Monday, December 07, 2009

Court grants second 'back seat' McKenzie Friend in case against Edinburgh law firm Tods Murray as Lord President’s claims to Parliament questioned

Lord WoolmanLord Woolman grants second use of a McKenzie Friend in Scotland. AFTER FORTY YEARS of McKenzie Friends being kept out of reach of Scottish courts, a policy which was quietly broken by Lord Woolman's mid November ruling in Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Simpson & Marwick granting Scotland's first use of a McKenzie Friend, the same judge, Lord Woolman has now allowed a second use of a McKenzie Friend in a legal action involving a party litigant, Mr Andrew McNamara against the Edinburgh Law firm Tods Murray LLP, who were previously linked to the former Scottish Conservative Party leader David McLetchie MSP.

Mr McLetchie as readers will remember was forced to resign from his position as Scottish Conservative leader on 31 October 2005 , after an expenses scandal over taxi fare claims for journeys which apparently involved trips to his former law firm. Mr McLetchie resigned from Tods Murray in early 2005 before the expenses scandal made the headlines.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts Service today confirmed that a McKenzie Friend was allowed by Lord Woolman in the long running Court of Session action of [Pursuers] TODS MURRAY v [Defenders] (1) ARAKIN LIMITED; and (2) Mr Andrew McNamara on 1st December 2009. The McKenzie Friend however was required to sit behind the party litigant, Mr McNamara.

Reporting from the court, a legal insider who was present at last week's hearing confirmed the following :

“The Lord Ordinary, Lord Woolman, heard the "Motion" moved by A. McNamara, which was opposed by Senior Counsel (Ferguson), that A. McNamara be allowed McKenzie friend assistance. A. McNamara sought the assistance of a McKenzie Friend on medical grounds due to having been in hospital for four days, this confirmed by a doctor's letter.”

Lord HamiltonLord Hamilton said to Holyrood he wants McKenzie Friends to sit behind court users in Scotland. “However, lawyers acting for Tods Murray challenged the litigant's request for a McKenzie Friend, waving a copy of the Lord President's letter to the Scottish Parliament, which was claimed to state the present law with regards to McKenzie Friends in Scotland that should dictate that a McKenzie Friend could only sit behind the litigant, take notes, assist with papers and quietly give advice.”

“Lord Woolman, after discussing the challenge by counsel acting for the pursuers, Tods Murray and referring to Lord Gill's "Civil Courts Review" with specific reference to the conflicted opinions of the Court (e.g. Lord Glennie in Kenniel v Kenniel), went on to allow the use of a second McKenzie Friend in Scottish Courts in recent weeks, albeit requiring the McKenzie Friend to sit behind the party litigant.”

A solicitor, commenting on the case this morning noted the party litigant was opposed by Senior and Junior Counsel acting for Tods Murray, who also had at least two additional solicitors with them in court.

He said "I think anyone who has to sit as a party litigant in open court, faced down by two sets of opposing counsel and supporting solicitors would by any reasonable person be viewed as suffering an imbalance in their representation. I would have to question why in the circumstances reported, the McKenzie Friend was not allowed to sit beside the litigant who requested and clearly required assistance."

Lord Hamilton to Holyrood - McKenzie Friends sit behind litigants (no they dont)Lord Hamilton‘s misinformed letter to Holyrood. The Lord President’s letter to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, used by opposing counsel in the Tods Murray action to challenge a McKenzie Friend request, alleged that McKenzie Friend sat behind litigants, citing paragraphs from Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review. However, Lord Hamilton failed to back up his claims with written evidence or case references in his letter, which stated : "As you will be aware, this expression, which owes its origin to English procedure, can be used in two senses : in its original sense it referred to an individual assisting a party litigant by sitting he hind him or her in court and assisting that litigant by making notes, helping with case papers or quietly giving advice on the conduct of the case, as well as providing moral support in court (Civil Courts Review, Chapter 11, para 42).

The only problem with Lord Hamilton’s reference to the Civil Courts Review, Chapter 11, para 42 is that no such reference to McKenzie Friends sitting behind litigants actually exists anywhere in the report.

