Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Little mention of consumer protection for Scots as Law Society give evidence to Holyrood on Legal Services Bill reforms

Justice CommitteeHolyrood’s Justice Committee heard Law Society’s sagging performance. The Law Society of Scotland’s appearance in front of Holyrood’s Justice Committee to give evidence on the proposed reforms of the Legal Services Bill, currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament, seems to prove that despite the Law Society’s well deserved reputation for covering up complaints against its members, covering up frauds, embezzlement, theft, destruction (& the falsification of) documents, client files, mishandling of deceased’s wills, and even covering up criminal acts of its own members, officials from the governing body which ‘looks after’ Scotland’s solicitors are still willing to claim they should be left alone to regulate Scotland’s legal services market, sidelining any real improvements in consumer protection from its members.

The usual suspects from the Law Society attended the hearing, President Ian Smart, Chief Executive Lorna Jack (Douglas Mill’s replacement), the notorious Director of Law Reform, Michael Clancy (famed for killing off public petitions, calling in MSPs who are making a fuss about legal matters in Parliament, and someone from the Law Society with the bizarre title of law reform officer, Katie Hay. Missing was the Law Society’s Director of Regulation, Philip Yelland, which was a little strange, as one of the topics which received the most attention was, regulation.

The usual suspects caught on video - Law Society of Scotland’s evidence session on the Legal Services Bill :

Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 1 Pt 1 Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 2 Pt 2 Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 3 Pt 3

Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 4 Pt 4 Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 5 Pt 5 Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 6 Pt 6

Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 7 Pt 7 Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 8 Pt 8 Law Society of Scotland evidence on Legal Services Bill Pt 9 Pt 9

The full report of the Law Society of Scotland’s appearance before the Justice Committee, giving evidence on the Legal Services Bill, can be viewed, here : Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Justice Committee Tuesday 15 December 2009 You can also read my earlier coverage of the Legal Services Bill, here : Legal Services Bill - The story so far

The session was opened with a question from Bill Aitken, the Justice Committee Convener, who asked the acolytes from the Law Society : “Is the Law Society convinced that the bill is necessary and that the establishment of alternative business structures will benefit users of legal services in Scotland as well as practitioners?”

Ian SmartPresident Ian Smart spoke the most during the session, unfortunately. Responding, Ian Smart, the Law Society’s outgoing President said : “The short answer to your question is yes. The bill largely implements the policy that the Law Society adopted at our annual general meeting in May 2008. We support the proposed legislation for a number of reasons. The first is simply that the legal profession's structure is changing. The conventional view of a solicitor in Scotland is someone who is in a relatively small and modest partnership of three or four solicitors based in a county town, but the profession's current demographic is far from that. Three quarters of all solicitors are now employed in one capacity or another. Some are employed by the state—locally or nationally—and others by the private sector directly, but a good number of them are actually employed. The old partnership model is in steady decline. The Law Society already allows limited liability partnerships and, since 1990, incorporated practices, and we see the bill as the next stage.”

“It is clear that in some areas—more in relation to commercial users of legal services—there is demand for a one-stop shop, where more than one professional service is provided under one roof. Recent research by KPMG south of the border—albeit it involved the Scottish market—indicated that a substantial 75 per cent of commercial users of legal services welcomed that model. We looked into that model and, frankly, had some concerns about the ethical issues, but they have been worked through in our policy and in how the Government has implemented that policy through the bill. We see no reason why the bill cannot be the next stage in modernising the provision of legal services to the public.”

Mr Smart was then questioned on how the vote actually swung in favour of Alternative Business Structures by law firms & individual solicitors although he seemed to omit telling the Justice Committee the Law Society had campaigned hard against the vote within its ranks which, as we all now know was eventually pushed through by the larger legal firms and proxy votes.

Michael ClancyMichael Clancy, well known for ‘calling in errant MSPs who rock the boat in the legal world, and killing off the occasional public petition seeking legal reforms. Michael Clancy then entered the debate, after being questioned by Justice Committee member Robert Brown MSP (LibDem) on what areas lawyers & non-lawyers could go into partnership with, and which particular areas of business should be reserved to lawyers only, such as “will writing” – which we have all noted that lawyers have done so well over the years (taking millions of pounds for themselves and getting away with it !)

