conduct in Northern Ireland. The word is ‘thran‘!

Anonymous said...

That is quite an exciting prospect Mr Cherbi and by the looks of it you are the first to report on it !

Good work with the petition and hope all goes well for the person who was able to get a McKenzie Friend !

Anonymous said...

A step forward for all those seeking access to justice no doubt, but the confused and contradictory statements from various parties concerning the status quo needs to be clarified once and for all by means of legislation entitling a litigant to a Mackenzie friend - and not after another 40 year delay.

Anonymous said...

McKenzie friends are vital for the people of Scotland Peter, and this is a very good development. The Law Society grip is slipping. They oppress clients to protect lawyers and I would never trust any lawyer. They are programmed to rip clients off, they care not one jot about the consequences for clients as they are protected like the paedophile priests on the news today in the Republic of Ireland.

Just because someone has studied for years to enter a profession, does not mean their career must be protected when they are crooks. These people think they have a right to lord it over us, because the legal system is biased anachronism. All self regulators have dangerous power and the Scottish Legal Establishment, face no consequences when they are corrupt, indeed that is why they are corrupt.

I would go to court with a McKenzie Friend any day because not one member of the public has a lawyer friend. They ruin lives and think the client should not be furious. Tells you something about their devious minds, does it not?

Anonymous said...

This is good news, there must be a break on the stranglehold of the Law Society.

A little message for my old friend Douglas Mill's colleagues at the Law Society/SLCC.

The reason I want to use a McKenzie friend is to have more control over my case, and to avoid the letter war clients enter into when they complain about a lawyer.

Our so called justice system is a barrier to justice and McKenzie friends will allow us to bypass your corrupt criminal self regulating setup. Peter's wonderful work and others has been invaluable here and I urge all Scots who have never been stung by a lawyer to beware. You are better to deal with your case with non legal assistance, than to trust one of Scotland's ten thousand lawyers.

Self regulating professionals only see their poor colleague, we cannot ruin a lawyers, doctors, accountants career for a low life client or patient. Do what I do, view them all as poison as far as complaints handling is concerned because they are driver to protect each other and do not care about the lives they ruin. If you want to sue a lawyer you will need a lawyer. this is where you hit a brick wall, they protect each other and cover up their crimes by doing nothing. If you can damage the reputation of any self regulator, the so called justice system shuts down on you.

Anonymous said...

As a boy I remember constantly turning in class,chatting to my mates.I also remember being rapped on the knuckles for this by my maths teacher,who regularly exclaimed "Face the front of the class boy !"
As an adult with my own children I now understand why I irritated the teacher so much.
Asking party litigants to constantly turn around, conferring with their McKenzie Friend ? This is bound to make someone snap (either by design or desire) so how about being decent chaps with a modicum of common sense and allow the McKenzie Friend to sit where they should, which is clearly beside their friend who requires their help.

Anonymous said...

I had not realised the McKenzie Friend issue was live nor read your copious writing on the subject.
I am sure you deserve some recognition for your part in this significant development Mr Cherbi although some of my colleagues may feel different.

Anonymous said...

About time the courts were opened up !

Now I can actually go in without a lawyer to muck it up for me.

Post a list of McKenzie Friends when you are able so we can ditch these Law Society goons forever !

Anonymous said...

Comment @ 9:49pm

"How embarrassing for the Scottish senior judiciary to fudge this issue, whether by design or otherwise."

Orders from the Lord President and doubtless the Law Society.

The mantra 'What they giveth with one hand they will surely take away with another' applies to all matters legal in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Quite a victory over those among us who wish to keep the courts for themselves.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Well Peter !

18 postings on McKenzie Friends for Scotland so that must make you eligible as a McKenzie Friend yourself !

Well done and a big thanks I'm sure from all those who really need someone like you to fight for them !

Anonymous said...

This sounds brilliant ! No more having to pay thousands to lawyers who just stitch us up to get their fees !

When can people use this judgement to get their own McKenzie Friend ?

Anonymous said...