You can read more about Lord Hamilton’s letter to the Petitions Committee over McKenzie Friends in my earlier report, here : Lord Hamilton accused of ‘being deluded’ over McKenzie Friends in Scotland as judge's attack on Holyrood petition contradicts courtroom reality

Lord Gill Civil Courts Review Chapter 11 paragraph 42Lord Hamilton referred to Lord Gill's review, adding references which do not exist. A senior official from one of Scotland's consumer organisations said this morning : "I am troubled by the report from the court that counsel for the pursuers opposed the party litigant's request for a McKenzie Friend apparently going on to argue that if a McKenzie Friend were to be granted it must be under the terms of Lord Hamilton's letter to the Scottish Parliament which states that McKenzie Friends must sit behind the party litigant they are there to assist"."I feel I must point out to your readers that despite Lord Hamilton's claims in his letter to the Parliament that Lord Gill's Civil Justice Review referred to the practice of McKenzie Friends "sitting behind" party litigants, citing Chapter 11, Paragraph 42 of the Civil Courts Review, there is for the avoidance of any doubt, no mention anywhere in Lord Gill's report of a McKenzie Friend sitting behind a party litigant."

Lord gillLord Gill did not say that McKenzie Friends should sit behind litigants in Scottish Courts.I am concerned with this latest decision, the Scottish Courts may be following a clear falsehood on the part of the Lord President, and are giving Scots back seat McKenzie Friends instead of a fully fledged McKenzie Friend of the kind who have worked successfully in England & Wales for nearly forty years. Clearly this ‘sitting behind’ arrangement, which disadvantages Scots consumers & court users cannot be sustained in the face of Lord Gill’s actual recommendations.”

A Scottish Government insider today said he was concerned that Lord Hamilton's ill judged references to McKenzie Friends "sitting behind" party litigants might have established a false pattern for the Scottish Courts to follow, giving further grounds to campaigners, including myself, who claim that Scots party litigants are denied a fair hearing when their McKenzie Friend is forced to sit behind the litigant, while opposing counsel have no such restrictions placed on their support staff and accompanying solicitors.

He said : "Clearly the Lord President has erred in his letter to the Petitions Committee, and as such this error has given rise to a number of questionable decisions in the Scottish Courts over where a McKenzie Friend should actually sit."

He went on : "Given this second case, where again a McKenzie Friend was required to sit behind a party litigant, there is a clear & present need for formal guidance to be issued to all courts on the consideration of McKenzie Friend requests, otherwise the feeling will remain that Scots are being denied the same access to justice that unrepresented court users in the rest of the UK are entitled to receive in terms of courtroom assistance."

McKenzie Friends in England & Wales, are treated as a Human Rights issue, as opposed to the current practice in Scotland, where a litigant’s request for a McKenzie Friend is handled at the discretion of individual courts. Lord Hamilton and the Scots legal establishment would rather that McKenzie Friends requests continue to be handled on a case by case, discretionary basis, but such a system clearly impedes the right of an individual’s access to justice as we have recently witnessed where the court wants McKenzie Friends sitting anywhere but next to the person they are there to assist.

Readers can compare the Scots system of discretionary, back seat McKenzie Friends, which currently lacks any publicly available guidance, versus the system in operation in England & Wales, where the full guidance from the Lord President of the Family Division on the use of McKenzie Friends in the English courts can be downloaded here : President's Guidance: McKenzie Friends

As far as I can tell from my own research, McKenzie Friends sitting behind party litigants just doesn't happen, anywhere, so the Lord President has some explaining to do on why he chose to inform the Parliament that McKenzie Friends sit behind is the case when it is most certainly not the case in jurisdictions where McKenzie Friends are allowed. Further, since the Lord President’s letter to Parliament has been used by counsel opposing court users McKenzie Friends requests, a clear statement must now be made by the Lord President on his reasons as to why in Scotland, we must make do with back seat McKenzie Friends, rather than the front seat variety enjoyed by the rest of the world ….

The Lord President’s office has so far refused to reply to enquiries on the content of his letter to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee amid mounting claims he misinformed Parliament over the application & use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts ….

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Lord Woolman is going to love you ! and where the hell is that Scotsman article you told us about ??

Anonymous said...

I like your "Back Seat McKenzie Friend" headline ..
Do you think Lord Hamilton might be a wee bit flushed over his dubious claims to Parly now ? .. haha ..

Anonymous said...

Is this the vexatious litigant Mr Andrew McNamara we are talking about here ?

Anonymous said...

This sitting behind business is all about the judiciary or legal establishment wanting to put their stamp on the limits of McKenzie Friends rather than allowing someone increased rights.
Even though they will fight it they will have to allow a McKenzie Friend to sit beside at some stage.Make that sooner than later Mr Cherbi !

