Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission demand judge’s husband’s insults against solicitors clients be shielded from FOI investigation

SLCCScottish Legal Complaints Commission censored documents to protect top judge’s husband’s anti-public insults. CONTINUING REVELATIONS OF AN ANTI-CLIENT POLICY at Scotland’s legal complaints regulator – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have led to the SLCC demanding key documents revealing a series of insults against Scots consumers made by one of its lawyer board members David Smith, the husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith, be withheld from release in an investigation currently being carried out by Scotland’s Freedom of Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

Kevin Dunion Information Commissioner ScotlandScotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion. FOI Commissioner Kevin Dunion was asked to investigate the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission over a Freedom of Information response which contained heavily blacked out, yet readable details of insults & tirades by the SLCC’s board members against consumers, individuals, and solicitors clients who had been invited by the Commission to take part in the first ever external investigation into the infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy & Guarantee Fund, operated by the Law Society of Scotland & Insurers Marsh & Royal Sun Alliance, the purpose of which is to compensate victims of ‘crooked lawyers’ but which in reality rarely ever pays out to consumers.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s findings in their report on the Master Insurance Policy, carried out by the University of Manchester Law School, revealed as I reported earlier : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'.

The investigation by Mr Dunion, which has yet to reach a conclusion, has revealed significant amounts of documents released by the SLCC were so poorly censored that personal details of individuals, identifiable home addresses & contact information, all of which is firmly contrary to the practices of the Freedom of Information Act were easily readable to those in receipt of the documentation.

David Smith SLCC - Frequent FlyersSLCC Board member David Smith branded consumers as “Frequent flyers”. In one example document, Mr Smith, a lawyer member of the SLCC’s board, who formerly served with Edinburgh legal firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, said in censored but readable emails to the SLCC's now former Chief Executive Eileen Masterman, who resigned recently on grounds of ‘ill health’ : "I have read through the Report and it is quite clear that it is of only limited value because of time (and funding ?) constraints and the fact that the claimants interviewed were all frequent flyers." Mr Smith went onto repeat the insults further, stating : "I suspect that when we go public we will be seen by the claimant lobby and consumer organisations to have achieved nothing and that we have paid only lip service to our monitoring role. Conversely I think LSS and the profession will think we have achieved nothing as the research has only focussed on the frequent flyers who have longstanding grievances against LSS/the profession."

Mr Smith’s remarks against clients stemmed from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s findings in their report on the Master Insurance Policy, carried out by the University of Manchester Law School, which revealed as I reported earlier : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Realising the significant public humiliation of being revealed as an anti-consumer quango which appears more pro-lawyer than pro-client, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have made new demands to the FOI Commissioner’s office that it be allowed to extend the initial exemptions used to conceal the bitter insults by its own board members against the public under at least five more categories (sections 30(b)(ii), 30(c), 33(1)(b), 36(2) and 39(1) of FOISA), in an attempt to thwart any public backlash against its increasingly pro-lawyer policies which have ensured not one successful complaint outcome for a member of the public against a rogue lawyer, since the SLCC took up its remit ion 1 October 2008 at an accumulated cost to both the taxpayer & legal profession of well over £6.5 million.

A legal insider said today the SLCC ‘were desperate’ to prevent the censored information from becoming public knowledge, despite the fact the redactions undertaken by the SLCC could be read by all.

He said : “The SLCC are going all out on this one to protect the judge’s husband from public humiliation even though a anyone could tell from the tone of the documents the Commission has become more anti-client than ever.”

He continued : “People are beginning to notice outside the Commission there is a huge problem with the lawyer complement on the SLCC’s board, where several of its members have expressed unhelpful and insulting views against individuals. We all know these insults & rants translate to operational policy very easily but no one is allowed to talk about it openly. Personally I am in no doubt the Commission has become overly protective of the legal profession and is now failing to perform its function under the legislation which created it.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations said this morning : “We have long felt the inbuilt bias of the Law Society of Scotland’s regulation of complaints against solicitors would eventually transfer over to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which now seems to be the confirmed.”

“It appears the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission from the top down, hate the publoc. An organisation with such an overtly hostile approach to consumers does not deserve to command any confidence, respect or trust from members of the public."