"How embarrassing for the Scottish senior judiciary to fudge this issue, whether by design or otherwise."

Surprise ! This is Scotland where even the colour of the sky becomes pink in the hands of a lawyer !

justice4all said...

This is a great step forward for party litigants I myself was allowed for my partner to sit behind me and take notes although no legal advice could be given as neither of us had legal experience. I sicerely wish this party litigant great sucess in their case may justice be for the people and NOT the crooked lawyers that are so abundant in our society!

Anonymous said...

The Law Society and it's members treat people like **** and then they wonder why we want this monopoly broken. There is something criminally wrong with any system that protects corruption at any level.

When they can steal people's inheritance, cover up what happened to them at work, along with a million other sins, change must happen.

I also look forward to further information on the clients of lawyers who committed suicide due to Phillip Yelland sending them to a law firm who actually represented the Legal Defence Union. Why is Yelland not following Mr Mill? He is clearly a man who puts his lawyers above any other consideration. As Peter said, if Yelland told me the sky was blue I would have to check this myself. We must regard lawyers as poison, because they are very dangerous people.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers only have themselves to blame for these developments. Every client you sting is a convert to our cause.

I warn every person I know about the dangers involved in dealing with this profession. They are as ruthless as the Nazi's in my opinion so please stay clear of them whenever possible.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article.

I am reliably informed there will be a report in the Scotsman newspaper next Monday on the use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland.

I have written much on the subject of McKenzie Friends, and contributed to Petition 1247 at the Scottish Parliament which seeks to introduce McKenzie Friends to Scotland but I would just like to say the effort has been a team one.

Scottish staff of the Which? consumer group have been very active supporting the McKenzie Friends issue, as have staff from Consumer Focus Scotland, several politicians such as Margo MacDonald, who has been 'a gem' as always, giving her all on the McKenzie Friend issue, David Whitton, who similarly tackled the Justice Secretary & others during the Scottish Parliamentary debate on Lord Gill's proposals, and also several campaign groups, some of whom whose members have suffered at the hands of the justice system through lack of legal representation through no fault of their own, and of course, the Petitioner himself has engaged frequently with the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee to ensure the petition gets the attention it deserves.

Now, having said all that, please remember that this great benefit to Scotland, setting a precedent of a first ever McKenzie Friend in Scots Law comes from the case of one party litigant, a highly skilled, intelligent & professional individual whose case has, according to law students I spoke to earlier this week, taken years to go through the courts. What this litigant has had to bear, has now significantly changed for the better, the rights of Scots to be assisted as never before in Scotland's courts and lets not forget Lord Woolman, who took the initial step and granted Scotland's first McKenzie Friend. A positive step forward by Scotland's judiciary to be improved upon as time goes on.

Now, the work must begin on ensuring there is formal guidance issued to all courts ensuring that people in Scotland have at least the same rights of using a McKenzie Friend as those in the rest of the UK.

I'm sure we can do it as a country ... after all, this is most certainly in the public interest.

Anonymous said...

Just to let you know I called Aberdeen Sheriff Court today and asked if a McKenzie Friend was allowed.The lady I spoke to said McKenzie Friends are not allowed in Scotland so there is obviously a lot of work to do letting this crowd know of the decision.

Keep up the good work is all I can add !

Anonymous said...

Very silly decision to force someone helping you in court to sit behind.
Hope that is put right for next time someone asks for a Mckenzie Friend.

Anonymous said...

So Law Society bleat their bit about losing business to the great horde of McKenzie Friends in the hootsmon on Monday ?
Thanks for the warning.

Anonymous said...

Great news finally from Scotland !

An amazing victory for all of you Peter and I hope the party litigant at the centre of it all comes out on tops.

Anonymous said...

Still nothing in the papers on this and really that is a bloody damned disgrace.
Did the Law Society put out a "D notice" to prevent publication in case everyone ditched their sodding lawyers to go for a McKenzie Friend instead ????

Anonymous said...

I have need of a McKenzie Friend after my lawyer dumped me due to me finding out all the work he claimed he did was a lie.Can McKenzie Friends also help in things outside a court ?