Anonymous said...

Comment at 3:03PM

I read the Scotsman story and they are basically saying the same as Peter in that Lord Hamilton added the parts about sitting behind someone to the Gill review but Gill never actually said that.

If you can get a Scotsman for 30 November you will see it on Page 39 but its not on their website.

Anonymous said...

This has been going on awhile - http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/SMI1010.html

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised Tods Murray can keep this up after David Dunsire had to write into the hootsmon telling us all they are not going under (shame)

http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Letters-Firms-hit-by-scare.5072933.jp

Letters: Firms hit by scare stories

Published Date: 15 March 2009

IN AN era where the media is often criticised for spreading bad news, I welcomed your article 'One in 10 solicitors axed as law firms hit by worst recession' (March 8). The law is a profession that finds it difficult to deal openly with such issues. Yet these are unprecedented times and lawyers, too, need to face up to the unique challenges we face.

Traditional areas of stable growth and prosperity such as property and corporate M&A transactions have been extraordinarily hit and the legal marketplace is having to adjust quickly and robustly. A lot of hard commercial decisions have to be taken tocut costs and generate and support additional sources of business.

But things are being made tougher for firms such as ours as unfounded rumours seem to sweep over individual firms. We have been the target of a lot of negative speculation and malicious scaremongering. We have heard that we are on our bank's 'at-risk' register, that partners have refused to inject more cash into the firm and that we are, indeed, about to go into administration. All of this is untrue. The firm is financially stable.

In line with the actions of many legal firms in this economic climate, we have regrettably had to lay off staff, and we will continue to review our costs and our business streams as is prudent, and just as many other businesses are currently doing. Trading continues to be tough in the legal market and beyond, but we remain focused and confident in our strategy. It is, therefore, hugely disappointing that we have to spend seemingly endless amounts of time deflecting rumours that can only serve to undermine the profession as a whole and a strong and responsible Scottish employer in particular.

David Dunsire, executive partner for Tods Murray LLP, Edinburgh

Anonymous said...

I take it m'lords are not bothered that everyone thinks they are making a fool of Scots law with this McKenzie friend stuff ?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone bothered to find out why the great unwashed + unrepresented among us cant get a lawyer ?

Could it be simply because they have no case ?

As far as I am concerned the whole McKenzie Friend thing should be binned.If you want to get into court hire a lawyer.If not sod off and leave the court to the experts.

Anonymous said...

Interesting read Mr Cherbi.
Would you say a pattern has been established on Lord Hamilton's false premise ?
If so will you be calling for Lord Hamilton to be hung up before the petitions committee for interrogation ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 3.03pm

The Scotsman article written by John Forsyth is not online, only in the print edition ...

# Anonymous @ 3.16pm

He made them ...

# Anonymous @ 3.38pm

Yes I understand Mr McNamara was declared a vexatious litigant on one particular case, but obviously not this one ...

# Anonymous @ 3.54pm

I agree ...its the Scottish legal establishment's way of enforcing their control over who among us has access to justice.

The introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland's courts thankfully brings the possibility of access to justice for people who cant afford or obtain the services of a solicitor.

# Anonymous @ 4.31pm

Thanks for the link ...

# Anonymous @ 4.45pm

I think not ...

# Anonymous @ 5.20pm

It is precisely that attitude which justifies the presence of McKenzie Friends in court.

# Anonymous @ 5.31pm

No ... just appearing to answer questions before the Petitions Committee, along with a healthy debate on the issue would suffice ...

Perhaps Lord Gill would also like to come along just to remind the Parliament he never actually used the quotes referred to by the Lord President ... just for the sake of completeness ...

Anonymous said...

Forcing the McKenzie Friend to sit behind their friend just seems so futile.Is that all Scots justice can manage ? futile gestures ?

Anonymous said...

520pm

Rubbish.Why pay through the nose for someone who is going to let you down anyway when a McKenzie Friend is actually there to help and not part of the legal cabal of the Law Society.

Anonymous said...

I think the "Sitting Behind" thing is just sour grapes on the part of Hamilton as there is NO DOUBT in my mind none of this would have happened if you were not writing about it !

