Friday, July 02, 2010

Sheriff Court Rules Council reveals McKenzie Friends on course to help party litigants in Scottish Sheriff Courts by end of summer 2010

McKenzie Friends for ScotlandMcKenzie Friends for Scotland are coming to Sheriff Courts. SHERIFF COURTS across Scotland will shortly see the formal introduction of McKenzie Friends or “Lay Assistants” to assist unrepresented party litigants in civil law cases after the Sheriff Court Rules Council released a statement confirming its members, mostly appointed by Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton, have accepted the introduction to Scotland's Sheriff Courts of the popular non-lawyer courtroom helper which has existed in the English legal system for some four decades.

Among the members of the Sheriff Court Rules Council are officials from the former Scottish Consumer Council, now renamed Consumer Focus Scotland, who backed the introduction of lay assistants.

A spokesman for the Sheriff Court Rules Council confirmed McKenzie Friends are on their way to Scotland’s Sheriff Courts, saying : “I can advise you that the Sheriff Court Rules Council’s Working Group met on 16 June when it considered the proposed use of a McKenzie Friend in civil proceedings in the sheriff court. The Group agreed that provision be made in the rules along the lines of those recently made by the Court of Session. These rules have now been instructed and it is hoped they will be available in time for consideration by the Council at its next meeting on 6 August.”

Lord HamiltonScotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton recently enacted McKenzie Friends in Court of Session. The move to introduce McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s Sheriff Courts was necessary after the recent decision by the Court of Session Rules Council & Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton to formally introduce McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s highest court, after a long running petition to the Scottish Parliament on the issue highlighted the lack of lay assistance in Scottish Courts while English courts, and indeed many international jurisdictions allowed the use of lay assistants for the growing numbers of unrepresented party litigants.

Lord WoolmanCourt of Session judge Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in late 2009. During the course of the Scottish Parliament’s consideration of the McKenzie Friend petition, one of Scotland’s longest running civil claims actions, M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01), overtook events at Holyrood and introduced Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session, granted by Lord Woolman, making the decision to introduce McKenzie Friends to general use in the Court of Session and lower Sheriff Courts, a formality, albeit one taking the best part of a year to complete.

Lord GillLord Gill proposed McKenzie Friends in Civil Courts review. Progress to finally bring lay assistants to Scotland’s civil courts was helped considerably by McKenzie Friends being recommended by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill who had spent considerable time on the issue of lay representation as part of the two year Civil Courts Review. Lord Gill had also recommended a ‘super McKenzie Friend’ with a right of audience, enabling a lay assistant to address the court on behalf of party litigants, a proposal now part of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which I recently reported here : McKenzie Friends from today in Court of Session, Lord Gill’s ‘super’ McKenzie Friend with rights of audience proposal goes to Holyrood

I will report further on the McKenzie Friend issue when the Sheriff Court Rules Council publish more details on their draft rules and timescale for formal introduction.

Background of the Sheriff Court Rules Council :

Membership of the Council

The Sheriff Court Rules Council (the Council) was established in its current form by Section 33 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. Members of the Council are appointed by the Lord President. Membership comprises two sheriffs principal, three sheriffs, one advocate, five solicitors, two sheriff clerks and two lay members. Lay members should have a knowledge of the working procedures and practices of the civil courts, a knowledge of consumer affairs and an awareness of the interests of litigants in the sheriff courts. The Lord President consults the Minister for Justice before appointing lay members. The membership is completed by one person appointed by the Minister for Justice, who appears to the Minister for Justice to be qualified for such appointment. This position is currently held by the Head of the Civil Justice Division & International Division, Scottish Government Justice Department Civil and International Group.

The current members of the Council are:

Appointed by the Lord President for the period 21 January 2008 to 20 January 2011:

  • Sir Stephen S T Young Bt QC, Sheriff Principal of Grampian, Highlands & Islands (Chairman)
  • James A Taylor QC, Sheriff Principal of Glasgow & Strathkelvin
  • Michael J Fletcher, Sheriff of Tayside, Central and Fife at Perth
  • Craig Scott, Sheriff of Glasgow and Strathkelvin at Glasgow
  • William Holligan, Sheriff of Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh
  • Mr Simon Di Rollo QC, Faculty of Advocates
  • Mr Joseph d’Inverno, Solicitor-Advocate, Edinburgh
  • Mr Fraser Simpson, Solicitor, Glasgow
  • Mr Gregor Murray, Solicitor, Dundee
  • Ms Clair McLachlan, Solicitor, Glasgow
  • Mr Stephen Brand, Solicitor, Dundee
  • Mr Alan Johnston, Sheriff Clerk’s Office, Glasgow
  • Mr Roland McMillan, Sheriff Clerk, Dundee
  • Ms Sarah O’Neill, Scottish Consumer Council
  • Ms Rachel Smith, In Court Advisor, Aberdeen

Appointed by the Minister for Justice:

  • Mr Colin McKay

Minutes of Meetings & Consultation Papers of the Sheriff Court Rules Council are well worth a read for all court users & party litigants.

