Thursday, June 10, 2010

Clients must publicise complaints against lawyers 'to name & shame' or Law Society & ‘anti-client’ SLCC ‘will whitewash as usual’ say consumer groups

John G O Donnell Sunday Mail 19 April 2009Complaints against lawyers in Scotland ‘are whitewashed’ without media coverage. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC who are forced to complain about their solicitors were today reminded by consumer groups & law reform campaigners their complaints to the Law Society of Scotland and ‘anti-client’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, especially complaints involving the most serious issues such as fraud, embezzlement, theft, mishandling of wills etc.. stand a much better chance of being more thoroughly investigated if the media become involved and the case is well publicised, after a string of reports exposing crooked lawyers in the national media were reported to have helped along complaints made by clients of Scottish solicitors while also helping other members of the public fall victim to the same rogue lawyers.

The 4m Crooked Lawyer - Daily Record 1991Would you use a lawyer who stole £4million ? The Law Society did nothing until the media exposed the crooked lawyer. The publicity of naming & shaming ‘crooked lawyers’ – which has become common knowledge among many Scots who have been forced to deal with the extremely prejudiced anti-client complaints system operated by both the Law Society of Scotland and now the hapless Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been held up as an example by consumer officials for all clients who register complaints against their solicitors or law firms, in the firm belief based on firm evidence that media interest in complaints against solicitors speeds up investigations against ‘crooked lawyers’ while also drawing attention to the endemic problems of corruption within Scotland’s legal profession, and the legal profession’s unwillingness to regulate its own members unless headline grabbing stories begin to appear in the national or online media.

REVEALED - Top Lawyer at the centre of 12 negligence claimsBanned solicitor John G.O’Donnell is one of many lawyers in Scotland facing multiple negligence claims – would you use such a lawyer the Law Society seeks to protect ? After continual media coverage relating to the case of the banned-for-now solicitor John G. O’Donnell, which revealed more of the lurid world of Scottish legal regulators & major insurers conspiring to prolong & defeat financial claims made by ruined clients against hundreds of crooked lawyers still allowed to practice in Scotland, an official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations today urged anyone who has registered a complaint against their lawyer with the Law Society of Scotland or Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to come forward to the national media and publicise the details of their complaints, to protect themselves from any prejudice the legal profession show against investigating their complaint, and help protect others from falling victim to the same fate.

SLCC LAW SOCIETYLaw Society of Scotland & Scottish Legal Complaints Commission both branded prejudiced, anti-client by consumer groups & campaigners. The official said : “Both the Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have consistently demonstrated in thousands of complaints investigations they are too biased towards the legal profession to be of any benefit to members of the public who are placed in a position by their legal representatives of having to complain to either of these regulators.”

She continued : “I urge all those consumers who have made complaints to the Law Society of Scotland or SLCC to publicise their complaints along with the names of the solicitors & law firms involved to force the regulators to pay more attention to complaints rather than constantly seeking to cover up even the worst acts of their members against clients by doing nothing over the thousands of complaints made against members of the legal profession each year in Scotland.”

will photo stockFrauds against wills & executry estates are a favourite targets for lawyers who often get away with stealing from deceased clients after a Law Society ‘complaints whitewash’. A client whose complaint against his family lawyer has been with the Law Society for over two years with as yet no action after over £100,000 had gone missing from the client’s late mother’s will said the only way to get some justice against lawyers who steal is to go public and keep the pressure on the lawyer and the Law Society to do something.

He said : “Despite my complaint being watertight and the bank details showing the solicitor had taken the money which has now been shown to have ended up in his own law firm’s accounts to prop up his supposedly ailing law firm, nothing has been done two years later and I think the Law Society are just going to whitewash the whole thing. On top of that he has been allowed to practice all this time so god knows what he has been doing with other clients money.”

An individual who was formerly employed by an independent regulator of complaints against solicitors said he welcomed the call for members of the public to publicise their complaints against solicitors.

He said : “People who make complaints against their solicitors have no idea how biased & secretive the legal profession are when it comes to investigating their own.”

He continued : “Fully independent regulation of solicitors will only come with a steady stream of media attention to the issue highlighting the sheer numbers & similar types of complaints made by clients against identifiable solicitors & law firms. The Law Society & SLCC know this to be the case which is why both keep a lid of confidentiality on all complaints they receive.

