Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveals it passed most complaints about lawyers back to Law Society, has failed to act on Master Policy report

slcc_logoScottish Legal Complaints Commission passed most complaints back to Law Society. THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION have issued their first annual report (pdf), revealing a wasted year for Scots consumer protection against ‘crooked lawyers’ with figures showing the SLCC shockingly passed most complaints it had received back to the Law Society of Scotland for more closed shop investigations by solicitors colleagues, which have resulted in many complaints being ‘whitewashed’, a long standing problem the hugely expensive Commission was formed to prevent occurring in the first place.

Complaints stats Scottish Legal Complaints CommissionComplaints against crooked lawyers get a reluctant hearing at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The statistics in the annual report reveal that 3,355 ‘enquiries’ during the nine month period were received by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and of these, 1217 legal complaints were processed by the SLCC’s Gateway Team. However, it transpires that few of these were actually investigated by by the Commission itself, as its own board members had decided to refuse to investigate any complaints or issues arising from legal service provided to consumers prior to the date 1st October 2008, conveniently cutting off most complaints from the SLCC’s remit and allowing the quango to pass the buck back to the Law Society for more of the usual dodgy closed shop complaints hearings.

slcc suicides1SLCC – Client suicides over Master Policy claims are low priority. Even worse, after nearly one year on from the first ever investigation into the Law Society's Master Policy carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the report also reveals the Commission have still to decide what to do after revelations the Law Society of Scotland operated the Master Policy as a means to ‘allow lawyers to sleep safely at night’ resulting in the suicides of clients, which had been covered up by the Law Society until I reported on the issue in July of last year, which you can read here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Master Policy Report Suicides revealedReport on Master Policy revealed suicides – SLCC still to act after a year of indecision after client deaths were reported by University’s Law Professor team. Stunningly, while Professor Frank Stephen & Dr Angela Melville of the University of Manchester’s Law Department investigated many aspects of the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, even commenting the suicides of clients caught up in the notoriously corrupt claims system of the Law Society’s Master Insurance Policy - the Professional Indemnity Insurance for solicitors which clients must claim from in the event of negligence or other poor service, the only comment so far from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in its brief annual report neglected to mention the Master Policy report in detail, leaving a distinct impression the SLCC is unwilling to investigate or do anything about the suicide issue, for fear of upsetting the Law Society.

Jane IrvineJane Irvine, SLCC Chair. Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission speaking on the release of the SLCC’s annual report, made no mention of the suicides and other dire revelations from the Manchester University report by Professor Frank Stephen & Dr Angela Melville, which was completed in May 2009, rather indicating the SLCC still had a long way to go on its general duties, before even considering doing anything on the Master Policy.

Jane Irvine said : "It was an intense period of time with everyone contributing a huge amount of work to put in place procedures and policies for dealing with enquiries and addressing complaints under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007."

Ms Irvine continued : "One of our key objectives is to fully understand the function and purpose of the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund and to understand the experiences of the individuals who have made a claim. The commissioning of research was a first step towards the SLCC exercising its oversight role. The research created an important starting point for the SLCC's oversight role, which we intend to develop." So, one year later, and still no action on the Master Policy .. even a garden slug manages a faster pace.

Margaret Scanlan - Called to the Bars - Sunday Mail  15 March 2009 emailSLCC Board Member Margaret Scanlan’s bitter email exchanges against consumers led many to conclude the Commission is of little use to the public. The first year of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was surrounded by controversy, in-fighting between staff, and public outbursts revealed in documents which depicted lengthy bitter hate fuelled exchanges between board members and the SLCC’s most senior officials over the exclusion of consumer groups & law reformers from the quango’s investigations into its own duties. There were even media reports of drunken officials who flew into caustic rages against critics in emails between board members, which I reported on here : MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members 'booze culture conduct' reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers and I covered just how intense 2009 was for the SLCC here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : The story so far

Eileen MastermanEileen Masterman, SLCC Chief Executive gets £1350 per week to pass complaints back to the Law Society of Scotland. On the issue of the SLCC’s handling of complaints against solicitors from members of the public, Jane Irvine went on to reveal that most complaints the Commission has received so far, have horrifyingly, been passed back to the Law Society of Scotland, after the SLCC decided itself it would exclude any complaint for investigation prior to 1st October 2008 – a highly prejudicial decision which has confirmed to many the SLCC’s board members are too close to the Law Society of Scotland and the legal profession itself.