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

Lord Hamilton and the Scots legal establishment would rather that McKenzie Friends requests continue to be handled on a case by case, discretionary basis, but such a system clearly impedes the right of an individual’s access to justice as we have recently witnessed where the court wants McKenzie Friends sitting anywhere but next to the person they are there to assist.
=====================================
Correct Peter, when will these people who have attitudes in the stone age realise CLIENTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC DESERVE FAIR UNBIASED TREATMENT FROM THIS LEGAL SYSTEM.

MaKenzie Friends are about Human Rights, and it should NEVER be left to a judge to decide this on a case by case basis. This is a battle between public and lawyers, and the latter are obsessed with self protection. It is similar in principle from MP's voting in parliament to reform their own expenses system, we are back to the corruption endemic in self regulation. There is not one lawyer cares about how clients are treated, all they care about is protecting each other at all costs.

Anonymous said...

A party litigant against a law firm, and the judge will pay into the same insurance arrangement as the damages will come out of. Fat chance of success here. Just like a lawyer taking on a litigation case knowing he will screw the legal aid and cover everything up because his insurers are the same insurers as the employers insurers.

Anonymous said...

What is McNamara's case all about ? Are the lawyers pursuing him or what ?

Anonymous said...

Either Hamilton is (or has been told to) make a fool out of Lord Gill's report or he thinks the petitions committee numpties are so thick they haven't read what Gill had to say.

Either way Hamilton must be questioned over his false claims as you rightly say Peter and personally I think he should now resign.

Anonymous said...

Good stuff
I forgot McLetchie was at Tods Murray so thanks for reminding!

Anonymous said...

I read the Chapter 11 page you uploaded and confirm Lord Gill did not mention anyone sitting behind a McKenzie Friend so there Lord Hamilton you are WRONG big time !

Anonymous said...

3:38pm

Presumably if Mr McNamara had a McKenzie Friend when he first started out rather than now all this would be cleared up and he wouldn't have been labelled a vexatious litigant.

Anonymous said...

Good evening Peter,

How can a party litigant even with a McKenzie Friend win against a law firm. He is still trying to obtain damages from I assume the Master Policy underwritten by the lawyers and judge's insurers? Am I missing something here, but it seems to me the courts have a vested interest in stopping claims against Royalsunalliance, the Law Society gets bonuses to stop lawyers insurers being sued, and the judge and the defenders lawyers be inusred by royalsunallinace.

Anonymous said...

David Dunsire, executive partner for Tods Murray LLP, Edinburgh
4:31 PM

Hello David,

I could never trust you or your law firm. Any member of the public who trusts you or your profession must be foolish or insane.

Anonymous said...

Marvellous dig about McLetchie and lawyer tie ups with the Scots Cons.It really made my day !
If Cameron wants to know why his party continues to do so badly in Scotland he needs to look no further than the people like DMcL in it !

Anonymous said...

Well it is an inch at a time, due in no small part to the misinformation presented by others who should know better, but it is progress (of a sort) nonetheless.

Just let's be clear, Lord Gill not only recommended mckenzie friends be allowed to sit beside a party he went MUCH further and recommended that a mckenzie friend be allowed to address the Court in appropriate circumstances - as is now commonly the case in England and Wales.

Anonymous said...

Lord Hamilton referred to Lord Gill's review, adding references which do not exist.
=====================================
So Hamilton has been untruthful when referring to Gill's review. This does not surprise me bearing in mind the maggot Hamilton is.

Protect the legal profession at all costs, if ever there was a profession that is criminal, Hamilton's lot deserve this label.

Anonymous said...

To me the lawyers are simply powerful ruthless criminals who put self interest above justice. They are a filthy profession.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Has anyone bothered to find out why the great unwashed + unrepresented among us cant get a lawyer ?

Could it be simply because they have no case ?

As far as I am concerned the whole McKenzie Friend thing should be binned.If you want to get into court hire a lawyer.If not sod off and leave the court to the experts.
5:20 PM
===================================
A little education for you my friend.

Take litigation against a crooked lawyer. The Law Society/SLCC cover up what crooked lawyers do. To get a court hearing a person needs a lawyer. This lawyer is insured through the Law Societies Master Policy, which the victim of the crooked lawyer will have to claim against. Now you know why members of the public cannot get lawyers if they have been stung by a lawyer.

One day you may be the victim of a lawyer, you would want a McKenzie Friend then. Be careful of what you condemn because you or a member of your family may be a victim one day.

Anonymous said...