"Having spent some of my employed life in the field of complaints regulation I would advise anyone making a complaint against a solicitor to seek media interest when they submit their complaint to the Law Society or Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.”

Ian Donnelly - Lawyer begs for sex with mum & girl of 11 - Daily RecordEven complaints which involve criminal allegations of a sexual nature against solicitors are buried by the legal profession unless media attention ensues. As media reports have already revealed, complaints or scandals involving members of the legal profession are not limited to financial matters as revelations of some complaints to the Law Society show members of the public have been forced to complain against inappropriate conduct of their solicitors, where in one shocking instance now coming to light, a married solicitor & father of two began pestering the young son of a client to attend clandestine meetings with a sexual intent. In this particular case, as yet unreported in the media, it appears the allegations have not been reported to the authorities by the Law Society, even though the solicitor concerned - a ‘leading partner’ in a famous Scottish law firm used by many of Scotland’s top businessmen, has faced similar allegations in the past of seeking inappropriate contact with children.

Scotsman coverage of some of the stories relating to Andrew PenmanMedia exposure of the Law Society’s efforts to protect crooked Kelso solicitor Andrew Penman led to long road to reform of complaints against Scottish solicitors. Admittedly in some cases, media coverage can take years to have any effect on a case, where in my own particular complaint, the Scotsman’s (of old) exposure of the Law Society of Scotland’s efforts to protect crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso from a prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, eventually led to many reforms of regulation of complaints against solicitors in Scotland.

james_nessLaw Society Council member James Ness prevented SSDT prosecution of Andrew Penman. While the media coverage in my own case did not change the Law Society’s cover up of the Penman case, nor did it resolve the issue of the senior Law Society Council members who halted the prosecution of Mr Penman before the Discipline Tribunal on everything from deceiving the Inland Revenue to Banks, the publicity on Andrew Penman & Stormonth Darling helped publicise many other serious complaints against rogue lawyers in Scotland, also helping a few members of the public to avoid publicly identified lawyers & law firms associated with complaints & corrupt practices, a lesson which should be learned by all.

MacAskill tight lippedJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill compromised SLCC & legislative reforms to complaints against solicitors. Lessons on reforming complaints against solicitors must also be learned, after witnessing the mess of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, considered by the Scottish Parliament in the summer of 2006, and eventually passed at the end of that year. The regulatory aims & reforms of the LPLA Act sadly now lie in dust, after the SNP minority administration which came into existence in May 2007, completely compromised most of the planned reforms of the LPLA Act, with the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill going onto appoint Law Society stooges to what was to have been an independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The SLCC as we all now know, has turned into little more than an anti-client front company for the Law Society itself, demonstrating well that lawyers cannot be involved in regulatory role against themselves in the future if reforms to regulation are to succeed in giving the public unrivalled consumer protection from Scotland’s notoriously poor legal services sector.

Scottish GovernmentThe Scottish Government are planning to approve the Law Society to continue regulating complaints in the new Legal Services Bill. Despite the infamous history of corrupt self regulation of the legal profession in Scotland, where lawyers have covered up for lawyers for decades, the Scottish Government are planning to allow the Law Society of Scotland as an ‘approved regulator’ to oversee complaints against even non-lawyers in Scotland’s ‘expanded’ legal services market to be ushered in after the passage of the Legal Services Bill, once aimed at expanding access to justice in Scotland but now viewed as little more than a bill aimed at consolidating the legal profession’s grip on Scots access to legal services. Such plans will only increase the cover ups associated with lawyers regulating themselves, while it is likely the non-lawyers will face more harsh treatment in an attempt by the legal profession to quash any competition in the legal services sector.

So to all those seeking advice on whether it would be best to publish your complaints against your solicitors before going to the Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the answer is a firm YES .. however, if you do, seek out a newspaper with a decent circulation who will investigate and report on the story. If readers want recommendations on which newspaper to approach, please ask questions in the comments section.

Remember readers, wider publication of your complaint against your solicitor will help the progress of your own complaint as well as help to prevent others from falling victim to the same actions taken against you by your own solicitor, who may well have done the same to many other clients ... You can all help end the cycle of 'crooked lawyers, crooked self regulation' by wider publication of complaints against solicitors.