Jane Irvine said : "We received 3,355 enquiries during the nine month period, and of these, a small proportion were dealt with as complaints under the 2007 Act. The majority were registered by the SLCC, but were dealt with under old powers because the complaint originated prior to our opening on 1 October 2008.

"The majority of complaints were referred to the relevant professional body with the SLCC able to investigate how the professional body dealt with the complaint but not the actual complaint. Two hundred and three of these "handling" complaints originated prior to 1 October 2008 and were dealt with by the SLCC under the powers of the former SLSO."

A senior official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations today condemned the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s attitude towards consumer protection, claiming it was ‘little more than a clearing house for complaints back to the Law Society’.

She said : “As far as I am aware it was not the intention to create an allegedly independent body to regulate complaints against solicitors, which has spent its first year passing most complaints back to the Law Society of Scotland who are at the heart of the complaints problems raised by many members of the public to us. However, from the statistics released by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in their annual report on actual investigations they undertook, this appears to be all they have done so far.”

She continued : “We are now in a position where we are receiving complaints from consumers against the SLCC itself, with many people alleging the Commission is not independent and is failing to live up to public expectations. From the unwillingness the Commission has shown in its approach to serious issues such as monitoring the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, we do not believe that consumers have any reason at this time to have confidence in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.”

A client who had a complaint investigated by the SLCC today branded it useless and an affront to Scotland.

He said : “I put in a complaint about my lawyer thinking this new SLCC would treat me better than the Law Society but all they did was pass the complaint back to the Law Society who let my solicitor off the hook. I am now left in a position where I cannot sell my house as the solicitor refuses to hand back my title deeds and is demanding a huge fee for doing work he never did. I think the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is just another apologist for crooked lawyers and the Government should step in to clean it up.”

These latest revelations from the SLCC fit in with an earlier article I published back in November 2009 : Calls to scrap 'complaints laundering' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as expensive anti-consumer quango revealed as talking shop for lawyers

The SLCC report also revealed the quango has a staggering £1.565 million pounds as surplus, which Lorna Jack, the Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland has attacked, branding the sums “unacceptably high”. Ms Jack went onto further attack the SLCC’s lack of work, and demanded a reduction in the complaints levy Penman Levy forced on all Scottish solicitors to pay for the quango’s upkeep & operation.

Lorna JackLaw Society Chief Executive Lorna Jack. Lorna Jack said : “Considering the small number of complaints which the SLCC handled in its first 9 months, solicitors are right to question how the levy is being used and how efficiently the SLCC is managing its budget, funded mainly by solicitors. We need to ensure that the SLCC offers value for money for everyone involved in complaints. We will continue to work on behalf of solicitors to press for the levy to be reduced for 2010-2011. We believe that the reserves are still too high and should be used to keep the cost of the levy down.”

In response to the Law Society’s demands for a reduced complaints levy, Jane Irvine, the SLCC’s chair commented on the Commission’s financial state, saying : "We are conscious that our set up costs came from the Scottish Government and our ongoing funding comes from a levy paid by individual practitioners and a levy paid when a complaint is upheld. With this in mind, the SLCC has taken a measured approach when recruiting staff and our workforce will only increase in line with the level of work coming to us."

Ms Irvine concluded her annual report statement by saying "I am confident that the hard work of the SLCC Board Members and staff has laid the foundations of an excellent complaints handling service, built on our core values of accessibility, independence and impartiality."

MacAskill tight lippedSLCC should repay Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s £2 million of public money for start up costs. However, calls are now being made for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to use their surpluses to repay the nearly TWO MILLION POUNDS OF PUBLIC MONEY pumped in by the Scottish Government to start up the law complaints quango, which could be better spent elsewhere. Repaying the Scots public purse would be a more useful and conscientious use of the SLCC’s vast surplus during these challenging financial times for critical public services, rather than simply handling over surplus millions to lawyers back pockets.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were asked earlier today, given their gigantic surplus of £1.5 million, would they consider paying back the start up costs from the surplus, if not in one payment, over several payments. The SLCC is yet to give its formal response.