He continued : "If, as seems to be the case from the FOI documents the SLCC’s board members feel so embittered against consumers who are in many cases, forced through the most appalling circumstances to approach the Commission for an investigation into a solicitor, these board members should hand over their regulatory duties to someone of a more balanced and less partisan approach."

"We would however prefer to see a fully independent regulator of legal services in Scotland which would address most of the SLCC’s problems.”

So far the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have made no official comment on the ongoing investigation into the badly redacted documents, however one member of the public who was identified, along with his address within some of the released papers which contained details of communications with the Scottish Government’s Finance Chief Mr John Swinney, said he would pursue the matter further, as the Commission had been negligent in their duty to handle FOI material in a responsible manner.

You can read just how effective the SLCC has been since 2008 as a regulator of complaints against solicitors, in my earlier reports HERE

The Freedom of Information Commissioner’s office is yet to make a ruling on this latest case involving the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

smacks of a cover up to me and yes you are right on the money as usual - Smith should go and do some frequent flying somewhere else

Anonymous said...

"I have read through the Report and it is quite clear that it is of only limited value because of time (and funding ?) constraints and the fact that the claimants interviewed were all frequent flyers.

That is a laugh, calling clients frequent flyers, lawyers are frequent liars. Never have people been so much of a scourge as these lawyer scumbags, the sooner the fit your coffin lids the better.

Anonymous said...

“The SLCC are going all out on this one to protect the judge’s husband from public humiliation even though a anyone could tell from the tone of the documents the Commission has become more anti-client than ever.”
===================================
This is good Peter, it demonstrates how much they love their lawyer colleagues. Where is Masterman? Is the stress of overseeing a cohort of criminals too much for her? She won't be missed although I have no doubt she will crawl out of the woodwork again, perhaps in the Law Society.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission should call the FOI act The Freedom of Selected Information Act?

They leave no stone unturned in their determination to protect lawyers. People with no legal rights against an omnipotent profession like lawyers is a scandal in this day and age. Good work Peter, they are horrified by the bad publicity, these lawyers cannot comprehend what natural justice is about, they are fascists.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic stuff Peter.I can read through all that black ink as if it isnt there !

Fuck the SLCC and their expenses claiming bastards that think we are frequent flyers.How many fucking frequent flying miles does Smith and his wife do at taxpayers expenses ??

Anonymous said...

"If, as seems to be the case from the FOI documents the SLCC’s board members feel so embittered against consumers who are in many cases, forced through the most appalling circumstances to approach the Commission for an investigation into a solicitor, these board members should hand over their regulatory duties to someone of a more balanced and less partisan approach."

Well said, Balanced is the key word here, these people have mental health problems, they expect clients to take all this abuse and get upset when we want an end to self regulation. The legal system in Scotland is nothing short of institutionally corrupt, its practitioners wonder why clients are fighting and the pressure groups are there. People who have had their way too long cannot stomach their dirty linen being exposed. It is madness to think any member of the public can ever trust a lawyer. Scum every one of them, who commit crimes against clients because they know their backs are covered by their protectors, not regulations. Lawyers are NOT regulated, the SLCC and Law Society are protection rackets nothing else.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Dunion will also be having kittens you published all this.Meanwhile the SLCC look like a bunch of people hating criminals and not likely to recover from that perception any time soon.

Anonymous said...

"If, as seems to be the case from the FOI documents the SLCC’s board members feel so embittered against consumers who are in many cases, forced through the most appalling circumstances to approach the Commission for an investigation into a solicitor, these board members should hand over their regulatory duties to someone of a more balanced and less partisan approach."

Yes but whoever they get will just be compromised again by the Law Society.The point here is people like Smith talk the way they do because they know they will always get away with it.They have bodies such as the Law Society to back them up all the time.Not until you remove the Law Society from existence will anyone ever be able to trust a lawyer again.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

oh yes and we just know Kevin Dunion will steam tothe rescue as the FOI commissioner is as honest as the day is long lol

probably best you published it first so we get to know about it before the 200 page report that buries it to protect Lady Smith's hubby from certain disgrace

Anonymous said...

The SLCC is a mess, maintaining the legal profession's self regulation by populating its board and staff with Law Society glocve puppets and former employees.

It is the first quango which must go.

Anonymous said...

The FOI Commissioner's position is a Government appointment, guess which way he is going to jump?