Anonymous said...

Good evening Peter,

As a victim of the legal profession myself I would like to thank you and all of the people who have fought for the introduction of McKenzie friends in Scotland.

I also believe that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission should be scrapped, or the bias element sacked and replaced with people who will look after the public interest. In my view it is a Law Society front and both are corrupt to the core. Client suicides do not move this lot, nor Mr MacKaskill.

I have told my children from a young age never to trust a lawyer, and hopefully if they ever need any help they will be able to obtain the help of a McKenzie friend. I wrote to the Law Society about my lawyer, a pointless complaints process. They cannot see past their precious membership. Corrupt professions cannot maintain credibility, and the anti lawyer culture is growing. I ask all lawyers, what would you want done to people who treat clients the way you do, if you were on the receiving end of your criminality?

Anonymous said...

A huge change in people able to represent themselves in court and no coverage ?
Very fishy!

Lawyers worried their pockets will go empty I assume!

Anonymous said...

Worth noting that the decision will not give the Party concerned the years that have been stolen from them. Is there any end in sight?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know the longest running civil action to have been heard in Scotland?

Anonymous said...

The case is an injury claim against Motherwell College. More details to come soon ...

Peter, are they insured by RSA? Lawyers are insured by RSA. Conflict of interest again.

Anonymous said...

Well I wonder what Douglas Mill thinks of this McKenzie Friend development, not that it matters but I am sure he will be burning with rage?

If we can use a McKenzie Friend Douglas we will not have to deal with the likes of you at your Law Society of Scotland. I know you are far too immature to realise you and your lawyer colleagues by your conduct have caused the pressure groups in the first place. Lawyers are the pits, and I urge readers to avoid them at all costs. Never leave your lawyer in charge of your money, or you will lose it.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter and hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.
Let me tell you I think this blog is one of the finest websites from Scotland and I just cant stand lawyers myself so its great to read someone taking them on as you do !

Happy St Andrews Day when it comes 'brave laddie' !

Anonymous said...

Page 39 of the hootsmon has their bit on McKenzie Friends.Large piccie of Brian Gill doing his bit and at least Mr MacKenzie gets a few quotes.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

40 years too late and now there should be an inquiry why it took 40 years to do something about it

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Does anyone know the longest running civil action to have been heard in Scotland?

10:42 PM

Good question which I'd also like answered please :)

Anonymous said...

You said there was to be a story in the Scotsman about McKenzie Friends today ?
I've looked through their website and cant find it.Any link please ?

Anonymous said...

Good reporting Peter.I too hope this is the first of many McKenzie Friends to rock Scotland's legal elite to the ground !

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter and hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.
Let me tell you I think this blog is one of the finest websites from Scotland and I just cant stand lawyers myself so its great to read someone taking them on as you do !

Happy St Andrews Day when it comes 'brave laddie' !
===================================
Yes my friend you are correct a brilliant website, dedicated to justice by a man who has been robbed by Penmann Howitt and the rest. As one lawyer said "we have paid a terrible price for saving Private Penmann".

Self regualtion encourages criminality because the penalites are a slap on the wrist at most, the Law Society/SLCC are poison, the sworn enemies of all clients.

Alex Salmond said last night on TV "the Scottish people have a right to decide on independence," but the same man and his so called justice minister want to leave Scots with no legal remedy against a corrupt lawyer. These people are the antithesis of justice, they are so loyal to lawyers (MacAskill is one) that they do not care about the general public when they become victims if this most corrupt profession.

It beggars belief that people with horrendous amounts of power are not strictly controlled, many lawyers belong behind bars, they, doctors and accountants are Scotland's teflon criminals.

Anonymous said...

Trust Scotland to mess up even the simplest & basic of legal terms.
McKenzie Friends work fine down here and I've never heard of lawyers crowing over how much money they lose to a McKenzie Friend but maybe the Scottish end are just too greedy for their own good.

Keep us updated please !

Anonymous said...