I for one, think the SLCC should fully repay the public purse as hospitals & public services need it and deserve it a lot more than lawyers do …

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hereby pronounce this SLCC a big fuggin failure !

and yes Peter I agree they should repay that 2mill !

Anonymous said...

I'm not critical of your aims, Peter as I too think this slcc is a waste of space and money but what can we replace it with if the legal profession are so resistant to external regulation ?

Anonymous said...

used to play a game like that at school - it was called 'pass the parcel' !

Anonymous said...

Where is the deferential hootsmon's version ? lol

Anonymous said...

"We received 3,355 enquiries during the nine month period, and of these, a small proportion were dealt with as complaints under the 2007 Act. The majority were registered by the SLCC, but were dealt with under old powers because the complaint originated prior to our opening on 1 October 2008.

"The majority of complaints were referred to the relevant professional body with the SLCC able to investigate how the professional body dealt with the complaint but not the actual complaint"

Just as you said Peter,a talking shop.

Lets shut this monster down folks.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 3.51pm

Yes, indeed ...

# Anonymous @ 4.06pm

Regulation and discipline must be taken away from the legal profession, and this is why this SLCC 'half way house' where they handle service but not conduct complaints, do not handle disciplinary measures, and refuse to look at complaints or cases pre 1st October 2008, does not work.

A fully independent regulator with no ties remotely to the legal profession must be introduced to protect consumers of legal services in Scotland, and the Which? consumer group recently called for the same.

If the legal profession maintain resitance to independent regulation, it must be imposed.

# Anonymous @ 4.13pm

.. remember it well .. although I think the SLCC would win it hands down ...

# Anonymous @ 4.29pm

Yes, I agree ...

Anonymous said...

Forgive me for saying so but anyone who thrives or profits from suicides should be buried alive.

If this had been lawyer suicides (no loss there) would never have heard the end of it but because its clients there isn't one bloody mention by Irvine and her mob.

Disgusting and why the f*ck is Eileen Masterman getting £1350 per week to pass off complaints back to the Law Society ??????

SLCC IS A DISGRACE TO SCOTS EVERYWHERE

Anonymous said...

Whoever admitted to the £1.5 million surplus must be cringing now !

PAY BACK THE TAXPAYER NOW ! WE LOST OUR COTTAGE HOSPITAL WHILE THESE LAWYERS KEEP MILLIONS IN THEIR POCKETS !

Anonymous said...

A predictable set of circumstances which I seem to have read in the Herald you said would happen.

The SLCC should be required to pay back the public money it received and I commend you for pursuing this point.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

This quango should be called the Scottish Con Artist Complaints Commission because that's all they are.Con artists.

Anonymous said...

This is a thoroughly deplorable situation where a body created to investigate lawyers passes all the complaints back to the Law Society.

I also feel they should be made to pay back the money owed to taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

I think the SLCC are paying the price for their remarkable arrogance but as Peter points out the commission isn't much good anyway, is it Jane.

Anonymous said...

+1 for asking them to pay back the money !

Anonymous said...

Little doubt now the SLCC should be consigned to the dustbin.

Anonymous said...

Good posting as always Peter.You have exposed their treachery against all clients of solicitors.I hope they are forced to pay back all that money now we know they have done nothing but twiddle their thumbs since 2007

Anonymous said...

My conscience would prevent me from working for an organisation that sanctioned or covered up suicide so there must be monsters at work in the Law Society/slcc

Anonymous said...

the SNP have ruined anybody's chance of getting a fair hearing against their lawyer I bet MacAskill did it all on purpose to help his lawyer pals out

Anonymous said...

The only good that has come of this is that report on the suicides but even then they tried to bury it.
Also I think simply passing all the complaints back to the Law Society shows them to be just as crooked - maybe it was all arranged from the beginning.

No one should trust them again

Anonymous said...

Clearly you are the expert on regulation Peter so what do you think caused the SLCC to fail ?

Anonymous said...

Good one Peter expose them for what they are BLOODY CROOKS
and what do you think of Nicola Sturgeon trying to get some benefits crook off the hook from jail ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8509157.stm

Minister intervenes in fraud case

Scotland's deputy first minister has written a letter of support for a man who could be jailed over benefit fraud.

Nicola Sturgeon asked the court to consider "alternatives to a custodial sentence" in the case of Abdul Rauf.