Functions of the Council

These functions are defined in Section 34 of the Sheriff Court (Scotland) Act 1971. The function of the Council is to review the procedure and practice in civil proceedings in the Sheriff Court. In the light of that review, the Council prepares draft rules and submits them to the Court of Session for approval. The rules submitted to the Court of Session are designed to regulate and prescribe procedure and practice. The review of procedure and practice is an ongoing process. The Council prepares and submits to the Court of Session, draft rules designed to deal with any matters relating to the Sheriff Court.

The Court of Session, having made any modifications it thinks expedient, makes an Act of Sederunt embodying the rules. To assist it in the discharge of its functions, the Council may invite representations on any aspect of the procedure or practice in civil proceedings in the Sheriff Court. The Council considers any representations received. These can be in response to an invitation (e.g. in a consultation paper) or in another manner (e.g. by correspondence or having been raised by a member of the Council).

Power of Court of Session to Regulate Civil Procedure in the Sheriff Court

This power is defined in Section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. The Court of Session, by Act of Sederunt, regulates and prescribes the procedure and practice to be followed in any civil proceedings in the Sheriff Court.Before making an Act of Sederunt, the Court of Session consults the Council and takes into consideration their views, unless the Act of Sederunt embodies draft rules submitted to the Court of Session by the Council.

You can read my earlier coverage of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland : The story so far

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Its going to be a long summer with you on one side and LP on the other!

Anonymous said...

Very good Peter and another victory for your blog.

Great work and great public service.

Anonymous said...

and none of these people managed to come up with the idea until forced upon then now ?

terrible really when you think this has been on the go everywhere for 40 years and we miss out on it because lawyers want to keep everything for themselves

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it have been more productive to bring in McKenzie Friends in the Sheriff Court first ?

Anonymous said...

Good stuff keep it up Peter it looks like you are making waves !

Anonymous said...

Progress but still no movement on reimbursing a McKenzie Friends costs, far less claim them as expenses in the event of a successful claim.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how all those Sheriffs and their solicitor friends are going to put up with McKenzie Friends encroaching in their territory

McSwallyfast said...

A good move although what does this say about the claim there were always lay assistants in the Sheriff Courts when only now the Sheriff Court Rules Council have agreed to their introduction?

Cover up once again in the land of banana republic justice!

Anonymous said...

Hmm I thought I read in the hootsmon that Hamilton chaired the Sheriff Court Rules Council ?

Anonymous said...

Will Lord Gill's recommendation that McKenzie Friends be allowed to address the Court ever be implemented, or are we to wait another 40 years for that?

Anonymous said...

You are a credit to the public Peter, superb journalism.

Anonymous said...

INSURERS Royal & Sun Alliance PLC & Marsh UK (a subsidiary of Marsh Inc , of scandal fame in the US & international financial markets) - who also happen to be the same insurers of Scottish lawyers, in the infamously corrupt Professional Indemnity insurance scheme known as the Master Insurance Policy of the Law Society of Scotland, have been identified in answers given to a question in the Scottish Parliament, as insurers also to Government Departments & many public services..
==================================
DANGER DO NOT USE A LAWYER TO SUE ANYONE UNTIL YOU KNOW WHO THAT PARTIES INSURERS ARE.

ON SECOND THOUGHT IT WILL NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE GIVE LAWYERS BONUSES TO STOP YOU WINNING YOUR CASE.

SCOTLAND'S LAWYERS ARE CRIMINALS WHO PROTECT INSURANCE COMPANIES, NOT THEIR CLIENTS. IF MR CHERBI COULD GET A LAWYER ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE WOULD BE PAYING MR CHERBI'S DAMAGES. SCOTLAND'S LAWYERS AND THE LAW SOCIETY KILLED OF MR CHERBI'S LEGAL AID, AND THEY WILL DO THE SAME TO ALL OF YOU.