Don't suppose you have heard anything back from Mr Dunnion about the heavily redacted information you were given Peter, while the identical information was presented uncensored to a separate applicant?

Anonymous said...

If people have been identified because of poor censorship I hope they sue the SLCC for every penny!

Anonymous said...

Fury as sheriff spares toilet spy-cam lawyer from jail

Sep 10 2008 By John Ferguson

A PERVERT lawyer who filmed female colleagues on the loo was spared jail yesterday after a controversial sheriff branded his actions "clumsy".

Peter Fitzpatrick used a video camera hidden in a pile of cardboard boxes to spy on the ladies toilet.

But Stirling sheriff Margaret Gimblett told Fitzpatrick his offence sounded like "a cry for help".
-----------------------------------
These people think there is something wrong with clients? I wonder what Fitzpatrick knows about Gimblett? Freaks in powerful occupations.

Anonymous said...

Lawer struck off after embezzling £1315 from law firm

Apr 8 2008

A FORMER solicitor who embezzled a four-figure sum from the firm where she worked has been struck off.

Zosia Fraser, 30, will never be able to practice in Scotland again after the ruling from the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. (NOTE LAWYERS CAN STEAL CLIENTS MONEY BUT NOT FROM THEIR OWN, TYPICAL LAW SOCIETY JUSTICE).

Her actions were branded "disgraceful and dishonourable".

Last year, she was given 160 hours of community service after admitting embezzling £1315 from Dundee solicitors Muir, Myles & Laverty between April 2003 and June 2004.

She had continued to work at another practice for two years after the incidents.

But the Council of the Law Society of Scotland took her case to the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal. (DID THEY, BUT THEY WOULD NOT PROSECUTE PETER CHERBI'S LAWYER ANDREW PENMAN, AND THESE SELF REGULATORS WONDER WHY THEIR IS MASSIVE HOSTILITY AGAINST THEM, FUCK ME THEY NEED SECTIONED).

Tribunal vice chairman Kenneth Robb said in his judgment: "The respondent's conduct is regrettably disgraceful and dishonourable and totally contrary to the ethical standards of the profession. WELL MR ROB ONE LAW FOR LAWYERS WHO STEAL FROM OTHER LAWYERS AND COVER UPS WHEN THE VICTIM IS A CLIENT, SELF REGULATION IN ACTION.

"The tribunal considers the respondent's conduct brings the profession into such disrepute she cannot continue as a lawyer." THE PROFESSION IS IN THE GUTTER, DISREPUTE IS A LAUGH.

Fraser has not lodged an appeal against the decision.

Anonymous said...

Every time a lawyer ruins a client we get stronger.

Anonymous said...

SPSO Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

I think this lot are as corrupt as lawyers Peter.

Anonymous said...

These board members appear to be a bunch of condescending know-it-alls with chips on their shoulders.Just the ticket for protecting serial criminals from the legal profession..

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

oh yes and we just know Kevin Dunion will steam tothe rescue as the FOI commissioner is as honest as the day is long lol

probably best you published it first so we get to know about it before the 200 page report that buries it to protect Lady Smith's hubby from certain disgrace

19 May 2010 21:01

All the stops will be pulled out to protect the judge's husband.I would put money on it.

Anonymous said...

David Smith has been a solicitor for many years.I think we can now safely conclude this is what he thought of many of his clients especially since he wrote it twice !
How anyone like that can get on a regulator just shows the whole regulation process is corrupt as well as those who are put on these regulators.

Anonymous said...

I dont see how the phrase "Frequent Flyer" falls into any category for redaction.they are clearly doing it just to protect this guy and proves you correct once again they are all crooked!

Anonymous said...

Self regulation did not work for bankers, it did not work for MPs, and it does not work for the Scottish legal profession.

Politicians must END this injustice NOW!

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised by this very much.Mr Smith will live in a world where ordinary people dont really matter very much hence the "frequent flyer" jibes dished out to everyone.
We all know these people are rotten to the core anyway because of where they are.Put it this way - you dont get on something like a legal complaints regulator if you are totally honest and dedicated to public service !

Anonymous said...

Self regulation is the engine that protects the corrupt and makes clients and patients the victims of a bent system with no legal redress. The authorities cannot prosecute a precious lawyer, doctor, accountant can they? The traitors who are MSP's bend with Law Society threats and ignore the vulnerable. I beg the public, never trust and of the professions mentioned above. They are some of the most evil people, and you try and get legal redress against the, THE LEGAL SYSTEM SHUTS DOWN ON YOU.