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

It has been mentioned more than once in both the blog and comments sections that much of the media has been effectively silenced by the Law Society - perhaps online coverage would be a more realistic option?

Anonymous said...

I'm sure your regular readers may find this a good idea however as a solicitor I think it grossly unfair to publish complaints before they have been investigated by the Law Society.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 15:31

There are some newspapers who will pick up such stories, although yes I agree some sections of the media have been silenced by the Law Society.

I would advocate online publication of all complaints against solicitors in Scotland, so the public have that little bit extra to guide them on how to best choose to represent their legal interests ...

# Anonymous @ 15:44

One complaint recently brought to my attention has been with the Law Society for four years.

How many years should the Law Society be given to investigate a complaint while the client is forced out of his home and onto benefits while the lawyer complained against remains working and doing the same to others ?

If unrivalled consumer protection is to be the order of the day, publishing all complaints and investigations against solicitors is the fairest way ahead for consumers and the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

Q: Would you use a lawyer who stole £4million ?

A: Certainly not !

This is why you are spot on Peter - we should have the right to know all complaints and details about lawyers before using them.

Also the solicitor commenting at 15:44 can go to hell.If he/she has no complaints about their work they have nothing to hide otherwise lets get it all out in the open as you say.Brilliant!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I'm sure your regular readers may find this a good idea however as a solicitor I think it grossly unfair to publish complaints before they have been investigated by the Law Society.

Good afternoon solicitor,

Remember your Law Society refused to prosecute Drew Penman. Mill had to resign for protecting crooked lawyers and you write about what you think is fair?

For me your comment beggars belief, fairness, what do lawyers understand in this word? It is not grossly unfair. The websites have been created because of the Law Society, their coverups are the engine that drives the dissent.

Douglas Mill, Philip Yelland, The Persures Panel, to name a few. We cannot trust the Scottish Government or the Law Society or the SLCC to clean up legal servces, because they are proving where their loyalties lie. The dissidents will clean up the legal services industry by naming and shaming. A profession as powerful as you are cannot self regulate.

Let me put it this way, if you said or did something defamatory against a client, that client would not be able to legally clear his name because lawyers do not go against other lawyers.

But if the opposite was the case you could take legal action easily. If you think this is justice, you do not understand the meaning of that word.

E bay style feedback, it works in other areas it will work with lawyers too.

The law of Delict and medical reports. A person injured at work needs a causal link to sue for damages. Here is a causal link Solicitor The injured persons employer, lawyers, doctors are all insured by Royal Sun Alliance. A bent setup if ever there was one. This insurance arrangement is the causal link for covering up occupational injury. Do not lecture us on what you think is fair, if you are intellectually capable put yourself in the clients shoes.

Great reporting Peter.

Anonymous said...

Peter you and I know the consumer groups are right. Law Society and SLCC are a graveyard for client complaints.

They must reap what they have sown.

Anonymous said...

How good of you to respond Mr Cherbi.

I do not believe the public have a right to know over complaints against solicitors other than their own complaint if they have made one.

Regulation is best left to the Law Society who as you know are mandated in statute to represent the public interest and the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

A very good idea Peter

I think we should all be able to see what solicitors get up to and if other clients are having difficulties with them.That way we can be warned off before getting hurt and as you say hopefully it will help those already complaining.

Good work as always !

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with you Peter there should be a complaints list about all lawyers

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 16:25

Indeed yes ...

If a full complaints register were available online consumers would have a significant advantage over the rogue elements of the legal profession ... especially the consistent rogue element ...

Solicitors such as Mr O'Donnell, who has many negligence claims to his name (and believe me there are hundreds of O'Donnells in the ranks of the Law Society of Scotland) ... would have no place in the legal services market as consumers would be able to avoid them easily.

# Anonymous [solicitor ?] @ 16:32

As a solicitor which you claim to be, you appear to believe the falsehoods the Law Society spin regarding self regulation and their representation of both the public & profession ... no great surprise to me ... but no one outside the legal profession really swallows your belief that lawyers are best qualified to investigate themselves ... clearly they and you, are not.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe the public have a right to know over complaints against solicitors other than their own complaint if they have made one.
Wonderful, you are actually saying there is substantive evidence that lawyers are corrupt, or you would have nothing to fear by complaints details being made public. You people cannot be reasoned with, a typical trait in all self regulators, protect the profession that is all you care about.