Now that newspapers are going to charge for their crappy websites I'm sure you will win big time on spreading the message about crooked lawyers because theres no way I am going to fork out even 10p to read the lawyers point of view in our non-impartial newspapers.

Keep up the good work (and keep it free !)

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS 2nd December 2009.

Solicitors who took millions of pounds from compensation payouts given to sick miners have lost their appeal against being struck off for misconduct.

James Beresford and Douglas Smith of Doncaster-based Beresfords Solicitors had denied 11 counts of serious professional misconduct. (They all do that).

A tribunal last year found eight of the allegations against them proven.

Three High Court judges have now upheld the tribunal decision to strike them off the Roll of Solicitors. (Judges are right, protect the public, not the lawyers).

Good morning Peter,

Just proves what you say, "People ask me which law firm to trust? There are none", although this case is in England robbing ill people is evil.

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, 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.

A WARNING ABOUT BEING IN EMPLOYMENT.

PLEASE DO NOT GO TO A SOLICITOR YOU WILL GET NO DAMAGES AND HAVE TO PAY THE LEGAL AID BILL WHEN YOUR CASE COLLAPSES.

YOU CANNOT WIN BECAUSE

SCOTLANDS LAWYERS, DOCTORS (YOU WILL NEED MEDICAL REPORTS STATING YOUR EMPLOYER INJURED YOU) AND EMPLOYERS ARE ALL INSURED BY ROYALSUN ALLIANCE.

DOCTORS AND LAWYERS WILL COVER EVERYTHING UP TO PROTECT ROYALSUN ALLIANCE. THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR DECADES, THEY DO NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO REALISE THIS FACT. YOU CANNOT BEAT A SYSTEM WHERE LAWYERS INSURERS WOULD BE PAYING YOUR DAMAGES.

SCOTLANDS LITIGATION LAWYERS PROMISE CLIENTS THEY CAN WIN DAMAGES, WHEN THEY ARE GETTING LEGAL AID MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYER TO PROTECT ROYALSUN ALLIANCES. IT IS A CRIMINAL SETUP. SCOTLANDS LAWYERS AND DOCTORS WOULD RATHER SEE A PATIENT OR CLIENT DEAD THAN GIVE THEM DAMAGES. THEY DO NOT CARE IF YOU CANNOT WORK AGAIN, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT THEM. IT HAPPENED TO ME, I WANT TO STOP IT HAPPENING TO OTHERS.

FINALLY NEVER COMPLAIN ABOUT YOUR LAWYER, DOCTOR, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE THESE COMPLAINTS ARE MORE CORRUPT THAN THESE BASTARDS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, YOU WILL RECEIVE NOTHING BUT A LEGAL AID BILL. DOCTORS CAN SEND AN INJURED PERSON BACK TO WORK, BECAUSE THE INJURED PERSON HAS NO RIGHTS, THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE EVIL SCUM.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation, that liars charter that protects people who should be jailed. One day self regulation will be obliterated for all professions, and FOI will apply to our enemy The Law Society of Scotland. People should never complain to the Society or the SLCC, the Scottish politicians front for protecting crooked lawyers.

The Scottish Legal System is a corrupt protection racket whereby no client is safe from lawyers because their masters who receive complaints bury complaints, just like Douglas Mill, who had his reputation destroyed by swearing on his grannys grave he did not protect corrupt lawyers. It is not so nice Douggie old boy when you are on the receiving end, as you well know when John Swinney made you fall of your sword, because you were fibbing to the justice 2 committee.

You Douglas and your colleagues are thorns in the flesh of the people of Scotland, and one day self regulation will end. Self regulators have too much power for the good of their victims.

The Law Society Persuers Panel are criminals hell bent on protecting lawyers, I am sure Peter would agree with this.

People of Scotland TRUST NO LAWYER, IT IS PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE.

Anonymous said...