Those who police their own activities are criminals, and so are the politicians who fear and are rewarded by the Law Society.

SELF REGULATION, A COMPLAINTS SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES CORRUPTION BECAUSE AS THEY SEE IT, A LAWYER, DOCTOR, ACCOUNTANT IS MORE VALUABLE TO THE SYSTEM THAN JOE BLOGGS. SCUM ALL OF THEM.

Anonymous said...

ALL LITIGATION LAWYERS & DOCTORS

Try this one for size:

A Doctor is negligent, and allows your family member to die.

You engage lawyers to sue the Doctor & the local Health Authority for negligence.

But unbeknown to you, your lawyer is insured by the same insurers, who insure the Health Authority, and possibly even the Doctor ... How about that ?

This conflict of interest ensures that even when patients have died no damages are payable.

Medical consultants have Legal Privilege as expert witnesses (this means they cannot be sued for giving an expert opinion).

If a doctor has been negligent and killed a patient is the Medical Consultant expert witness going to blame that doctor?

Your litigation lawyer is insured by the same company as these doctors.

They will milk legal aid, a cover up will then happen and the negligent doctor is in the clear and so are the insurers.

I hope no one ends up in this position because in my opinion these people are simply evil.

THIS SET UP WILL MOST PROBABLY BE THE SAME INTERNATIONALLY.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion self lawyers are the enemies of the public. If there was a trial of a black man by the Klu Klux Klan, and the latter were the jurors, there would be outrage.

The terrorists and Nazi's who occupy the Law Society SLCC are the same, but so far they use blocking tactics against the public not violence, (excluding the attack on Mr Cummings).

I would like to ask Scotland's litigation lawyers this question. How can you represent clients when you and the clients employer are insured by Royal Sun Alliance.

You are also insured by the same company as Scotland's Health authorities and their medical staff. How can you sue doctors and health authorities for negligence if patients die when you are all insured by Royal Sun Alliance, ie you lawyers insurers would be paying the damages.

I expect an explanation, if none is forthcoming I will assume the above is 100% correct and you are taking on cases to make money when someone has died as a result of medical negligence.

Please note I mean no disrespect to people who have endured or are enduring this. You lawyers, doctors all share the same insurers, so you are robbing the taxpayer of Legal Aid money for negligence cases you cannot possibly win. You lot are not only corrupt, you are evil encarnate.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland hit the streets first in this public relations war .. with the formation of a Pursuers Panel .. which consists of several firms of lawyers who can take on negligence claims against other lawyers ... so, you could theoretically go to one of these legal firms named in the Pursuers Panel list .. and get them to sue another lawyer.
===================================
Here is the dilema for the Persuers Panel. They will never persue your crooked lawyer. I spoke to one of them. The reality is that lawyers are a network with powerful reciprocal bonds of loyalty and trust, with each other and their Insurers Royal Sun Alliance. If the persuers panel could bring themselves to sue your crooked lawyer, the persuers panels insurers would be paying any damages you were awarded. The Scottish Legal system is corrupt, from law school to Lord Hamilton with the same connections to policymakers, yes your MSP's another network many of whome are in bed with the Law Society. It is simply a legal dictatorship.

Anonymous said...

Toelong to a political commumity one must have full citizenship rights. Aristotle argued that full citizenship was critical to equality.

Victims of crooked lawyers Mr Smith do not have full citizenship because they do not have legal political equality with the legal profession. People who cannot get a lawyer to sue another lawyer on their behalf are on the legal periphery. Therefore I conclude that lawyers are not interested in equality, only keeping themselves squeaky clean through that criminal organisation The Law Society of Scotland. Self regulation = inequality, injustice and the protection of criminals who belong in Saughton. Self regulators are the masters on inequality. The law is an ass. A justice system must treat all citizens equally if it has to have any legitimacy, and the Scottish Legal System is simply an evolutionary dictatorship.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article so far ...

A source close to the SLCC has indicated this morning there was to have been a shake up at the quango, but as the appointments of the board members were made on a 2-3 year initial posting, there appears to be no way to relieve these individuals of their posts, which probably explains why Margaret Scandal kept her position even after the media exposes on her "Called to the Bars" antics ...