I believe the public have a right to know and we dissidents will work together to ruin crooked law firms. Like the Russian partisans at Stalingrad, targetted the 6th Armies supply lines prior to the Russian pincer movement that surrounded the 6th Army. In this debate we will target the potential clients to warn them what criminals lawyers are.

The public have a right to know who the O'Donnells are, we will bypass you with websites naming the criminals, criminals you seem hell bent on protecting.

Wake up, your collective corrupt ways are destroying all of your reputations and you are incapable of learning. All you care about from your statement is protecting your own, NO MORE MY FRIEND, NO MORE.

Anonymous said...

As a regular reader there is nothing fair about your lawyer exploiting you over a 4 years plus period because you have a serious Mental Illness and then taking you to court for unauthorised fees, because the LSS and SLCC refuse to investigate your complaint in a professional manner. There is also nothing fair about being unrepresented in a court situation, so if you feel so strongly about fairness, get in touch through this blog and represent me on my unfair struggle for JUSTICE.

Anonymous said...

Solicitors such as Mr O'Donnell, who has many negligence claims to his name (and believe me there are hundreds of O'Donnells in the ranks of the Law Society of Scotland) ... would have no place in the legal services market as consumers would be able to avoid them easily.
Peter I totally agree with your comment, we need a database so that these corrupt lawyers get their UB40's. You corrupt lawyers, we are going to ruin you so clients know who to avoid. We need a network for victims of these devils so people can go online and know to stay away from the Penman's, Fyfe's Mills, Yellands. We must do this because I do not see any other way of changing the policymaking in Edinburgh with the likes of MacAskill etc.

When law firms have to close their doors there will be a rebellion at the Law Society. It is the dissidents task to warn others what they are up against. It is alright for lawyers, they do not suffer the consequences of their decisions, for now.

Anonymous said...

I heard some elements of the legal profession have threatened you Peter. That is because your blog is working but they better never lay a finger on you.

Our courts are run by criminals in wigs.

Anonymous said...

As I said before regulation is best left to the Law Society who have proved they are best qualified in this regard.It is not for any client to know the details of another's complaint and never will be.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter

Well this must be a good idea because solicitors are already against it.Anything solicitors are against in terms of improving client protection as you call it must be a good thing for us !

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

Avoid Ross Harper Solicitors, I have written evidence they do not help people.

Anonymous said...

Would you use a lawyer who stole £4million ? The Law Society did nothing until the media exposed the crooked lawyer.

Put him on the net, forget the normal complaints channels, they don't work.

Anonymous said...

Law Society Council member James Ness prevented SSDT prosecution of Andrew Penman.

This is why we must publish all complaints against lawyers ourselves Peter. Ruined clients are the driving force against a secretive corrupt profession that are so warped they cannot face reality. When their law firms are starved of future clients reality will hit home. I firmly believe debating with these people is pointless, they are far too entrenched in reciprocal loyalties that are so strong they are undermining their own profession.
The Law Society SLCC are killing the legal profession because if there are any honest lawyers, they are invisible to the public.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

As a regular reader there is nothing fair about your lawyer exploiting you over a 4 years plus period because you have a serious Mental Illness and then taking you to court for unauthorised fees, because the LSS and SLCC refuse to investigate your complaint in a professional manner. There is also nothing fair about being unrepresented in a court situation, so if you feel so strongly about fairness, get in touch through this blog and represent me on my unfair struggle for JUSTICE.


Anonymous said...

With the kind of headlines in those newspaper stories I think your idea is a sure fire winner Peter.

Good luck and make it come true !

Anonymous said...

Further proof, if any were needed, why the Law Society - and the Faculty of Advoicates - should not be allowed to remain effectively unregulated and free of any obligation to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.

But then some people are, demonstrably, above and beyond what passes for the law in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Surely this is the kind of suggestion which should have come from the SLCC & Jane Irvine.Just goes to show their silence on ideas like this (I see no comment from Irvine or the SLCC) tells us they are unfit to be regulating anything.

As you say Peter the SLCC is just a front end for the Law Society.Get rid of them both.

Anonymous said...

Peter, as one of many I know in the profession who follow your blog I personally feel you have an idea worth pursuing.

If law firms want more business they should avoid treating their clients poorly so a clean complaints record may be to the advantage of both clients & solicitors.