Did you cause this ?
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Solicitor-calls-for-vote-on.5891282.jp

Solicitor calls for vote on Law Society split

Published Date: 08 December 2009
By MARK SMITH

THE body that represents Scotland's lawyers is facing a damaging split, with calls for a referendum among solicitors to form a breakaway "trade union".

The Law Society of Scotland is currently undergoing the biggest shake-up in its 60-year history, with a new constitution set to be adopted. The society's powers to "police" the industry could also be radically altered by reforms being put forward by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill.

Now senior legal figures are campaigning for a new body to be set up to represent solicitors, separate from the Law Society.

John McGovern, the newly elected president of Glasgow Bar Association, has called for a full referendum of all solicitors to determine whether the Law Society should continue in its representative role.

"I am now of the view that, if solicitors are to have any control over their profession in the future, there has to be a Solicitors' Representative Association, independent of the Law Society," he said.

"I call upon the Law Society to allow a referendum of all Law Society of Scotland members – a true referendum: one solicitor, one vote, secret ballot, no proxies and no three-line whips from the big commercial law firms."

Mr McGovern went on: "The question? Should representation of the solicitors' profession be independent of the Law Society of Scotland?"

Mr McGovern claims that the legal profession has been "downgraded" since devolution and solicitors need a more active organisation to voice their concerns. He also claims the new Legal Services Bill being brought forward by Mr MacAskill will allow government ministers to appoint members of the Law Society's ruling council – diluting the influence of solicitors.

He said the society would effectively be put into "semi-retirement" if the bill was approved.

He said: "In its 60th year, the Law Society has been forced into semi-retirement, literally a 'consultant' to its own governing council, having granted a power of attorney to the public and the Scottish ministers."

The Law Society of Scotland last night said a referendum of members could go ahead if there was enough demand.

A spokeswoman said: "If a sufficient number of members place a requisition for a referendum to take place, then the society would present that to all 10,000 members."

Ian Smart, president of the Law Society, said solicitors would be better served remaining within the current organisation.

He said: "Maintaining regulation and representation within one organisation means the society is better able to represent the best interests of its members, knowing that we are acting for a group that is effectively regulated."

The outspoken comments by Mr McGovern came as MSPs at Holyrood prepared to debate the Legal Services Bill today.

Anonymous said...

It looks to me like Senior Counsel misled the court and Mr McNamara given they would know Lord Hamilton was talking bollocks in his Parliament letter which they based their argument on.

Woolman should do something about that !

Anonymous said...

Can we expect to see regular occurrences of such ridiculous challenges from opposing counsel to each McKenzie Friend request ?

Anonymous said...

This seems to be a case of the lawyers pursuing someone for fees so we can assume there are big questions on the work they did !

I hope they lose big time !

Anonymous said...

Ian Smart, president of the Law Society, said solicitors would be better served remaining within the current organisation. (CLEARLY THIS CHAP WANTS TO KEEP HIS JOB).

He said: "Maintaining regulation and representation within one organisation means the society is better able to represent the best interests of its members, (COVER UP ALL LAWYER CRIMINALLITY) knowing that we are acting for a group that is effectively regulated."

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT SMART OR THE REST SAY, THEY ARE A CRIMINAL BROTHERHOOD WHO WILL ROB CLIENTS AND SPIT IN THEIR FACES, BY BLOCKING ACCESS TO JUSTICE. THESE LAWYERS ARE CORRUPT FILTH, PROGRAMMED TO LIE FROM LAW SCHOOL TO THE GRAVE. TRUST THEM NOT.

Anonymous said...

Is everything so difficult to achieve in Scotland ? What a joke you lot are !

Anonymous said...

A lot of fuss for nothing - I've had the use of a retired solicitor as my McKenzie Friend in London and I won my case.Why cant those thick headed Scottish judges get it into their minds this is something that would work just as well up there as it does down here.

Keep up the pressure Mr Cherbi !

Anonymous said...

Published Date: 08 December 2009
By MARK SMITH

THE body that represents Scotland's lawyers is facing a damaging split, with calls for a referendum among solicitors to form a breakaway "trade union".

THE NEW UNION WILL BE AS CORRUPT AS THE LAW SOCIETY, NEVER TRUST A LAWYER, THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH AND WEALTH.

Anonymous said...

I know someone who was hit by what Tods Murray did,spent years complaining to the Law Society and they just whitewashed the whole thing (as usual).
I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

Anonymous said...