Over the course of this week I have also been contacted by several individuals worried about the state of their complaints with the SLCC, who appear to be doing nothing other than covering up for the Law Society & rogue lawyers who are the subject of many complaints ...

I would advise no one to trust the SLCC. They have no credibility and from the actions & words of their board members we can easily conclude they have no willingness to help members of the public against 'crooked lawyers' ...

Anonymous said...

So they tried to get rid of the wasters but they wouldn't move.I bet the Law Society backed them 100% yet the same Law Society were arguing to get the complaints levy down (which has now happened)

I'm sure Mr Smith will also be wanting to hang onto his fat expenses claims account just as Scanlan and the rest of them enjoy at everyone else's expense.

Anonymous said...

Seems quite dirty and as someone else already observed I dont think "frequent flyers" falls into the censorship category although obviously it is more to do with Lady Smith being the wife of this guy as well as him being a lawyer at
Shepherd & Wedderburn.I will make a point of never using their frequent flyers service.

Anonymous said...

"A source close to the SLCC has indicated this morning there was to have been a shake up at the quango, but as the appointments of the board members were made on a 2-3 year initial posting, there appears to be no way to relieve these individuals of their posts"

Someone will be put on the rack for giving you that tip Pete !

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 21 May 2010 15:27

That's what front organisations like the SLCC are for ... holding onto people who protect those they are supposed to be there to regulate ...

I'm sure lawyers are quite happy to pay for the SLCC's board members to claim over 135K a year in expenses ... after all, they are doing their job .. whitewashing complaints against the most crooked of the legal profession ...

# Anonymous @ 21 May 2010 16:20

I agree .. and I certainly wont be recommending Mr Smith's former law firm either ...

# Anonymous @ 21 May 2010 17:21

Possibly .. but the "frequent flyers" jibe is pretty mild compared with other information passed to me ... some comments from the board members which will remain unpublished for now due to their source might make one think these people would prefer to shoot any client who dares write in with a complaint against their solicitor ...

Anonymous said...

Possibly .. but the "frequent flyers" jibe is pretty mild compared with other information passed to me ... some comments from the board members which will remain unpublished for now due to their source might make one think these people would prefer to shoot any client who dares write in with a complaint against their solicitor .

I believe they would like to execute us all Peter. Great work.

Anonymous said...

You seem very well plugged into this SLCC Mr Cherbi.I wonder what Jane Irvine thinks reading all these exposures.Do you want to send her any message ?

Anonymous said...

I thought as much.If this had been anything else these condescending reptiles would be forced out but because its controlled by the legal profession they will stay in office until they're in coffins.

Sick stuff.No wonder people hate lawyers because clearly the lawyers hate people.

Anonymous said...

www.sacl/info state

Solicitors are members of the Law Society of Scotland and require a practising certificate to work as a lawyer. Of 10,000 Scottish solicitors currently in practice, many have criminal convictions for serious offences such as fraud, theft and forgery. An even greater number have received miniscule punishments for serious professional misconduct.

Advocates are senior lawyers who belong to the Faculty of Advocates and are commonly referred to as 'Junior Counsel' and 'Senior Counsel' (also known as QCs). Many go on to become sheriffs and judges.

MSPs are members of the Scottish Parliament and several are lawyers who still work "on the side", milking the system for all they can get.

Sheriffs are either senior solicitors or QCs, and are selected by the Judicial Appointments Board to preside in one of Scotland's 51 Sheriff Courts.

Judges are the most powerful people in Scotland - and the least accountable. We strive to redress this imbalance by publishing forensic analysis of the Judiciary's involvement in the cover-up of widespread lawyer-criminality and professional misconduct.

Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SSDT) is our primary source of information on crooked lawyers. The Law Society 'prosecute' solicitors at the SSDT who they believe to be guilty of misconduct.

Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund purports to reimburse clients who have suffered pecuniary loss as a result of a solicitor's dishonesty. We hold a mountain of evidence to show that it does nothing of the sort.

Scotland's legal profession is self-regulating. This means that when a complaint is made against a lawyer it is a fellow lawyer who takes charge of the investigation. We contend that this system is open to widespread abuse.

Two Main Types of Offence....

Professional Misconduct can take many forms; such as a lawyer misappropriating clients' monies; deliberately misleading clients' or acting to protect their own legal interest in preference to their client's legal interest.