However I'm sure I speak for many of your readers when I say some kind of complaints register you speak of would only have credibility if you were involved with it.

I trust you will report back to us all in due course with some kind of proposal along these lines as I'm sure the Law Society and SLCC will not indulge in any such register of complaints.

Good luck !

Anonymous said...

"where in one shocking instance now coming to light, a married solicitor & father of two began pestering the young son of a client to attend clandestine meetings with a sexual intent"

Mr Cherbi regarding the above I know you have probably withheld the names due to possible libel but I feel this information and the solicitor's identity must be published to protect the public as the man is obviously a paedophile.Perhaps if you feel you cannot publish you should hand over the information to a willing newspaper ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 22:28

The issue is being dealt with and I can assure you all who knew about it and did nothing will find their identities published at some stage.

# Anonymous @ 22:06

Thanks for the support ...

# Anonymous @ 21:17

Yes indeed ...

Thanks to all of you for your comments & emails on this article which is part of a two part report on publishing complaints records of solicitors.

In response to another comment I have received a "no comment" from the SLCC which will be published along with the second part of this report ... coming soon.

Keep your comments & reports relating to complaints against solicitors & law firms coming in ...

Anyone who wants to submit information relating to particular law firms but does not want the comment published, please mark your comment "DO NOT PUBLISH" and any information given will be held in the strictest confidence until its use is authorised.

Anonymous said...

Death rates are published for hospitals & surgeons these days and we can also find out how many Police Officers have criminal records.

I support Mr Cherbi and say we should be able to know all complaints and their findings against members of the legal profession not only in Scotland but internationally.

Anonymous said...

Yes I think the pedo lawyer should be outed along with all those who do business with him.Get to it !

Anonymous said...

Mr Ness is responsible for a lot more than just Andrew Penman demonstrating why we should all be rid of the Law Society and its cronies.

Anonymous said...

John O'Donnell was solicitor to a friend of mine completely messed up his will and a mortgage and the Law Society also did nothing with a familiar name you should know Philip Yelland making sure nothing happened

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a certain wife beating lawyer from Glasgow who recently argued against reforming legal services for the better would also like to argue against disclosing complaints against his crooked colleagues ?

Maybe his customers would also benefit from his own disclosure as he is in a very public position and possibly some of them are also battered wives.

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine must love your headline lol !

Anonymous said...

An excellent idea Mr Cherbi and one which will surely bypass the SLCC & Law Society.
If they want to whitewash then we have to know the complaints against all lawyers before they get whitewashed.

Anonymous said...

One very good reason why we need your complaints idea Mr Cherbi.

The Law Society have been trying to fit me up with a solicitor from Balfour & Manson to take a negligence case against my former solicitor and its been over a year since I heard from them.I now read on your website they are just as bad as the rest probably spent the last year covering up what the Law Society said they would do for me.
There is no justice in Scotland if people use lawyers like Balfour & Manson avoid Law Society recommendations they are FATAL

Anonymous said...

Latest News

A Lord and three MP's to stand trial on charges of false accounting.

Mr Justice Saunders said: "I can see no logical, practical or moral justification for a claim for expenses being covered by privilege; and I can see no legal justification for it either. In my judgment, the conduct alleged against these defendants is not covered by Parliamentary privilege and is triable in the Crown Court. Unless this decision is reversed on appeal, it clears the way for what most people accused of criminal behaviour would wish for: a fair trial before an impartial jury."
It is a great pity Mr Saunders that crooked lawyers are not subjected to the same treatment instead of the closed shop SSDT. But I agree with your decision regarding the parliamentary privilidge matter. We will expose corrupt lawyers ourselves on the internet.

Anonymous said...

James Ness was at Law Care.They write in support of crooked lawyers giving them excuses against complaints and the Law Society ALWAYS accept the excuses.

I wonder what kind of excuse he would give the paedophile lawyer ?

Anonymous said...

" The Law Society have been trying to fit me up with a solicitor from Balfour & Manson to take a negligence case against my former solicitor and its been over a year since I heard from them."

Err....which is perhaps one reason why the Law Society recommended them to you?

Anonymous said...

A database based on clients experience of dealing with lawyers is the only way forward. The Penman's Ness's O'Donnells will not get clients going to them. This is the only solution because these warped lawyers and most politicians are a unit against us.