I agree Peter.Lord Hamilton should be called to Holyrood to explain his erroneous claims.Good thing you spotted it and I see your emails are already on the Parliament's website ! Fantastic work !

Anonymous said...

“However, lawyers acting for Tods Murray challenged the litigant's request for a McKenzie Friend, (WE EXPECTED THAT) waving a copy of the Lord President's letter to the Scottish Parliament, (BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE ARTHUR) which was claimed to state the present law with regards to McKenzie Friends in Scotland that should dictate that a McKenzie Friend could only sit behind the litigant, take notes, assist with papers and quietly give advice.” (THIS IS MADNESS, CLEARLY THE LAWYERS NEED A GOOD DOES OF PSYCHIATRIC HELP, LOONIES.

DO NOT WORRY TODDS, YOUR LAWYER COLLEAGUES AT ALL LEVELS WILL EXONERATE YOU, BECAUSE LAWYERS INSURERS (THE LAW SOCIETIES MASTER POLICY) WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE DAMAGES. WHAT A BENT SETUP, NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE. LAWYERS USE THE SYSTEM TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR INSURERS, AND THIS IS A LICENCE FOR FURTHER LAWYER CRIMINALITY.

NEVER TRUST A LAWYER, THEY ARE PROTECTORS OF THE MONEY POT, AND SELF REGULATION LEAVES CRIMINALS AT WORK WHO BELONG IN BARLINNIE. WHEN PEOPLE WALK PAST A LAW FIRMS OFFICE ONE QUESTION SHOULD COME TO MIND,

IF I DEAL WITH THESE PEOPLE AND SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH MY CASE, WHO DO I COMPLAIN TO, FILTHY LAWYERS OF COURSE. I AM SURE THE LORD PRESIDENT WOULD GAS ME IF HE COULD. I REST MY CASE.

Anonymous said...

So thats it ? Scottish McKenzie Friends are going to be forced to sit behind always ? What a bloody crock !

Minneapolis DUI lawer said...

So that's it? So much for RIGHTS!

Peter Cherbi said...

Minneapolis DUI lawer @ 10pm

Rights .. that is just about an alien concept in Scotland.

Rights are only bestowed on those whom the legal establishment in Scotland feel it is in their interests to allow ... so that pretty much rules out anyone who might just have an issue with public services, the professions, Government, etc ...

There was some hope for expanding legal services and access to justice via the Legal Services Bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament, but from documents recently shown to me it looks like the Law Society already has that one stitched up before its even had a Justice Committee investigation, never mind a vote in the chamber ...

Anonymous said...

Peter Cherbi said...

Minneapolis DUI lawer @ 10pm

Rights .. that is just about an alien concept in Scotland.

Rights are only bestowed on those whom the legal establishment in Scotland feel it is in their interests to allow ... so that pretty much rules out anyone who might just have an issue with public services, the professions, Government, etc ...

THIS is what I like about Peter's blog ! He tells it exactly as it is and no flowery bollocks to it !

For my money you nailed that lying toad of a judge who said all that crap to your Parliament so go ahead and make my day by getting in some good questions when he has to show up and tell the truth !

BEST BLOG EVA !!!

Anonymous said...

Spot on Peter.
No rights for Scots at all and even less under the SNP!

Anonymous said...

TM always leave big questions over their fees !

Anonymous said...

To our friend contributing from 'the other side of the pond' in Minneapolis;

It may come as a surprise to learn of one personal injury case which, fifteen years after the injury occured, is still going through what is laughlingly referred to as the Scottish Civil Justice system.

Doubtless all will become clear when you learn that the above case could set an important precedent braodening the law's protection for those suffering workplace injuries, and the mandatory insurance provider of Professional Indemnity Insurance to every Scottish solicitor is the disgraced company Marsh.

Anonymous said...

Good afternoon Lord Woolman how can Mr McNamara get a fair hearing against against the Edinburgh Law firm Tods Murray LLP?

The infamous Law Society of Scotlands indemnity insurance (which "allows Solicitors to Sleep at Night") will be paying his damages. You Lord Woolman must also pay into the same insurance arrangement. The way I see this there might as well be the Law Societies underwriters Royalsunalliance directors overseeing the court proceedings.

I am studying politics, and at the moment I am looking at the citizenship education which was instigated because of our multicultural society.