Inadequate Professional Service (IPS) is not considered to be as serious as professional misconduct and applies only to the law firm - not individual solicitors. In theory, IPS should relate to relatively minor professional failings, such as a failure to communicate effectively with a client. In reality though, serious professional misconduct is conveniently watered-down by the self-regulators to a charge of IPS, despite clear evidence of serious professional misconduct. Lawyers cannot be struck-off for IPS.

Penalties are....an absolute joke!

Censure is a formal telling-off. We know of many instances where a lawyer's misconduct may involve the misappropriation of many thousands of pounds, causing the client unpardonable stress and financial loss, but the crook will escape with this absolute joke of a penalty.

Fine the maximum is 10,000 pounds and we know of only THREE lawyers ever to be fined the maximum.

Practising Restriction this penalty is commonly used by the SSDT. In most instances a solicitor will be restricted to practising only as a Qualified Assistant (QA) for a couple of years. A QA must work under the supervision of a senior solicitor, usually a partner.

Striking Off is rarely used. There are lawyers on the Rogues Gallery who have criminal convictions for serious offences such as defrauding the Inland Revenue and Legal Aid Board - out of sheer greed. Incredibly, these wholly corrupt individuals managed to avoid being struck-off!

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 21 May 2010 19:07

A message ?

I the article is fairly clear ... and readers appear to have interpreted it correctly.

Perhaps "We have people everywhere ..." might do.

Anonymous said...

I like your message to the SLCC!

Anonymous said...

Very disturbing these people cannot be removed even when they conduct themselves in such a despicable manner

Anonymous said...

I used to work at the Scotsman and saw Peter many times in the paper.I think we all appreciate the likes of Peter's blog which has in itself caused a lot of issues to come to light no one would ever know about or sought to question.
Perhaps the irony is that in hounding the poor lad to death which several people at the Law Society decided to make it their business to do,they created someone who has benefited all of us including even a few in the legal world.
I for one am happy to see many issues the Scotsman started the ball rolling on continued through the work of people such as Peter Cherbi.
==================================
The above comment is from Peter's blog. This person is right, but I will add the suicides of clients caused by the Nazi Law Society of Scotland is testimony to how far these ruthless Nazi's torture people for profit. Lawyers are all scum, if they received the treatment they dish out there would have been bloodshed long ago.

There are comments on this website from lawyers condemning clients. Self regulation facilitates client torture by leaving someone with no legal remedy, desperate, under formidable pressure. A member of my family had their money cut because the doctor that did it was lying in her medical records. He had to stop the case going to court and the Glasgow lawyer who represented her allowed her money to be stopped. The reason, her employer was being sued for occupational injury but at the time we did not know the lawyer, GP and employer were all insured by the same company, so they would have paid the damages. The Hamilton doctor must still be working, corruption like this and everyone in authority did not want to know.

Motherwell Primary Care did nothing to this GP, so the moral of the story is simple, your GP can and will write anything in your medical records, because there is nothing to stop him or her.

Doctors can lie about you.

Lawyers can lie about you. Primary care will cover everything up, and so will the Law Society of Scotland. These people do not want the truth, they want to protect their members at all costs.

I warn others Peter, these bastards are as evil as the Nazi's but the ironic thing is they think they are not bad people. Trust no doctor or lawyer, they are pure scum.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tomsanguish.com/STH-Cover-Up-Strategy/C42-1-0.htm

STH Cover Up Strategy
Sheffield Teaching Hospital Trust has a Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts or CNST level 1 which is an indication of its Poor Quality Control and therefore High Risk status. Any Complaint has to be deflected!!!
........

Our NHS Complaint began with just asking why one nurse on one shift at the MacMillan Palliative Care Ward, Northern General Hospital, refused morphine on Thomas's penultimate day.

Then through research we found out that the Palliative Care Consultant on the MPCU failed to gradually increase the morphine drip, which is standard practice.

We asked for copies of the Medical Records 11/1/06 and the Sheffield Teaching Hospital Trust deliberately did not comply with the 'Access to Medical Records Act 1990'. Medical Records should be available upto 40 days after application.
90 days later and the Palliative Care Consultant said we couldn't have them. On attending the Medical Records office however at the Northern General Hospital the Records Clerk was most helpful and we obtained what we thought was a full set of Medical Records.