Mr Clancy said : “They (reserved work for lawyers only) are the preparation of writs that relate to conveyancing, of documents in respect of confirmation of executors and of writs that relate to court process. Those reserved activities can be done only by solicitors and some other professionals; to do them for gain in any other circumstance is an offence. The clear answer to Robert Brown's earlier question is that the reserved areas will be unaffected by the bill and such activities will still have to be done by a solicitor in a licensed provider situation.”

Mr Clancy then went onto insist that any head of legal services in the reformed Legal Services Market must be a solicitor. He said : “It should be remembered that in a licensed provider firm—if such creatures come into being—the head of legal services will have to be a solicitor. One can envisage that the head of legal services will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the law and practice in relation to the preparation of the documents that I mentioned.”

Lorna JackLaw Society’s current Chief Executive Lorna Jack – much less fun than Douglas Mill, less prone to animated outbursts too, sadly. The Law Society’s Chief Executive, Lorna Jack, who replaced the fallen Douglas Mill after his ‘secret memo binge against clients of ‘crooked lawyers’ which was exposed by the Scottish Government Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney during a Justice Committee hearing, managed to get some words in about ‘protecting the legal profession’s independence’ after a question from Committee member James Kelly, initially put to Ian Smart.

Lorna Jack said in reply : “I think that we have already made known our view on this question. We see a need for the Lord President's role to be re-established beyond just simply being a consultee so that it involves an approval mechanism. We therefore think that the bill needs to be amended in that respect—we have made that point.”

Ms Jack continued : “In their evidence, others have talked about the need for a super-regulator, as exists in England and Wales. However, we feel that that is inappropriate for the Scottish market, given its size. Given that the bill provides for ministers to decide after taking independent advice, we do not think that there is a requirement for a super-regulator. If you supplement that with a role for the Lord President in approving regulators, you will ensure that the independence of the legal profession is protected. We would have concerns about there being an additional layer—a quango—and about the cost of that to consumers of legal service in Scotland and, potentially, to taxpayers. The basis of our argument about ensuring the independence of the legal profession is that, alongside ministers, the Lord President takes a role in approving those who get to regulate people who deliver legal service.”

Plenty there about protecting the legal profession and its members … not much, well .. actually nothing about protecting consumers & clients, which seems to be a carry on from the Douglas Mill days.

Michael Clancy had to step in again with further answers on points not emphasised enough by Ms Jack, and also raised the Law Society’s worries over Scottish Government Ministers being able to interfere in the regulator process. Mr Clancy said : “One of the regulatory objectives of the bill is to promote the independence of the legal profession. That applies not only to approved regulators but to the existing regulators under section 86. Furthermore, the Scottish ministers, who have a particular role to play in relation to the approval of regulators, are also captured by the regulatory objectives in section 4, "Ministerial oversight". The trouble is, of course, that ministers are to act in the way that is set out "only so far as practicable".

“That provision needs to be strengthened a bit. Lorna Jack adverted to the role of the Lord President. We certainly think that the Lord President's role should be enhanced from the position in the bill. In the original consultation, "Wider choice and better protection: a consultation paper on the regulation of legal services in Scotland", the Lord President was listed as being someone who had to agree to the authorisation or rescission of authorisation of an approved regulator, yet, in the bill, he turns out to be a "consultee" in that process. It would be appropriate for the Lord President to be reinstated to his position as someone who acts in concert with the Scottish ministers in that respect.”

“Where the bill deals with the specific role of the Scottish ministers regarding elements in the legal profession, there are concerns about how that will work. In my earlier discussion with Mr Brown, I referred to section 39, "Head of Legal Services", in which it says that the head of legal services has to be a solicitor. However, under section 39(9), the Scottish ministers can make regulations about that person's functions. It is inappropriate that the Scottish ministers should be able to tell a solicitor what to do.”

“Furthermore, section 35, which deals with ministers' step-in powers, includes the proposition whereby ministers could create an approved body that would be involved in the licensing of those who deliver legal services. That is also a difficult issue, because as the Scottish ministers could create an approved body, they would then have to approve that body, so there would be a kind of infinity loop of ministerial control. That, too, should be struck from the bill.”