LITIGATION LAWYERS, THE LAW SOCIETY, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE THE ONLY WINNERS IN LITIGATION, PLEASE DO NOT TRUST THEM, BECAUSE THEY WILL RUIN YOU.

HOW CAN MR CHERBI OBTAIN JUSTICE AGAAINTS A PROFESSION WHO'S INSURERS WILL BE PAYING HIS DAMAGES. ALL OF YOU PEOPLE OUT THERE PLEASE TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT THE CRIMINALS LAWYERS ARE, AND DOCTORS AND ACCOUNTANTS ARE THE SAME, SELF REGULATING CROOKS.

A HAMILTON GP CAUGHT LYING IN MEDICAL RECORDS IS STILL WORKING. NHS PRIMARY CARE KNOW ABOUT THIS AND ARE PROTECTING HIM. HIS LEGAL & MEDICAL DEFENCE UNION THREATENED LEGAL ACTION AND NEVER TOOK IT BECAUSE THEY ARE LIARS TOO. WE CANNOT RUIN A CROOKED GP'S CAREER FOR A LOW LIFE PATIENT. THAT IS THE ATTITUDE. I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY PATIENTS MEDICAL RECORDS ARE SAFE, AT ANY GP PRACTICE, THE DOCTORS CAN LIE AND ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP WORKING. THAT IS A COVER UP CULTURE FOR YOU.

Anonymous said...

DANGER EVEN IF YOU ENDED UP IN A WHEELCHAIR SCOTLAND'S LAWYERS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO SUE YOUR EMPLOYER.

HERE IS THE REASON WHY.

ALL LAW FIRMS ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE THROUGH THE LAW SOCIETY MASTER POLICY.

IF YOUR LAWYER RUINS YOUR CASE AND YOU WANT ANOTHER LAWYER TO SUE YOU HAVE NO CHANCE.

BOTH LAWYERS ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE.

ALL DOCTORS ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE.

ALL EMPLOYERS ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE.

THIS IS WHY IF YOU ARE INJURED AT WORK AND YOUR INJURIES ARE NOT VISIBLE THE LAWYERS WILL TAKE YOUR CASE ON.

BUT THEY WILL NEVER BE WORKING FOR YOU.

IF THEY GOT DAMAGES FOR YOU THEIR 'INSURERS' WOULD BE PAYING THE DAMAGES?

HOW CORRUPT IS THAT!

THEY GET MILLIONS OF POUNDS IN LEGAL AID EVERY YEAR FOR CASES THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY WIN.

SCOTLAND'S LITIGATION LAWYERS AND GP's CONSULTANT DOCTORS COVER UP OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND HAVE DONE FOR YEARS.

THE LAW SOCIETY INSURERS GIVE LAWYERS BONUSES SO THAT THEY WILL NOT HELP VICTIMS OF CROOKED LAWYERS.

PERHAPS LORD HAMILTON AS SCOTLAND'S LEGAL COMMANDER IN CHIEF CAN TELL US WHY HIS CROOKED LAWYERS ARE IN CAHOOTS WITH THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, AND DOCOTRS AND EMPLOYERS ALL SHARE THE SAME INSURERS. YOU ARE ALL CROOKED ARTHUR HAMILTON, EVEN YOU.

Anonymous said...

Ha!No wonder no one can get anywhere near the courts with this lot in charge!All that access to justice stuff is just b*llocks!

Anonymous said...

Ha!No wonder no one can get anywhere near the courts with this lot in charge!All that access to justice stuff is just b*llocks!

Anonymous said...

Self regulation allows criminals to avoid the consequences of their crimes. It is a perverse ideology.

Anonymous said...

“In case the profession has not noticed people have no faith in Solicitors. Self regulation does not work, one reason probably being because if it were done diligently and properly the amount of wrong doing it would uncover would be so vast it would damage people's faith even more. But sweeping a problem under the carpet hardly improves things. Hence this website is providing a service”.
Andrew M.

"I gave up practising because I realised that the majority of solicitors I dealt with are dishonest. Even if they are negligent you never win. They will forge attendance notes and cover their backs. My firm's senior partner cracked open a bottle of champagne when his best client died, knowing he could make a fortune from the probate work"
Retired solicitor from Cambridge

“With more and more use of social media and people being able to post comments on a variety of websites, from legal ones to Twitter or personal blogs, we are likely to see more and more postings about solicitors”.
Nick J.