More on the website.

Anonymous said...

Contact us
If you'd like to e-mail us, please use our contact form below

TomsAnguish is a Support Group which has been set up by a group of NHS activists who have experience with the problematic NHS!

If you have had a problem with the NHS or the NHS Complaints procedure let us know.

If you have been appauled by the Standard of Care in NHS Hospitals or have views on Palliative Care or End of Life Care issues write to us.

You too may be concerned about Pain Management and Pain Control in the care of the dying. Euthanasia is another topic.

To deal with death and dying surely drugs that ease fear and suffering should be everyones human right!

Basic nursing care for all NHS nurses not to mention good Palliative Care/End of Life Care training is needed throughout the NHS!

Unfortunately you cannot train someone to have common sense and compassion!

Our E-mail address:- tomsanguish@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

"Our Aims and Values

We are committed to delivering services in line with our core aims & organisational values.
Our work is based on principles of independence, impartiality and accessibility".

Good afternoon Peter,

The above quote as you will realise is from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission website. If they want to demonstrate thay are acting for the consumer why are they trying to protect Mr Smith. I believe the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is corrupt to the core and is a shocking waste of money. It is incredulous how there people can claim they are independent with all of your reporting on them. The commission should be abolished, John Swinney should recoup the taxpayers money from the lawyers, and we set up an ebay style feedback system for clients. these people have only one ojbective, the protection of crooked lawyers.

Anonymous said...

When I feel bad because of the way this legal profession operate, I read Mr Cherbi's blog and it cheers me up. Thanks for your dedication and courage Mr Cherbi.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland, SLCC Scottish Lawyers, voilators of Human Rights, leaving people without legal redress because it will ruin a lawyer means these lawyer victim members of the public are treated differently. They therefore do not have full citizenship rights or human rights. Perhaps we should start wearing armbands declaring we have no legal rights. This is a political issue because we are denied legal rights.

Anonymous said...

Dear Professor Harper of Ross Harper

Like many law firms you have a litigation department. Are you a crooked lawyer? The reason I ask is that I know about the litigation scam Scotlands lawyers are using. You represent clients who have occupational injury and their employers insurers are Royal Sun Alliance. Why do you not tell clients that you cannot win their litigation cases? The reason is simple, your insurers under the infamous Law Society of Scotlands Master policy is also Royal Sun Alliance.

So ladies and gentlemen, Ross Harper solicitors and all Scottish solicitors will take your case on, and their doctors (Yes you will need medical reports are also insured by Royal Sun Alliance).

That is why your family doctor, consultants professor Harpers and all other law firms are crooks. THEY CANNOT SUE THEIR OWN INSURERS, BUT THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING IF YOU THE CLIENT WAS AWARDED DAMAGES FOR BEING INJURED AT WORK.

YOU GET LEGAL AID MONEY PROFESSOR HARPER AND YOU KNOW BEFORE THE CLIENT SIGNS THE LEGAL AID FORMS THEIR EMPLOYER WILL NEVER BE FOUND GUILTY IF INJURING THEIR EMPLOYEE.

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND THESE PROFESSIONS ARE CRIMINALS WHO ABUSE THE INJURED TO MAKE MONEY. PROFESSOR HARPERS LAW FIRM HAVE MADE A LOT OF MONEY THIS WAY AND I GUARANTEE NO EMPLOYEE HAS EVER RECEIVED DAMAGES. PERHAPS THE NEXT TIME YOUR LITIGATION TEAM HAVE A CLIENT WANTING TO SUE THEIR EMPLOYER YOU SHOULD SHOW THEM THIS LETTER PROFESSOR HARPER, YOU ARE CORRUPT BECAUSE NO EMPLOYEE CAN WIN DAMAGES WHEN YOUR INSURERS WILL BE PAYING THOSE DAMAGES.

Anonymous said...

Ken Clark is talking about Legal Aid cuts and quangos. Well John Swinney should cut civil legal aid here because the above letter to Ross Harper demonstrates it is a scam anyway.

Shut the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission too, it is a department of the Law Society. That would save a few million.

The Law Society is the hub of Scottish legal coverups, that needs smashed, and a truly independent regulator set up.

Anonymous said...

Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren on How Wall Street Got Away with Murder

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/capitalism-love-story/press/dvd-extras#extra-2

Have a look at this. The legal system is on the side of the banks, like the Scottish Parliament on the side of the Law Society.