It is pointless debating with lawyers, we will never change the attitudes of self regulators. It is better (and far more productive) putting all of our energies into establishing a database and drive them out of the industry. Lawyers who want to ruin clients cannot do so, if the clients refuse to walk through their office doors. This is the way forward Peter, you are doing a great job. O'Donnell and his crooked colleagues will have no clients this way. It will get results far quicker than trying to change policy, because the Law Society and most MSP's want to retain the status quo.

Crooked lawyers will be extinct.

Anonymous said...

A vote winning idea Mr Cherbi and as someone else said it should be taken up all around the world.
Let everyone remember the Kelso lawyer Drew Penman and what he cost all lawyers everywhere!

Anonymous said...

What I'm curious about is why people even bother writing in a complaint to the Law SOciety or slcc when there is no hope of getting anywhere Believe me there are MUCH BETTER ways of dealing with robbing scum bastards who steal your money or home or break up your family just to earn more legal expenses PEOPLE NEED TO START TAKING THE BULL BY THE HORNS INSTEAD OF WRITING WRITING WRITING AND GOING NOWHERE WHILE THEIR HOMES AND LIVES ARE STOLEN BY ROBBING SCUM LAWYERS

Anonymous said...

Walking past the newspaper stand in Sainsbury this morning I noticed a legal aid scare story on the front of the Herald.Has this paper been taken over too by the likes of Mike Dailly & all the other lawyers who get big fat cheques from the taxpayer each year under the guise of justice ?

Anonymous said...

had a letter from the SLCC today telling me they have sent my complaint to the law society so what use is it if they dont investigate

Anonymous said...

I agree with your idea Mr Cherbi we should be able to check up what kind of complaints are made against solicitors.I would certainly like to know if my solicitor has complaints against him.

Anonymous said...

I for one would like to know all the complaints made against the Govan Law Centre and any against Mike Dailly because I know people they have turned away yet Dailly sits on a public platform for justice.He wants to be a public figure so he needs more scrutiny and his gang in Govan but dont expect any Glasgow newspaper to do that nor the Law Society now he has wangled his way onto its club.

Anonymous said...

One complaint recently brought to my attention has been with the Law Society for four years.

How many years should the Law Society be given to investigate a complaint while the client is forced out of his home and onto benefits while the lawyer complained against remains working and doing the same to others ?
Peter my sister was in litigation against a company and her lawyer and her GP were working together. The GP told the court in a medical report she had been seeing a psychiatrist for 20 years, (she has never seen a psychiatrist in her life). The statement was on a report from a consultant surgeon and consultants are expert witnesses. The GP could not get a report from a psychiatrist because he did not exist. When the same GP sent my sister to the incapacity benefit doctor the referral form had a question that asked "Is there any psychiatric disorder"? The GP put a line through that box. Simple strategy, get her off benefits and stigmatise her in court. He later stopped her incapcity benefit and refused to help her. We later realised if the case had gone to court she would have found out her GP of 30 years was distorting her medical records to get the outcome he wanted. He sent her back to work, hte employer would not let her into work and her well known Glasgow lawyer did not respond to her pleas for help. They had arranged beforehand that she had to be starved into submission. She lived with my mother, and she had no money to live on for five months.

Later we found out that her GP and lawyer were insured by the same company as her employer. They took the case on to make money, and covered up what happened to her and the Law Society of Scotland, NHS Primary Care and other lawyers she went to did nothing about it. The lawyer and GP are still working. Nothing surprises me about these people, they are evil ruthless bastards. The shocking thing is they do not think there is anything wrong with them.

People of Scotland forget legal action against your employer for occupational injury. The lawyers and doctors might as well be directors of insurance companies and they are corrupt to the core and above the law.

These people are bad bastards, and all lawyers, doctors are the same. Their power needs smashed.

Anonymous said...

If any new readers are thinking of complaining to the Law Society or Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, a word of advice.

They hate you as much as Hitler hated the Jewish people. Lawyers only see money when they deal with clients, if this were not the case the dissent in cyberspace would not have happened.

Please do not expect any help from the above lawyer loving rabble. If they could they would put all dissidents in gas chambers and if you think this is over the top, you do not understand what you are dealing with. Lawyers are criminals from law school to the tomb.

Anonymous said...