Anonymous said...

You lawyers reputations are being ruined every day, and here is the reason for that.

A lie cannot live.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

All self regulators distort truth and the tide is turning against you.

Anonymous said...

A right delayed is a right denied.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

That is why self regulation remains. You lawyer criminals have much to hide.

40 year delay on Mckenzie friends Lord Hamilton.

Anonymous said...

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

He is correct Lord Hamilton.

Anonymous said...

Have you been LET DOWN by your Solicitor or Barrister?

Do you feel that there is no recourse when this happens? Well, you're probably right!

It seems that today's legal system is designed to protect the very people it contains. A note to new readers,

God help any of you who trust a lawyer, because the Law Society and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will not help you.

If you were caught shoplifting you would rightly be charged and taken to court.

A lawyer caught stealing is protected by self regulation. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to escape punishment for the layperson. Knowledge of the law and lawyers regulating lawyers results in coverups. Legal theft is allowed by lawyers. John O'Donnell is a perfect example of that.

Anonymous said...

Complaints Process from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Website.

"The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 established the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and from 1 October 2008, all complaints about the legal profession should be sent to the SLCC".

I and many others took part in the consultation process which helped set up the LPLA Act. Miss Jamieson the justice secretary at the time sent out an invitation to people who had complained to the Law Society of Scotland. The latter has now watered down the act because the MSP's have sold the public down the river.

The Law Society and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission should be outlawed as lawyer protecting criminal organisations. Please new readers do not trust these people.

The Scottish Parliament is the greatest traitor to the Scottish people, not fit for purpose. Shame on you MSP's for keeping our country as a Banana Republic. Traitors.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC was set up under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to modernise the legal complaints handling system and to enable complaints against the legal profession to be resolved quickly and effectively.

We are a "one-stop shop" for complaints about the service given by legal practitioners in Scotland, where the practitioner has been unable to resolve the problem. All complaints about the services received from solicitors, advocates or commercial attorneys should come to the SLCC rather than the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates or the Association of Commercial Attorneys.

Previously, unresolved complaints could be taken to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) where staff investigated how the complaint had been handled by the professional body. The SLCC has replaced the office of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman.

To read more on the Scottish Executive's consultation on the proposals for reforming the system of complaints handling, please see Reforming Complaints Handling, Building Consumer Confidence: Regulation of the Legal Profession in Scotland. There is also information on the passage of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill on the website of the Scottish Parliament.

The SLCC was set up to be impartial, accessible and independent.

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND, THE ABOVE IS NOTHING BUT LIES. THIS IS A CRIMINAL QUANGO, MACASKILL USES TO KILL THE CLIENT COMPLAINT. THIS WILL BE PROVEN IN TIME WITH THE NEW COMPLAINTS REGISTER FOR CONSUMERS BEING SET UP BE PETER.

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND AND SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION HATE US. NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WILL EVER GET JUSTICE DEALING WITH THESE WARPED CRIMINALS.

THE PART Reforming Complaints Handling, Building Consumer Confidence: I RESPONDED TO THIS SURVEY SENT OUT BY THE LAW SOCIETY ON BEHALF OF MISS JAMIESON. IT CREATED A NEW DEPARTMENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY CALLED THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION. DO NOT BE TAKEN IN, MACASKILLS PROTECTION RACKET FOR HIS LAWYER CHUMS IS STRONGER THAN EVER. YOUR COMMISSION IS BULLSHIT MR MACASKILL. IT IS ANTI CLIENT POISON.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish government is standing by the medical advice on which it released the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

It follows claims one cancer expert who gave Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a three-month prognosis last year has said he could survive for 10 years or more.

However, other newspaper reports said he was expected to die within weeks.

The Scottish government said Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was freed on the basis of medical recommendations.

Megrahi was jailed in 2001 for the atrocity which claimed 270 lives in 1988.

He returned home to Libya after being released from prison last August.

Professor Karol Sikora had assessed Megrahi for the Libyan authorities and estimated he had three months to live.
==================================
I will be shocked if the man has cancer, I know from personal experience the medical profession can say what they want. Legal and medical professions are too close for transparency.

Anonymous said...

http://www.sacl.info/rogues.htm#judges

Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers say

"Lord Hamilton abuses his position to cover-up legal misconduct and criminality in Scotland's courts".