Ian Smart managed another plug for the Law Society’s role in Scottish public life, although it sounds so tired now, we could really all do with a break from Drumsheugh Gardens ruling over the profession and clients best interests, which are never protected, despite the all present’s claims to the contrary.

Mr Smart said, in response to a question from Justice Committee member Stewart Maxwell MSP (SNP) on the subject of the Law Society’s dual role of representing solicitors & clients : “I have been on the council of the Law Society for 11 years, and during that time it has been debated periodically. On each occasion, we came to the conclusion that the current situation was the best available, as did the Parliament during its early days when it looked into the matter in an inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession in Scotland. We can easily point to flaws in the system from the point of view of the consumer's interest or that of the profession, but we have a compromise for a profession of 10,500 in a relatively small country, and there is a degree of clarity.”

“As Cathie Craigie said, people understand what the Law Society is and the role that it holds, and that understanding exists not just within the profession but among the general public. We have an identified role in Scottish public life. The danger in fragmenting that is that it will not be entirely clear who speaks for the legal profession, and if someone has a client complaint or a general complaint about the legal profession, it will not be clear to whom they will make the representations that they want to make.”

In terms of protecting consumer interests, the Law Society’s appearance before the Justice Committee gave absolutely no hope at all for any expected improvement of standards in a reformed Legal Services market if the bill currently under consideration is passed by the Scottish Parliament, and if anyone is in any doubt about the sub standard of legal services in Scotland, and the poor state of regulation, just watch the clips of the absolutely dismal evidence session from the Law Society, and some of the MSPs who seemed more interested in being seen than being seen to do or say something constructive.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

How should these maggots from the Law Society be described? CRIMINALS SIMPLE AS THAT.

Client protection will never be a reality as long as this organisation is in control with it's SLCC, trust none of them.

Anonymous said...

As I see the self serving bunch of Law Society idiots are back at Holyrood pleading their case but please Peter do not quote Smart word for word as listening to the man is enough to promote thoughts of suicide nevermind having to read his claptrap !

Anonymous said...

"and if anyone is in any doubt about the sub standard of legal services in Scotland, and the poor state of regulation, just watch the clips of the absolutely dismal evidence session from the Law Society, and some of the MSPs who seemed more interested in being seen than being seen to do or say something constructive."

truer words were never spoken, or written !

Anonymous said...

oh no not Ian Smart again ..

Anonymous said...

What happened afterwards ?
Free mortgages and legal expenses for the politicians if they vote for the Law Soceitys wishes ??

Anonymous said...

One can envisage that the head of legal services will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the law and practice in relation to the preparation of the documents that I mentioned.”
=====================================
Mr Clancy, your profession are above the law and self regulation will ensure that this status is maintained.

There is not one honest lawyer in Scotland today, a rabble of criminals who use the legal system for self protection, and you all purport to stand for justice. You are crooks in powerful positions.

Anonymous said...

“Maintaining regulation, representation and professional support within one organisation means the Society can be an effective membership organisation for Scotland's 10,000 solicitors, as it acts for a group that is effectively regulated.”
=====================================
Mr Smart, maintaining the above is that same as saying Scottish lawyers can keep doing what they want to clients. Protect the 10,000 Mr Smart that is your remit, nothing else.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure they all met up in the pub later for a quiet backhander sorry I mean drink

Anonymous said...

I'll take your word for it as cant be bothered to watch Smart & co work the msps in no doubt well rehearsed questions.

Keep pushing their buttons !

Anonymous said...

A legal regulator made up of people like us who have been ripped off for years, could possibly be the answer and a compulsory death sentence brought back into effect for the ones who have deliberately caused harm for gain.

Anonymous said...

Comment at 5:22pm sums up my own thoughts on this spectacle and as I read from Peter's blog it seems Nigel Don already gets his mortgage paid for by taxpayers or is that reward for representing his boss MacAskill at the Parliament ?

"I cant do my job unless I get a taxpayer paid for mortgage" - I think we should all start claiming on that one and see how long it lasts ?

Anonymous said...

Self praise is no recommendation.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society is a criminal organisation dedicated to crushing clients, and the Justice 2 committee know this so they need to take serious action now.

Anonymous said...

Watched the clips of the debate and looks to me like the justice committee treated the Law Society very well compared with the consumer lobby you covered before.