The 60-year-old, who is a constituent of Ms Sturgeon, defrauded £80,000 from the Department of Work and Pensions.

Labour said she had made an "appalling error of judgement" and should resign. The SNP said her representations on behalf of a constituent were routine.

Glasgow Sheriff Court heard how Rauf admitted failing to declare a property in Newington, Edinburgh, worth £200,000 on his application for income support.

If the facts of the case are as they appear and Nicola Sturgeon made such an appalling error of judgement she must resign
Iain Gray MSP
Scottish Labour leader

He subsequently received £650 a month in rent while he claimed the benefits between 2001 and 2006.

At the same time he was living in a £400,000 house in Glasgow's Maxwell Park area.

When the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) later discovered that he owned the Edinburgh property Rauf said he did not declare it as it had "slipped my mind".

Defence advocate Donald Findlay said his client would be able "to make full restitution to the government department involved" through the sale of one of his two properties.

He also said Rauf was in poor health and produced a letter of support from Nicola Sturgeon.

Sentence call

In the letter, the MSP states: "Mr Rauf has accepted his wrong doing and has experienced the consequences of it through the effect on his health, the distress caused to his family and the impact on his standing in his community."

Ms Sturgeon said he has already paid £27,000 of the outstanding balance to the DWP and will settle the remainder by selling property.

She concludes: "He and his wife are anxious that a custodial sentence may be imposed by the court and of the effect this will have on Mr Rauf's health and the impact on family life.

"I would appeal to the court to take the points raised here into account and consider alternatives to a custodial sentence."

Sheriff Alan MacKenzie told Rauf that a jail term was "at the forefront" of his mind but said he would defer sentence for three months and released him on bail.

Political opponents, however, have questioned Ms Sturgeon's judgement in becoming involved in the case.

'Judgement error'

Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: "If the facts of the case are as they appear and Nicola Sturgeon made such an appalling error of judgement she must resign.

"Last week she was selling access to raise funds for the SNP. Now she is prepared to give a character reference for a convicted fraudster."

A spokesman for the SNP described Mr Gray's call as "absurd", "beneath contempt" and an "extraordinarily ill-judged attack".

He said: "Nicola Sturgeon represented her constituent entirely properly and appropriately as the local MSP - as all MSPs are obliged to do under the parliamentary code.

"This individual had already admitted his guilt, and Nicola Sturgeon acted fully in accordance with her duties by advising the court that Mr Rauf has health problems, and therefore appropriately requested that his ill-health and impact on family life be taken into account when the court passed its sentence."

Anonymous said...

Imagine all the time that has went into making the slcc Law Society mk2 which Peter exposes very well and consistently !

Just goes to show no matter how smart these people thin they are there is always a way to expose their corruption and well done to Peter for taking on the profession that claims to represent the law when really they are using the law against us !

Good work Peter God Bless you !

Anonymous said...

Both your recent postings seem to refer to the same person just in another job and the big surprise is still no justice for anyone with a complaint against a lawyer.Now what a surprise there !

Where are the bloody newspapers on this scandal ?

Anonymous said...

Very depressing to read this Mr Cherbi as I have written to the slcc about a complaint and still no reply after 4 weeks.They sound as bad as the Law Society so what is the point of them ?

Anonymous said...

"Just goes to show no matter how smart these people thin they are there is always a way to expose their corruption and well done to Peter for taking on the profession that claims to represent the law when really they are using the law against us"!
====================================
I totally agree, those in the professions are not as smart as they would have us believe. Mr Douglas Mill for example forced to resign for his dishonesty at the Justice 2 Committee meeting.

Peter is doing a great job.

Anonymous said...

Eileen Masterman was just as bad at the RCIS so no surprise to me she wound up at this quango protecting lawyers.I'm sure she also worked at the Law Society in some capacity so you should also check that out.

Anonymous said...

"This bill is a mess" said Linda Costelloe-Baker before she left her post as Legal Services Ombudsman.

Parliamentarians waffled on about the need for a period of 'bedding in' while the Law Society was no doubt pleased to see it implemented as it allowed them to continue with 'business as usual'.

Almost two years and £2million pounds of taxpayers money later Costelloe-Baker's prediction has come true.

Anonymous said...