Royal Sun Alliance are sharks, they insure accountants, doctors, lawyers, the Scottish Parliament, NHS, all public services. Everyone who controls access to justice is in the Royal Sun Alliance camp. That is why it is impossible to change government policy so we need to name and shame these bastards ourselves. Target the potential clients and warn them what they are up against.

Legal Aid controlled by the powers that be, you will not get it to sue a doctor, lawyer, accountant, because Royal Sun Alliance use these people to protect their assets. Some legal system.

You will get legal aid to sue your employer because doctors and lawyers will make money. But they will never be on your side because their insurers would increase the GP Practice premiums and Law Firms premiums. If you want to sue any of the above YOU HAVE NO CHANCE, as Mr Cameron Fyfe of Ross Harper Solicitors does not tell new litigation clients. Mr Fyfe gets legal aid money to protect his clients insurers, and has been doing this like all litigation lawyers in Scotland for years.

A profitable business model Mr Fyfe, easy to implement for people like you who are bad apples. If any of Mr Fyfe's colleagues wants to deny the above insurance arrangement is used by all of the above, I am sure Peter will be happy to post comments from you all on his blog, so that we can respond.

Anonymous said...

simply to say I agree with your idea Peter - publish all complaints about lawyers so everyone knows what they are up to

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi,

I think Mr MacAskill will be a decent person in many ways but how can he be Justice Minister when he was or still is a member of the Law Society and he is a lawyer? A conflict of interest but it seems to me this situation is rife in legal circles.

The Law Society and SLCC are safe houses for lawyers and graveyards for clients complaints. Mr MacAskill is serving the above. I do not think he is in favour of helping clients at all.

Anonymous said...

NHS Primary care in Motherwell take no action against doctors who lie in their patients medical records. GP's can write anything they want about their patients because Primary Care do not care about patients. I have written proof they left a corrupt GP working with other patients. No patients medical records are safe.

Anonymous said...

I also like your idea because it will help people avoid all the crooks but its got me wondering if any lawyers are honest!
I dont think so!

Anonymous said...

The Law Society is starting to piss me off with their letters of do nothing do nothing and the slcc are just as bad,Remedy please anyone ?

Anonymous said...

What I am VERY surprised about is not one journalist(even you) has bothered investigating the lawyer who caused the massacre in Cumbria.Is this a taboo subject?

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this very emotive issue ...

I would also like to thank those who have contacted me over the weekend with papers relating to their complaints against solicitors showing in each case just how appalling the Law Society of Scotland treated their cases ...

Those documents I have permission to publish will be featured in due course .. however I take the point from several comments & emails there will have to be an online publication scheme for complaints for all to access ...

Now to answer some of the comments which have come in over the weekend ...

# Anonymous @ 11 June 2010 14:21

Having experienced the woes of using Balfour & Manson myself I would not recommend anyone use them as a legal services provider.

If you would like to contact me with further details of your case perhaps some publicity to any failings may help protect others from this law firm's actions in the future ...

# Anonymous @ 11 June 2010 10:41

If you would like to send me any details on John G.O'Donnell's failings to his clients I will see they are passed onto the appropriate newspapers and published ...

# Anonymous @ 11 June 2010 14:59

From what I hear Law Care has already given a few solicitors in these circumstances some excuses to crawl out of complaints ...

# Anonymous @ 12 June 2010 15:15

Could you send me some more details of your complaint and how the SLCC have mistreated it ?

# Anonymous @ 12 June 2010 11:57

I saw the article in Saturday's Herald ... and incidentally the Law Society's stance on the issue is a complete lie .. they have been on top of the Peter Cadder case since it began and this is basically more about more legal aid for lawyers than the legal profession worrying about the rights of the individual.

# Anonymous @ 13 June 2010 18:00

I understand some journalists have uncovered information which will eventually be published .. however there are problems getting some of those who have allegedly complained against the particular law firm/solicitor in the past to speak, due to the tragic events in Cumbria ...

# Anonymous @ 12 June 2010 22:06

I am in no doubt at all Mr MacAskill despises anyone who criticises his colleagues in the legal profession - even some of his civil servants in the Justice Department say this is the case ...

# Anonymous @ 12 June 2010 20:28

If you find anything, remember to publicise it ...

Anonymous said...

Yes Peter I have to agree lawyers dont give a toss about their clients and this argument about seeing a lawyer when being questioned is down to money in the pockets of lawyers via legal aid

Anonymous said...