Too much arse kissing shows through in video so keep up the postings along with the clips of crooks caught on camera !

Anonymous said...

Nothing short of an Xmas panto on the part of the Justice Committee

Anonymous said...

Yes indeed.How many lives have that mob from the Law Society ruined to get to where they are today.Nothing to be admired and those sick politicians playing up to them are just as bad.Scotland needs a big change away from these creeps!

Anonymous said...

Former solicitor Valerie Macadam sentenced to three years for embezzlement

Former solicitor Valerie Macadam was sentenced today, Wednesday, December 10, to three years imprisonment, reduced from four years for an earlier guilty plea, at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for embezzling £130,000 of client funds. Macadam had been banned from practising as a solicitor in 2004 following Law Society of Scotland investigations.

She was officially struck from the roll of solicitors on 1 September 2005 by the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal after being found guilty of professional misconduct. This could not be made public at the time because of ongoing criminal proceedings.

Breaches of accounts rules and discrepancies in client accounts were uncovered during a Law Society inspection of the firm where Valerie Macadam worked, leading to the Society's request to the court to appoint a Judicial Factor to the firm in December 2003, to protect the firm's clients.

The Court of Session confirmed the appointment of the Judicial Factor in January 2004, at which point Macadam's practising certificate was suspended. Following receipt of a detailed report on the firm, the Law Society took steps to prosecute Macadam before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline tribunal.

Philip Yelland, Law Society of Scotland director of standards, said: “The Law Society acted to protect the firm’s clients and Ms Macadam has not been able to practise as a solicitor in Scotland since 2004. (DO YOU WANT A MEDAL MR YELLAND, NOTHING HAPPENED TO YOU FOR THE SUICIDES DUE TO THE LAW SOCIETIES CORRUPTION. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT AT SELF PROTECTION, JAIL THE ODD LAWYER AND TURN A BLIND EYE TO CORRUPTION FROM THE REST OF YOUR MEMBERSHIP. THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND ARE A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION EVEN ALTHOUGH MR MACASKILL CALLS IT A PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION TO KEEP IT OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. I WILL NEVER TRUST ANY LAWYER, THAY ARE ALL COVER UP CROOKS, JUST LIKE DOUGLAS MILL.

“Solicitors are trusted to handle millions of pounds of client funds each year. Honesty and integrity are absolutely paramount within the solicitors' profession (WHY ARE YOU THERE THEN MR YELLAND? YOU MUST BE DRUNK IF YOU BELIEVE THIS) and those who are suspected of stealing from clients will be investigated and, (PROTECTED BY THE PERSUERS PANEL OR LEGAL DEFENCE UNION, SAME THING) if they are found to be acting dishonestly or fraudulently, strong action will be taken against them, both by the Law Society and the courts.” (WHAT ABOUT THE FARMER MR YELLAND? WHERE WAS HIS JUSTICE?

Anonymous said...

disgusting bunch of people no wonder there is no justice in scotland yet they have the cheek to sit there pretending they are protecting peoples interests more like protecting their own selfishness and greed

Anonymous said...

WELL SAID PETER.

"Westminster Parliament used self regulation for decades to protect members unacceptable conduct on expenses. SELF REGULATION, the infamous liars charter which many professions and public services use to protect themselves against complaints from the general public, and even the law itself, is to end at Westminster, according to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron".
===================================

SELF REGULATION, THE MEANS BY WHICH THE POWERFUL ABUSE THE PUBLIC, WITH NO RISK TO THEMSELVES. DOCTORS, LAWYERS, ACCOUNTANTS, POLITICIANS, A COHORT OF CRIMINALS ATTEMPTING TO PUT UP A FRONT OF DECENCY.