I put a complaint into the slcc last October and all they have done so far is tell me it has to go back to the Law Society.
Obviously Jane Irvine doesnt want to hear my late mother's solicitor has taken all her bank account cash and I fully expect the Law Society to let him off the hook.

I think we should all be doing more than just writing in complaints,how about protests outside the slcc every day and hunger strikes or demos ?

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments so far.

# Anonymous @ 1.04pm

Yes, Linda Costelloe Baker has been proved correct, and the Law Society have used the [willing] SLCC to further their aims.

# Anonymous @ 1.32pm

I agree. I understand "Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers" hold regular protests at the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland.

It may well be worth contacting them via their website http://www.sacl.info.

You (and anyone in similar circumstances) can also contact me with further details of your case and I can publicise it if you like.

It seems to me the SLCC could do with a good dose of media attention and parliamentary scrutiny as it is failing to serve the public, on any level, given the fact the Scottish Government's Justice Department have (in the words of some of their own staff) allowed this quango "too slack a leash".

Anonymous said...

Scotland's deputy first minister has written a letter of support for a man who could be jailed over benefit fraud.
=====================================
Good afternoon Nicola,

Can I suggest that you put effort into protecting the public from members of the legal profession instead or making a massive faux pas, by supporting a benefit fraudster.

You should know better with your legal training, have you helped any of your constituents who have been ripped off by your colleagues in the SLCC or Law Society? Of course not Nicola, you look after your own.

Anonymous said...

lol I would be quite flattered if one of my clients committed suicide over me !

Anonymous said...

Why has Irvine spent a year at the slcc doing sod all if she was in the same position at the slso for all those years ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

lol I would be quite flattered if one of my clients committed suicide over me !

4:21 PM

I wouldn't.

If you are a lawyer you are lucky,there are many people willing to help you off yourself.A client has no one to turn to because all your lawyer friends have ruined their life.I hope you rot in hell.

Anonymous said...

I for one, think the SLCC should fully repay the public purse as hospitals & public services need it and deserve it a lot more than lawyers do …

Me too - go for it Peter !

Anonymous said...

Very impressive blog Peter.You certainly don't pull your punches against these lawyers !
Pity you don't have a column in a newspaper - its people like you the public need to tell things as they are instead of all the usual bollocks we read these days.

Keep up the good work (I'm sure you will)

Anonymous said...

This mob sound like a right bunch of horrible characters.Just the type who would argue the deaths at Deepcut were suicides and Dr Kelly's non-suicidal roam in the woods.

Horrible characters the lot of them.Why do we put up with these miserable idiots protecting crooks ?

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter just been reading your latest.I think its fantastic the detail you get into about lack of justice when it comes to chasing up a no good lawyer.

How much money has the SLCC taken so far and not done anything to help anyone ?

Anonymous said...

Very interesting as always Peter.I'm glad the SLCC are now known for the fraud they are but someone will have to go in and clean it up now.Fancy the task do you ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 3.44pm

Good point about Ms Sturgeon's representation on behalf of her 'constituent' ...

How unusual the supporting claims of Mr Salmond, as we are usually told MSPs cannot become involved in court cases.

I wonder if Ms Sturgeon would write a letter of representation for the family of a suicide victim sent to his death by one of the Law Society's current directors ?

# Anonymous @ 4.59pm

Yes I agree ... Jane Irvine has served in various regulatory roles for many years, and the SLCC is staffed by staff from the former Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, and former Law Society Client Relations staff ... so this begs the question why is the SLCC beset with ineptitude & incompetence ?

# Anonymous @ 8.24pm

Thanks. Well, if they want it, they can print it, as long as its not hacked about just because the Law Society doesn't want the public to know ...

# Anonymous @ 8.55pm

I agree with your comments ...

# Anonymous @ 9.33pm

Total receipts to the SLCC to this date, will be around £6.5 million - that includes two years of complaints levy and £2 million from the taxpayer.

We are two years on and even after raking in all that money, the SLCC have done nothing for consumers and nothing for the legal profession (in terms of cleaning up its image, failures to handle complaints etc). The SLCC have however, paid themselves huge salaries & met expenses claims from Board members up to £15,000 or so each year.

It almost sounds more like a money laundering operation to me, rather than a regulator of the legal profession ... and makes you think how bad it must have been under the Law Society !