DANGER, CLIENTS BEWARE DO NOT LEAVE YOUR MONEY WITH ANY LAWYER, HEED PETER'S WARNING BELOW, HE IS A MAN WITH MORE GUTS THAN THE 10,000 SELF REGULATING LAWYER CROOKS IN SCOTLAND TODAY


Your money is no longer safe with your lawyer. £50 million plus of money belonging to clients of Scottish legal firms is at considerable risk of loss, after revelations the Law Society’s Guarantee Fund has less than £2 million left in its coffers to cover the millions held by Scottish solicitors on behalf of their clients in everything from house purchases & sales to the administration of wills, investments & settlement payments.

Advisory My advice : Clients should immediately withdraw their funds from any legal firm or solicitor who may be holding monies on their behalf. If you have funds being held by your solicitor, make it your priority this week or as soon as possible to ensure the safety of your wealth, or you may end up losing it.

There is simply no way the legal profession can guarantee the safety of your money in the wake of the financial downturn. You will have to be the best judge yourselves as to how to safeguard your own wealth, but trusting it to your solicitor who lacks any protection for its loss, is no longer an option.

Anonymous said...

Four decades is a long time for the Scots to be refused McKenzie friends in our courts. Lord Woolman has opened the door, much to the Law Societies dismay, but I still could never bring myself to trust lawyers. I also agree with Peter when he stated

"Scottish staff of the Which? consumer group have been very active supporting the McKenzie Friends issue, as have staff from Consumer Focus Scotland, several politicians such as Margo MacDonald, who has been 'a gem' as always, giving her all on the McKenzie Friend issue, David Whitton, who similarly tackled the Justice Secretary & others during the Scottish Parliamentary debate on Lord Gill's proposals, and also several campaign groups, some of whom whose members have suffered at the hands of the justice system through lack of legal representation through no fault of their own, and of course, the Petitioner himself has engaged frequently with the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee to ensure the petition gets the attention it deserves".

I wrote to Margo MacDonald myself on this issue and she has been a gem. Now it is Mr MacAskill's Law Society that needs the FOI act exemption removed. It is not a professional body Mr MacAskill, more like a lawyer protection racket. The public interest must be the case for removing this exemption from a lawyers protection club, that crush clients so horrifically that they take their own lives. As long as professions self regulate, trust will be impossible.

Anonymous said...

Someone better tell the staff at Edinburgh Sheriff court about McKenzie Friends being allowed because I asked them and they said "not in Scotland"

Anonymous said...

Point of Information : Mackenzie Friends are not allowed to be given payment for any assistance they offer.

Anonymous said...

I also read the bit in the Scotsman but cant find it on their website.Anyway good luck for the person who was persistent enough to give us a McKenzie Friend !

Anonymous said...

Comment left at 2:23

So true, lawyers take cases on and they and the family doctors, consultants make money preparing reports.

If any reader has lost a litigation case where they needed medical evidence, their family doctor and the others above have covered your injuries up. They will do the same for Motherwell College, if the person suing does not have visible injuries.

Cameron Fyfe did this to me. All Scotlands litigation lawyers will never tell you your employer and all lawyers are insured by the same company. Easy money for them, no justice for you.

Anonymous said...

An excellent posting as ever Mr Cherbi and I too support McMenzie Friends for Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Fergus Cochrane at the Parliament seems to think you are behind all this.He also seems to hate your guts.Any comment on that ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Point of Information : Mackenzie Friends are not allowed to be given payment for any assistance they offer.

7:38 PM

Why ?

Anonymous said...

In my experience writing to the Scottish Parliament about a dishonest lawyer, is a waste of time. No one ever answered my letter about ending self regulation of all professions. Certain degrees in this country bestow criminal levels of protection on their recipients.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on the issue of McKenzie Friends in Scotland.

I am reliably informed another McKenzie Friend was allowed in the Court of Session last week, by the same Judge, Lord Woolman, and again, was made to sit behind the party litigant ...

I will be reporting on this latest development during the week.

Sorry there have been no articles in the past week .. I've been writing elsewhere and assisting in stories elsewhere. More to come ...

Anonymous said...

How very odd I cant find any newspapers covering this.Are the Law Society giving the orders to the 'free' press in Scotland ??