I believe we need to educate students about the dangers of the legal profession, how the lawyers are a solid unit of resistance when one of their reputations are at stake. I think Mr McNamara has no chance because the lawyers insurers would have to pay his damages if he won his case. You all have a vested interest in protecting Royalsunalliance. While I applaude you allowing a McKenzie friend into court, the lawyers and their insurers have total dictatorial power, and clients are getting wise to you all. When someone I meet tells me they are a lawyer, the word criminal comes to mind.

How would Douglas Mill the dishonest little rodent like to be deviod of rights so some criminal in the legal profession is kept clean. We need anti lawyer education in our schools even if it is not on the ciriculum, and an e bay type feedback system for clients to rate law firms.

Anonymous said...

All lawyers may as well be employed by Royal & Sun Alliance, because their loyalties protect this company and the maggots in the Law Society of Scotland.

The legal establishment see McKenzie friends as the thin end of the wedge and that is why Arthur Hamilton is distorting fact. You should step down Arthur, after all you are answerable to no one, just like Adolf Hitler. How can a man who is publicly dishonest oversee court proceedings?

Anonymous said...

Again not all the courts seem to know about this.I was in at Glasgow Sheriff Court today and they told me no McKenzie Friends are allowed in Scotland.We seem to have a fifth rate justice system held together with shoelaces !

Anonymous said...

Way to go on proving your top judge is a f*cking liar !

What I want to know now is what is going to be done about him and that letter ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... LORD WOOLMAN, HAVE A READ AT THIS BECAUSE YOU KNOW ONLY TOO WELL THE PEOPLE DEALING WITH LITIGATION CASES ALLOW A CLIENT TO START LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS KNOWING FULL WELL THE CLIENTS INJURIES WILL BE COVERED UP. LAWYERS AND DOCTORS LINE THEIR POCKETS WITH LEGAL AID AND KEEP THE CLIENTS CASE OUT OF COURT, CRIMINALS YOU ALL ARE. WARNING TO ALL EMPLOYEES (DO NOT LET THEM MAKE MONEY TO COVER UP YOUR INJURIES).

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

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

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

How can they do this and get away with it?

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

If you complain to The Law Society of Scotland/Scottish Legal Complaints Commission they will protect your lawyer.

If you complain to the General Medical Council they will protect all doctors.

If you could eventually prove in a court of law these people have lied, covered up what has happened to you, you will NEVER GET TO COURT, because,

You will need a lawyer to take your case who is a paid up member of the Law Society of Scotland.

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

Professional loyalty.

Lawyers insurers would put their premiums up if they have to pay damages to you. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS YOU CANNOT BEAT THROUGH OUR CURRENT LEGAL SYSTEM.

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

Anonymous said...

Defence minister Quentin Davies is fighting for his political life amid outrage over his £20,000 expenses bill for repairing a bell tower at his lavish home. (Greedy Bugger)

The Grantham and Stamford MP's claim was among hundreds of thousands more receipts published by the Government.(FOI showed what we already knew, what a lot of crooks politicians are).

His boss Gordon Brown also suffered embarrassment, revealing that he had paid back £500 for painting a summer house because the spending was "questionable".(Gordon, why did you not pay it back before FOI applied, dishonest bugger).

The disclosure of second home allowance details from 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 provided more evidence of how the lax system at Westminster was being abused before the scandal erupted last spring. (Just like the Legal Aid system. Lord Woolman, self regulation is a licence to steal with impunity. It should be outlawed now).

Anonymous said...

The insurance arrangements outlined above demonstrate that the courts are trying to pull the wool over our eyes, no pun intended on such a serious matter as this.

Anonymous said...

To the person who said Glasgow Sheriff Court says no McKenzie Friends in Scotland - I called them up twice spoke to different people ; one said McKenzie Friends were now allowed but have to sit behind you and the other said no McKenzie Friends allowed so it depends on who answers the phone I think.The woman I spoke to who said McKenzie Friends were allowed asked if I had read it on Peter Cherbi's blog !

Anonymous said...

Lord Hamilton said to Holyrood he wants McKenzie Friends to sit behind court users in Scotland.

What a dictatorial patronising twit you are Hamilton. Human necks only turn through 80 degrees. If a member of the public in your courtroom was turning all the time to communicate with someone you would quickly stamp that out, with your contempt powers.

It is a pathetic attitude from you and your strategy is simply to make it more difficult for a party litigant to communicate with their McKenzie friend. William Wallace would have dealt with you the proper way.