THE SELF REGULATORS ARE ABOVE THE LAW, THOSE ACCOUNTABLE TO THEMSELVES REWARD AND PROTECT THEMSELVES JUST LIKE THAT LITIGATION CRIMINAL CAMERON FYFE OF ROSS HARPER SOLICITORS, WHO REPRESENTS CLIENTS AND COVERS UP THEIR INJURIES, BECAUSE FYFE'S INSURERS WOULD NEED TO PAY THE DAMAGES. YOU DID NOT TELL ME THIS CAMERON, THAT YOUR FIRM (THROUGH THE CORRUPT LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND) WAS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY YOU REPRESENTED ME AGAINST. CAMERON FYFE LIKE ALL OF SOCTLAND'S LAWYERS IS INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE, AND IS SO LOYAL TO THE LATTER HE MAY AS WELL BE FINANCE DIRECTOR OF THAT INSURER.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND, AND PLEASE KEEP YOUR YEAR AS HAPPY AS POSSIBLE BY AVIODING THE VERMIN THAT SELF REGULATORS ARE.

A WORD TO MR BROWN, MR CLEGG, MR CAMERON AND THE OTHER PARTY LEADERS. IF YOU THINK THE PUBLIC WILL TRUST POLITICIANS (WHO WANT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES & LAWYERS) WAKE UP. I THINK I CAN CONFIDENTLY STATE THAT THE ELECTORATE KNOW YOU ARE ALL CRIMINALS, DRIVEN BY SELF INTEREST AND REWARD AND ARE A STAIN ON THE WORD DEMOCRACY. THE EXPENSES SCANDAL, CASH FOR HONOURS, PARTY DONATIONS, YOU ARE A COHORT OF DEVIANTS, PARASITES WHO SPONGE RATHER THAN REPRESENT CONSTITUENTS, SHAME ON YOU ALL. YOU HAVE MUCH IN COMMON WITH THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND, ANOTHER CESSPIT OF CORRUPTION.

LONG LIVE DISSENT AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH. IT IS TIME TO PURGE SELF REGULATION EVERYWHERE, SO THAT THE BRITISH PEOPLE CAN HAVE FAITH IN THE WORD JUSTICE.

Anonymous said...

Happy New Year Peter and thanks for all the exposures you've done on these crooked lawyers !

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

Little mention of consumer protection because our enemies only want legal establishment protection.

Justice always has conditions attached in Scotland, you are locked out of the system if you are a threat to a lawyer, doctor, or accountant. Bastards who can and do, do what they want, because their colleagues lock the doors to justice, to protect the unjust.

Anonymous said...

Criminals that is what they call people convicted of a criminal offence.

Self regulators are the real criminals, answerable only to their own kind, just like the Nazi's. The next time you readers are called for jury duty, look around you at the lawyers, the real criminals in our society who hide their corruption behind self regulation and are exempt from prosecution, and Mr Smart and his colleagues will fight to protect their immunity from prosecution. These people are Scotland's real criminals, because they are above the laws they expect the rest of society to live by.

Anonymous said...

Philip Yelland, Law Society of Scotland director of standards, said: “The Law Society acted to protect the firm’s clients and Ms Macadam has not been able to practise as a solicitor in Scotland since 2004.
-------------------------------------
Mr Yelland I really think you are a perfect example of self regulating hypocrisy. Director of standards. Why did it take the Finance Minister Mr John Swinney to expose Douglas Mill as a crook, why did you not do it as the Law Societies Director of Standards. Mill must know plenty of dirt about you, that is why you kept your mouth shut. Director of Standards, that is as far from justice as one can get.

Anonymous said...

Banks, high street supermarkets investing in law firms, so if one of these overcharge you or cause you food poisoning you will need a lawyer to sue that company. Lawyers do not sting their insurers, so they will not sting business partners either.

Clearly there are sinister motives for Tesco law, strengthen the bonds between the legal profession and business = even greater scope for corruption.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS 6th JANUARY 2010

'Flaws' in key Lockerbie evidence
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi
Megrahi was released from jail in Scotland in August 2009

An investigation by BBC's Newsnight has cast doubts on the key piece of evidence which convicted the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

Tests aimed at reproducing the blast appear to undermine the case's central forensic link, based on a tiny fragment identified as part of a bomb timer.

The tests suggest the fragment, which linked the attack to Megrahi, would not have survived the mid-air explosion.

Two hundred and seventy people died in the 1988 attack on Pan Am flight 103.

Megrahi was jailed for the attack in 2001, but he was controversially released from prison in Scotland by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in August 2009 on compassionate grounds.

Megrahi is said to be dying from terminal cancer and, according to reports from Libya, his condition continues to deteriorate.