For all your omnipotence Lord Hamilton the truth is more powerful that even you are. To think you have the power to hold people in contempt of court and you are a criminal yourself. Some justice system.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting this Mr Cherbi as I have been asking at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for months when McKenzie Friends would become available.They constantly told me there was no such thing in Scots law and would never!

Bloody liars!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting this Mr Cherbi as I have been asking at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for months when McKenzie Friends would become available.They constantly told me there was no such thing in Scots law and would never!

Bloody liars!

Anonymous said...

Is Lord Hamilton not ashamed his picture is on Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers website?

Anonymous said...

As the person responsible for appointing Judges to the highest Court in Scotland, controlling the Court Service Administration and the Court Rules Committee Lord Hamilton has been allowed to place himself in an omnipotent position by those in the Scottish Parliament who claim to believe in democracy.

Who cares about a photograph?

Anonymous said...

Cameron Fyfe took legal aid payments for 6 yes six years and on the day of the proof it transpired that he had forgotton to tell the defenders in my case i had been sequestrated in 2004.

So after 8 years of trying to get my case into the court of session edinburgh, the defenders called caution and it was granted £50,000.

To be able to continue i would have to find that money, i am now representing myself as a party litigant and am horrified at his mistakes.

I have the productions in the case i have reported him to the law society and they have done nothing.
----------------------------------
SIX YEARS LEGAL AID PAYMENTS.

GOOD MORNING MR FYFE. WAS THEI CLIENTS ACTION AGAINST A PARTY INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLINACE? IF SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE. YOU HAVE NOT MADE MISTAKES. YOU HAVE INTENTIONALLY WANTED THE COURT TO CALL CAUTION.

GETTING LEGAL AID MONEY MR FYFE FOR 6 YEARS TO PROTECT YOUR OWN INSURERS. YOU DID THE SAME TO A MEMBER OF MY FAMILY MR FYFE. THREE YEARS LEGAL AID MONEY AND YOU KNEW MY FAMILY MEMBERS EMPLOYER WAS INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY YOU AND ALL SCOTTISH LAWYERS ARE.

YOU WERE TRYING TO SUE YOUR OWN INSURERS. YOU ARE A CROOK MY FYFE BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU WILL FIGHT AGAINST YOUR CLIENT AND THE OUTCOME OF THEIR CASE IS DECIDED BEFORE THEY SIGN THE LEGAL AID FORMS.

RESPOND MR FYFE, AN HONOURABLE MAN WHO VALUES HIS REPUTATION WOULD RESPOND. BUT LIKE EVERY SELF REGULATING CROOK YOU HAVE TOO MANY VICTIMS OUT THERE TO FIGHT YOUR CORNER.

MP's EXPENSES, YOU ARE WORSE THAN THE MP's MR FYFE BECAUSE YOU RUIN LIVES BY GIVING CLIENTS HOPE WHEN YOU STAB THEM IN THE BACK BEFORE THEY HAVE SIGNED THE LEGAL AID FORMS. YOU ARE A CRIMINAL.

Anonymous said...

After reading all of this I would be worried if I had to go to a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting this Mr Cherbi as I have been asking at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for months when McKenzie Friends would become available.They constantly told me there was no such thing in Scots law and would never!
===================================
There is no such thing as justice against the self regulators either, that is why there is growing dissent. A wise person avoids lawyers if possible.

Anonymous said...

http://www.sacl.info/rogues.htm#msps

Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.

Kenneth Pritchard OBE, WS. Former Secretary and Chief Executive Law Society of Scotland. Part-time Sheriff. Former Chairman of the Temporary Sheriffs' Association.

Pritchard's covert attempt to defeat a perfectly valid solicitor negligence claim was recently exposed in parliament by John Swinney MSP. In his capacity as Law Society Secretary, Pritchard actively encouraged a firm of solicitors NOT to act for an individual whose life was effectively ruined by crooked lawyers. The victim, Iain McIntyre, was ultimately successful in his damages claim - a settlement that we cannot comment on for "legal reasons" i.e. Mr McIntyre was forced to remain silent about the legal crookery in order to receive just partial recompense.

Trust no lawyer, the complaints process is outlined above. Honours for corrupt individuals, trust no lawyer.

Anonymous said...

I heard the Law Society has issued a list of objections for solicitors to use against anyone applying for/to be a McKenzie Friend.

Is this true ?

Anonymous said...