Anonymous said...

I am still waiting for the SLCC to demand a copy of the Master Policy it is responsible for overseeing.

Some regulator!

Anonymous said...

Smith should be sacked and if Dunion doesn't act on this I will have ZERO faith in FOI ever again.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers being crooks is a direct result of Law Society coverups, SLCC coverups. The membership know only too well they have a cosy realtionship with politicians and therefore policymaking.

The rising dissent against the legal profession is conclusive evidence that these regulators are in fact protectors of their membership, and the Law Society and Commission have collectivley sent the reputation of every Scottish Law firm to the abyss. The day is approaching fast when the general public will regard lawyers for the twisted, greedy, ruthless people they are. The Douglas Mill episode demonstrated how lawyers investigating (that is a laugh) their own will never protect the public from what are criminals within a legal framework.

The poison from Mr Smith is more evidence that self regulation is incompatible with justice, and as long as it remains lawyers will never be seen as an honest group of people.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic blog Mr Cherbi.I've been reading all afternoon and in no doubt who should be in charge of investigating complaints against lawyers!

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) receives all complaints about legal practitioners in Scotland.

We operate independently of the legal profession and are impartial and accessible.

THE QUESTION THAT SPRINGS TO MIND IS HOW CAN THIS QUANGO BE INDEPENDENT IF IT HAS LAWYERS EMPLOYED THERE.

THE MASSIVE DISSENT ON MANY WEBSITES IN THE WESTERN WORLD ARE AN INDICATION THAT SELF REGULATION DOES NOT WORK.

SCOTLAND AGAINST CROOKED LAWYERS HAVE PICTURES OF CROOKED LAWYERS ON THEIR WEBSITE www.sacl/info

BEWARE OF ALL SELF REGULATORS, BECAUSE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS DOCTORS PROTECT DOCTORS, AND LAWYERS PROTECT LAWYERS ETC.

SELF REGULATION IS THE REASON WHY SOLICITORS FROM HELL EXISTS, BECAUSE IF COMPLAINTS WERE DEALT WITH FAIRLY INTERNET BASED DISSIDENTS WOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED THEIR PRESSURE GROUPS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk

Anonymous said...

Sick stuff. No wonder people hate lawyers because clearly the lawyers hate people.

Yes lawyers do hate people, but it is a love hate relationship. They hate clients but love their money, corrupt bastards, there are plenty of websites to prove that.

Mr Smith is clearly an immature human being if he puts forth abusive comments regarding people who are being abused by lawyers. A balanced person would be able to understand why clients detest the legal profession.

No lawyer will ever take legal action against the dissident websites because that would elevate the debate which would further errode public trust in Scotland's lawyers.

I do not know you Mr Smith but if I could ruin you financially would you accept that? Of course not, so please grow up because anti clients smears only reinforce the fact that SELF REGULATION ONLY WORKS FOR LAWYERS AND OTHER SELF REGULATORS. It is simply an abuse of power that will be crushed. Have a nice day eating your Rusks.

Anonymous said...

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION NOW ON THE SOLICITORS FROM HELL WEBSITE

http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk/index.php?listing=&option=com_directory&page=viewListing&lid=1617&Itemid=1

If you have complained to the SLCC put your experiences on solicitors from hell and Peter's blog. Victory to the dissidents. I am sure Mr Smith will not mind?

Anonymous said...

Just you remember Mr Smith those frequent flyers provide you frequent liars with your income, much of it illegally because you cover each others backs.

A statement like "frequent flyers" is a reflection of your prejudice and intellect. No wonder the Commissions reputation is in tatters but it is doing what Mr MacKaskill wants, protecting Scotland's lawyers.

You people are really warped because you struggle to accept that ruined clients will never accept lawyer corruption. If you can bring yourself to do so, ask yourself what you would do if I was your lawyer and you the frequent flyer? Talk about being thick? You are blinded by hatred and prejudice. Totally immature.

Anonymous said...

Good evening Peter, my nephew knows which site I am on before he visits me, because I check your site every day. Thank you for giving people a voice because I know only too well how the legal system totally shuts down, if a client wants justice against a lawyer. It is a prejudiced legal system that is an affront to justice, run by people who have no compunction in exploiting clients for profit.