I do find it quite extraordinary and I think highly improbable and most unlikely that you would find a fragment like that - it is unbelievable
UN European consultant on explosives, John Wyatt

But his release also scuppered Megrahi's planned appeal and any hopes of challenging the evidence on which he had been jailed.

DID MR MACASKILL RELEASE THIS MAN TO PROTECT THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT, AFTER ALL SCOTLAND HAS BEEN CALLED A BANANA REPUBLIC.

LAWYERS ALWAYS ACT IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, AS ANYONE WHO HAS DEALT WITH THEM KNOWS. I HOPE MACASKILLS HIGHER POWER DEALS WITH HIM. HE WILL DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT HIS BAND OF CRIMINALS.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish justice secretary has said he stands by his decision to free the Lockerbie bomber, telling MSPs he will "live with the consequences".
=====================================
Well Mr MacAskill perhaps this is the better of two evils. If it could be proven the Scottish legal establishment planted the forensic evidence on which the bomber was convicted you would be ruined. Scotland's justice system would be in tatters. No disrespect to the victims families of this atrocity, but the Scottish Legal Establishment is in the dock. This man was released on compassionate grounds, but the compassion from MacAskill is towards the lawyers who convicted him, not the bomber. Send him home, Mr MacAskill and his appeal is impossible and Scotlands Legal Establishment are in the clear. We saw through your speech at the time, you only have compassion for lawyers like yourself.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS 7tH JANUARY 2010


Etape Caledonia sabotage charge dropped.
Hundreds of cyclists suffered punctures because of the tacks.

A community council chairman has been cleared of sabotaging a cycling race last year after charges against him were dropped by the Crown.

Alexander Grosset, 62, was charged in connection with the scattering of thousands of tacks during the Etape Caledonia last May.

Another Lawyer in the clear Peter.

Anonymous said...

Prosecutors drop cycle race sabotage charges

Church elder Alexander Grosset speaks of his relief after charges that he spread carpet tacks on Etape Caledonia race route are dropped.

Prosecutors have dropped all charges against the chairman of a local community council who had been accused of trying to sabotage the massive Etape Caledonia cycle race in Highland Perthshire last summer.

Alexander Grosset, of Bridge of Gaur, Rannoch, Perthshire, was charged with culpably and recklessly placing tacks on the surface of a public road, which was being used as a closed-road cycle event.

It was alleged that he showed complete disregard for the safety of the competitors and pedestrians, causing damage to the bicycles, emergency service vehicles and other associated vehicles.

Last May Mr Grosset - a church elder and the chairman of Rannoch and Tummel Community Council - appeared in private before Sheriff Michael Fletcher at Perth Sheriff Court and was released on bail.

Mr Grosset was the only person to face charges in the wake of the incident.

The 63-year-old has now spoken of his relief at learning that the charges against him had been dropped.

He said: "I've got to say the whole situation was horrifying. Spending two nights in Perth police station isn't exactly great. I didn't realise that the justice system could treat people like that.

"I never did it, and there was never a shred of evidence to suggest that I did, which makes me wonder why it took so long for it to eventually reach this point.

"The thing that needs to be considered is that, if I didn't do it, someone else did, and they haven't been caught.

"Because of this my details have been posted on internet sites and I have received hassle from people on the back of that, but everyone at the community council and round and about Rannoch has been very supportive."

Hundreds of cyclists were left with punctures at the 81-mile Etape Caledonia event - the largest closed-road cycle event in the UK - which starts and finishes in Pitlochry.

Competitors were sent tumbling and countless others suffered punctures after hundreds of carpet tacks were strewn across almost five miles of Highland Perthshire road.

There has always been vocal opposition from a minority of residents to the Etape, but no-one was prepared for what happened next as the leadriders suffered punctures about 43 miles into the course.

The race was held up for around 90 minutes as marshalls and police swept the road before allowing the field to continue.

It is thought the tacks were laid only minutes after officials carried out their final check on the route, some time between 6.30am and 7am.

A Crown Office spokesman said on Thursday: "We can confirm that the procurator fiscal in Perth received a report concerning a 62-year-old man in relation to an incident on 16 May, 2009.

"After full and careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances by Crown counsel, it was decided there should be no further proceedings."