Didnt someone claim McKenzie Friends had always been allowed in the Sheriff Courts ?

Why now are we being told by the Sheriffs they are going to be allowed when Hamilton claimed they always were allowed ?

Is no one going to ask him about this ?

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article, which appears to be of particular importance to many given the fact most cases in Scotland end up in the Sheriff Courts rather than making it to the Court of Session ...

I will therefore endeavour to keep readers posted on developments relating to McKenzie Friends usage and assist where I can ..

# Anonymous @ 5 July 2010 13:35

I only heard about this at the weekend, however a solicitor this evening confirmed a certain Bar Association in Scotland which seems to like publicity when it suits them have issued a tutorial on how to obstruct party litigants applications for lay assistants (McKenzie Friends) in Sheriff Courts & the Court of Session ... rest assured I 'on the case' ... and will report on matters as the story unfolds ...

# Anonymous @ 5 July 2010 14:58

Yes ... that would be the Lord President and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill .. in not so many words of course ...

The Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee did ask Lord Hamilton some questions .. however the Lord President failed to answer the specifics and the Petitions Committee failed to pursue the issue any further ....

Anonymous said...

As the person responsible for appointing Judges to the highest Court in Scotland, controlling the Court Service Administration and the Court Rules Committee Lord Hamilton has been allowed to place himself in an omnipotent position by those in the Scottish Parliament who claim to believe in democracy.

Who cares about a photograph? (Good Point).

Anonymous said...

Very interesting blog Mr Cherbi I wish we had people like you in the legal profession instead of the filth presently running the show

Anonymous said...

Scottish justice is soooooooooo messed up!

Anonymous said...

A justice of the peace (JP) convicted of a driving offence and for failing to appear at court has been deemed "unfit for office".

Henry Dedecker, a JP in Dingwall, was convicted of speeding after a trial.

Sheriff Principal Sir Stephen Young recommended a tribunal be held to consider Mr Dedecker's suitability for the role.

The Judicial Office for Scotland said the hearing found him to be "unfit by reason of misbehaviour".

An order removed Mr Dedecker from office with effect from 29 June.

A JP is a person who is not legally qualified and sits in a lay court with a clerk, who provides advice on law and procedure.

The maximum sentence a JP can impose is 60 days imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500.


Not legally qualified, why the delay on McKenzie friends then?

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Legal profession have zero credibility. The system has no legitimacy because the public have no faith in lawyers.

Corruption is a consequence of self regulation, it is the driving force that protects the so called professionals. You warped lawyers, put yourself in your victims position if you are capable of that? The thing that reviles me the most is that you do not give a F**k how your victims are left. You need to be victims of the consequences of your actions and Peter's Scottish Legal Consumer Complaints Register will do what the SLCC Law Society will not do. Expose the scum that you are.

Anonymous said...

www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk

No need to Register or make any payments.

Put your Corrupt Lawyers on this website and Mr Cherbi's Scottish Legal Consumer Complaints Websites.

Bypass the Law Society and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, expose the criminals yourselves.

Now with over ONE MILLION
Hits per month, this website will expose these shameless, corrupt, moneygrabbing, incompetent specimens of humanity!

The public benchmarking lawyers like e bay feedback, priceless.

Anonymous said...

"We should not condone naked lawyer-bashing" - the title of the article said ... so, what should we do when we find out that a lawyer has stolen an inheritance, or interfered in a case to deny a client legal aid funding, or lied to a client, overcharged them, ripped them off, destroyed their life, stolen their home - should we give them the Victoria Cross ? or a Lordship title & a big house

We are left, therefore, to ponder the words of the ex Chief Executive Douglas Mill - of the Law Society of Scotland ... remember him ?? this is the guy who sneaked a letter into the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and fiddled my civil legal aid funding so that I couldn't challenge his pals at the Law Society for their fiddled investigation of crooked lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso .....

What we should do is put all of these crooks on the Scottish Legal Consumer Complaints Register, the Yellands, Pritchards, Mills, Penman's, O'Donnell's to protect the public.

Douglas Mill said "We should not condone naked lawyer-bashing."

But Mr Mill worshiped Client Bashing. Save the lawyer and leave a ruined client ruined. You and your colleagues need to grow up Mr Mill, an insult to our intellects.

What would you do in out position Mr Mill? Your answer to this question is an indicator of your maturity?

Anonymous said...

LONG LIVE THE McCHERBI FRIEND !!