# Anonymous @ 10.25pm

No, the SLCC has become the pig's ear of regulators .. and one can't make a silk purse out of it, no matter how hard anyone may try.

I think the SLCC is finished, it has no crediblity, and I would not advise consumers to trust it.

Which? have called for a fully independent regulator to be created .. which means they don't think the SLCC is that 'independent' regulator ... I'd like to see the same.

Anonymous said...

No doubt about it you know your stuff Mr Cherbi.I too think the SLCC should be scrapped and also be made to pay back all the public money it received.

Anonymous said...

Time will equate Scottish lawyers with Nazi extremists. They are a very ruthless sinister profession.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

lol I would be quite flattered if one of my clients committed suicide over me !

4:21 PM
-------------------------------------
You are a fool, your dead clients relatives may make you meet your maker, lawyer Untermenschen.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Ms Sturgeon would write a letter of representation for the family of a suicide victim sent to his death by one of the Law Society's current directors ?
=====================================
Hi Peter, I wonder if she has ever caused any client suicides?

Anonymous said...

£6.5 million is a staggering amount of money to throw away on complaints against lawyers,and complaints that go nowhere by the looks of it.

How are they spending the money exactly ?

Anonymous said...

I think the SLCC is finished, it has no crediblity, and I would not advise consumers to trust it.


CORRECT BUT ALSO THE SCOTTISH LEGAL PROFESSION HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.

Anonymous said...

Complaining about a lawyer to the SLCC, or Law Society, is the same as complaining to the lawyers mother, the motherly instinct takes over.

Anonymous said...

Someone said in the comments earlier they wouldn't work for anyone who concealed information about suicides.

I agree.Neither would I.What kind of people work at this quango who do nothing when they hear people are dead because of issues they know about but do nothing about ?

This is really really sick conduct from people in public office.

Anonymous said...

DISGUSTING group of people I have been writing to the SLCC for months about my complaint and they only told me last week it now has to go to the Law Society because they cant handle it.

VERY DISGUSTED BY THE WHOLE PROCESS THEY SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN

Anonymous said...

MacAskill allowed this to happen to protect his lawyer buddies

Anonymous said...

He said: "Nicola Sturgeon represented her constituent entirely properly and appropriately as the local MSP - as all MSPs are obliged to do under the parliamentary code.

WELL NICOLA WE DO NOT SEE YOU HELPING VICTIMS OF YOUR CROOKED COLLEAGUES. THE SNP WILL TAKE SCOTLAND TO THE ABYSS. SCOTS REMEMBER MISS STURGEON PROTECTS BENEFIT FRAUDSTERS. PERHAPS THE MAN SHE WANTS LEINENCY FOR KNOWS SOMETHING POLITICALLY DAMAGING.

Anonymous said...

I got a call telling me to read your website as I have complained to the SLCC about my solicitor who I found out had not been advertising our house for sale yet billed us for 2 years advertising.Found out when I asked my cousin to phone in showing interest but someone at his office said there was no such house on their books.2 days after that I got the bill with a demand it be paid in 7 day s or else.Sent the complaint in 3 months ago and still waiting on them deciding if they can look at it.Useless

Anonymous said...

Definitely a bunch of con artists as someone else said - they should all be sacked.

Out of interest do you know what kind of expenses this lot get ?

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments on this article, and there will be more revelations on the SLCC and their millions in surplus funds this coming week.

# Anonymous @ 1.44pm

Could you contact me with details of your case please.

# Anonymous @ 8.25pm

Around £135K per year since the SLCC has been in operation (two years of expenses claims so far)

Anonymous said...

LAWYERS ENJOY RUINING CLIENTS, IT SERVES THEIR POWER HUNGRY NEEDS.

Anonymous said...

THE SLCC IS DOING THE JOB MR MACASKILL WANTS IT TO DO. IT IS A LAW SOCIETY FRONT, JUST LIKE THE PERSUERS PANEL. SLCC STAFF HAVE NO INTENTION OF MAKING LIFE HARD FOR THE CRIMINALS THEY CALL SCOTLANDS LEGAL PROFESSION.

IN POLITICS THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES AGAINST EXCESSIVE EXECUTIVE POWER, NOT SO IN THE LEGAL FIELD. HARDLY A JUSTICE SYSTEM THEN.