The Law Society is starting to piss me off with their letters of do nothing do nothing and the slcc are just as bad,Remedy please anyone ?


The Law Society and Scottish Legal Coverup Commission are safe houses for lawyers. An E Bay style feedback system where people leave their feedback for future potential clients is the answer in the short term. I sympathise with you, dissidents understand the position you are in, as we have been there hence Peter's blog. Best wishes. The above organisations do not regulate, they only protect their cohort of criminals, that is their brief and it is ruining them.

Any person who complains to the Society or SLCC come up against a brick wall of resistance. They are all Douglas Mill's.

Anonymous said...

You may be right about the legal aid shocker for suspects questioned without a lawyer.Here is Austin Lafferty slavering over the legal aid implications as if he's won the lotto :

Austin Lafferty, solicitor and member of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “On one analysis it should be a fundamental right of any arrested person to have legal advice. “The problems are in two areas. Firstly, for new cases we need to know if there is going to be legal aid provision that properly funds the additional lawyer attend ance at police stations; secondly, is the right to solicitor attendance going to be retrospective? “Even if there are not wholesale acquittals … enough convicted persons considering and starting proceedings will create a very expensive logjam in the system.”

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...


Aberdeen doctor guilty of child pornography charges

Monday, 14 June 2010 14:19 UK
Douglas Harris denied being involved in child pornography

An Aberdeen doctor sobbed in court as he was found guilty of child pornography charges.

Douglas Harris, 29, denied taking, permitting to be taken or making indecent images, as well as being in possession of pictures.

Harris had lodged special defences of incrimination and alibi at Aberdeen Sheriff Court.

The offences happened between 2004 and 2006. Sentence was deferred for reports.

The jury took just over an hour to reach its verdicts after a trial which began on 2 June.

Harris had claimed someone else could have been responsible for downloading the images.

His girlfriend, Maria Carle, had said she was "certain in her heart" that he was not responsible for the crimes.

The trial heard that police recovered fragments of internet chats from his computer which requested indecent images of teenagers.

Experts told the jury that the images found were mainly of under-16s.

Sentence was deferred until 13 July.

NHS Grampian said it no longer employed the former Aberdeen Royal Infirmary worker.

Anonymous said...

The legal and medical professions are very devious people twisting evidence and falsifying the dates on doctments to keep them out of the S**t.

Nothing I read on websites about them surprises me.

Does anyone know if the tragic events in Cumbria were due to legal corruption? I am not saying it was, I don't know?

Anonymous said...

The sad thing about the debate on self regulation is that all lawyers are now considered to be bad apples. The Law Society are totally unfit to protect the public, we need to publish letters from people who have complained to them. You will see a pattern of save the lawyers, f**k the client. They cannot hide this, victims of the Law Society will all have written proof that it is a lawyer protecting racket. Publish all those letters Peter, they cannot argue with that.

Anonymous said...

A very good posting as usual Mr Cherbi and I fully support your idea to publish all complaints against lawyers.If I could also suggest publishing all complaints against politicians I think it may be a very worthy addition as many lawyers end up as politicians as we all know.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

More than 400 MPs did not get their full pay in May, due to an error by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the BBC has learned.

Ipsa said 418 MPs who were re-elected to Parliament were underpaid by £119.63 each. New MPs were not affected.

The problem emerged when Ipsa took over administering the MPs' salaries from House of Commons authorities.

They were paid £5,358.54 rather than £5,478.17. The shortfall will be made up in their June pay packet.

In May I got £260.00 unemployment benefit because I lost my job in this recession. Good job being an MP, recession proof.

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone know if the tragic events in Cumbria were due to legal corruption? I am not saying it was, I don't know?"

Enquiries are treating it as "A SIGNIFICANT PROVOKING FACTOR" so maybe this answers your question.

Anyone wants to comment on what happened in Cumbria anywhere on the web you better use a proxy or the Tor network for your own protection because the powers that be are getting very edgy over the connection with the lawyer to this massacre and dont want the papers getting there first.

Anonymous said...

A blogger to a diary of
injustice in Scotland, thinks
that readers of this site
should be aware of court cases
against Wm Crate & Co and
Blackwood Crate of Dalry.

Four cases in total are known
to exist, to date.