Last updated: 07 January 2010, 10:19

YOU ARE POSTED ON INTERNET SITES MR GROSSET BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN A LARGE MAJORITY OF CASES HAVE CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST THEM. IF YOU ARE INNOCENT I AGREE YOU SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE, AND THERE IS A COSY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND LAWYERS. I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE GUILTY BY ANY MEANS, BUT THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE IS KIND TO LAWYERS IN TROUBLE. MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL CLUB GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

Anonymous said...

The usual suspects from the Law Society attended the hearing, President Ian Smart, Chief Executive Lorna Jack (Douglas Mill’s replacement), the notorious Director of Law Reform, Michael Clancy (famed for killing off public petitions, calling in MSPs who are making a fuss about legal matters in Parliament, and someone from the Law Society with the bizarre title of law reform officer, Katie Hay. Missing was the Law Society’s Director of Regulation, Philip Yelland, which was a little strange, as one of the topics which received the most attention was, regulation.
----------------------------------
Their names revile me, they belong in prison for all the harm they have done.

Anonymous said...

Victims of the Legal Profession Society
You Can Never Improve On the Truth!

Links

Lawyer rating sites:

Rate Your Solicitor - Anybody can relate their experience with any legal professional in Ireland.

Lawyer Guide - UK solicitor directory with reviewing facility for listed firms.

Solicitor.info - Solicitor rating site for the UK.

Solicitors from Hell - Names and shames bad solicitors in the UK.

Lawyer Ratingz - An American site that lets people rate their lawyer.

Avvo - A U.S. site with lawyer listings, reviews, legal information and advice.


More crooked lawyer sites:

Corrupt Lawyers - A Dublin-based site about an arson case.

Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers - A group that aims to reform the Scottish legal system.

UnjustIS - Complaints against Solicitors and the Legal Professions in England & Wales.

CASIA - Complaints Against Solicitors, action for Independent Adjudication: An English organisation that wants to establish independent adjudication of complaints against solicitors.

Legal Bullies - Site detailing the wrongdoing of an English law firm, FDC Law.

Solicitors from Hell - Site detailing the wrongdoing of *another* English law firm, Thos Boyd Whyte.

Professional Rogues - This site names and shames some bad solicitors in England.

Lawyer Baiting - Colin Cole cheerfully ridicules every lawyer he's ever had.

A Lawyer's Dream of Heaven - Stephanie Clark's diary of her problems with property and international law.

Citizens Against Legal Abuse - A US group that exposes corruption and provides support to victims of judicial and legal abuse.


Here are some other sites you may find interesting:

The Law Reform Commission - An independent organisation that makes recommendations for law reform.
You can make a submission to them about a law you would like to change!

Oireachtas contact information - Write to your T.D. about a bad solicitor.

The Law Society of Ireland - The regulatory body of Irish solicitors. There is detailed information on how to make a complaint about a solicitor.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal - An independent body that deals with complaints of misconduct against solicitors.

The Bar Council - The governing body for barristers in practice at the Bar.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform - The official Government website.

Irish Statute Book - A free searchable database of all Irish statutes from 1922 to 2005.

Irish Courts - The very informative site of the Courts Service of Ireland.

Irish Law - Irish law links and information by the UCC Law Faculty.

Free Legal Advice Centres - FLAC provides legal aid and advice to those who cannot afford a lawyer.

Personal Injuries Assessment Board PIAB enables you to make a personaI injury claim without using a solicitor.

Consumers' Association of Ireland An independent organisation working on behalf of Irish consumers.

USFI - A group that campaigns for equal rights for unmarried and separated fathers in Ireland.

Public Inquiry - Examining alleged corruption in Ireland.

Transparency International - The global coalition against corruption.

World Law Direct - Get legal advice; correspond with an international lawyer for a nominal sum.

Out-Law.com - IT and e-commerce legal information and support.

ECHR Action - Information on taking your case to the European Court of Human Rights.


A few entertaining American sites:

Dumb Laws - A large selection of ridiculous laws from various countries.

Overlawyered - Chronicles of an overly litigious society. (A society where insurers buy the lawyers off and the client wins zero damages).



So People of Scotland, there are anti lawyer websites everythere. Why is this? The answer is simple. Self regulation is the catalyst for this.