Scottish Parliament passed Legal Services Bill, doing no particular favours for consumers. THE Legal Services Bill was finally passed by MSPs at the Scottish Parliament late yesterday afternoon after what can only be described as a round of ‘buy one amendment get one free’ set of deals between the Scottish Government & Law Society of Scotland ensuring consumer choice & competition in Scotland’s legal services marketplace will for the most part, remain out of reach of Scots consumers.
The Law Society are happy as are most of the big law firms in Scotland who supported the bill, happy their fiefdom of the Scottish legal services market has been preserved once again, and ‘meddling outsiders’ kept out of Scotland’s multi billion pound racket legal business. As for the Consumer bodies, well, most of them are just having to put a brave face on things and say they ‘welcome’ the bill which we all know is a mere shadow of England’s soon to come into force Clementi proposals and the Which? supercomplaint which began the whole Legal Services Bill process in Scotland.
Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing, said the bill would deliver benefits to lawyers & clients, after being forced by the Law Society to amend access to justice plans. The Scottish Government’s Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing commenting on the passage of the bill through the Scottish Parliament said: "The passage of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill today is good news for our businesses and consumers. At the heart of this Bill is a desire to modernise the profession. It presents greater opportunities, in a regulated framework, for firms of all sizes to be more competitive and to devise a business model which suits them and their clients.”
He ended by saying : "The Bill will deliver clear benefits for the legal profession and consumers."
The Law Society’s media release reflected the profession’s welcome relief their cash registers will still be ringing up huge charges & fees to clients for some of the western world’s worst quality legal services. The Law Society were quick to gloat their amendments, forced on the weak SNP minority controlled Scottish Executive “meant the ‘Tesco law’ option, which would have allowed 100% of non-solicitor ownership of a law firm, was ruled out for Scotland.”
The Law Society release went onto triumphantly announce : “The legislation will for the first time allow non-solicitors to set up in partnership with solicitors to provide legal services in Scotland. The Bill, as passed, will mean solicitors and other regulated professionals must still have a majority share of at least 51% in any new legal services business, with the remaining 49% open to other external investors.”
Jamie Millar, president of the Law Society whose own law firm Lindsays is linked to a dishonest firm of Borders solicitors, said: “I am pleased that MSPs have voted to approve this legislation. These changes will broaden access to legal services and allow the Scottish legal profession to remain competitive against a challenging economic backdrop and in an increasingly international, competitive market. At the same time, the Bill continues to protect the principles and core values that underpin the Scottish legal profession.”
He continued : "There has been much debate, both within and outwith the legal profession, on this Bill and its provisions to allow solicitors to enter into practice with non-solicitors. However, it is now important to move forward and ensure these changes work in practice within the strongest possible regulatory framework. The Society intends to work with government to enhance the provision of legal services and access to justice for people in Scotland.”
One client who has been involved in a bitter 5 year battle with the Law Society and has faced problems in securing legal representation after several law firms dumped him over a case involving a complaint regarding his original solicitor’s embezzlement of over £60,000 from the sale of land scoffed at Mr Millar’s statement.
He said “What principles and core values of the legal profession is Mr Millar talking about ? I know of one solicitor who is a cocaine user, another who is a convicted paedophile, another who was charged with raping & assaulting his own wife, and another who has defrauded over 15 clients of several million pounds yet each of these crooks are still practising law in Scotland.”
He continued : “Mr Millar and his colleagues are talking a lot of rubbish when they talk about values of the legal profession and access to justice. There are no values and there is no access to justice. People should wake up to realise their solicitors and those in charge of regulating them are not be as clean as they claim to be.”
Consumer Focus Scotland’s Director, Marieke Dwarshuis commented in a statement on the Legal Services Bill vote, saying : “We are delighted that Parliament has voted in favour of widening choice and protection for users of legal services and increasing access to justice. We have long argued that these changes are in the interest of consumers and are pleased that today’s vote will pave the way for the development of a legal services market which better meets the needs of the public.”
Ms Dwarshuis continued : “We recognise that there are many who remain sceptical about the benefits the Bill will bring about, but are confident that in time, most will come to accept that the legislation will be effective for both users of legal services and the legal profession.”
Which? also ‘welcomed’ the Legal Services Bill. A spokesperson for Which?, whose supercomplaint began the Legal Services Bill’s peculiarly Scottish journey, in comparison to the much easier and stronger pro-consumer friendly Legal Services Act (2007) for England & Wales, said : “We are delighted to welcome the Bill which will improve legal services for the public in Scotland.”
Doubtless however, some at Which? must be feeling a touch put out over the way the Law Society of Scotland so easily butchered their proposals for free market competition in legal services, as what was passed yesterday in the Scottish Parliament clearly puts Scots consumers on a less choice, less protected, lower standard of service footing than consumers in England & Wales.
The Office of Fair Trading, who issued a report calling for changes to Scotland’s closed shop legal services market has issued no press release or comment.
I could easily write something along the lines of ... I find it hard to believe the Law Society were able to amend the bill, bully the Scottish Government to introduce amendments, call in msps for ‘personal briefings’, suggesting they follow the profession's line to “avoid trouble further down the line”, ensure consumers or anyone with an actual experience of how legal services are provided were not allowed to testify in public to the Justice Committee ... but there wouldn't be much point, as what some might find hard to believe, happened, and I covered it as the Legal Services Bill progressed through Holyrood, here : Legal Services Bill - How Scotland's legal profession avoided giving consumers wider access to justice
In my opinion, the whole debate on the Legal Services Bill can be summed up in one short television appearance between Mike Dailly & former Law Society President Ian Smart. It really was nothing more than a battle for market share and power between factions of the legal profession … nothing really to do with consumers at all. You can watch the video of Ian Smart & Mike Dailly slogging it out on live television here : Law Society President Ian Smart v Govan Centre's Mike Dailly on Legal Services Bill reforms. There would have also been a good video clip of Fergus Ewing caving into solicitors during a Law Society meeting, however the Law Society pulled the clip from their own website for reasons unknown - or perhaps so the public couldn’t see how easy it is for the legal profession to influence an elected politician.
Video coverage of key points of testimony on the Legal Services Bill to the Justice Committee by the legal profession and consumer groups, can be viewed in my earlier reports or at InjusticeTV & LawyerTV
I'd be happy if someone could prove me wrong - quote me an example if you can .. however the odds are stacked against consumer rights taking precedence over the legal profession in Scotland and every single piece of legislation, order or amendment passed by the Scottish Parliament concerning legal services or regulation of our country's legal system since the Scottish Parliament came into existence in 1997 leaves the consumer interest far behind that of the legal profession - even the Legal profession & Legal aid Scotland Act 2007, passed in a similar blaze of glory, gory & Law Society sponsored resistance at Holyrood, which as we all now know has ended up a brutalised, watered down, now almost useless piece of legislation in terms of consumer protection from Scotland's historically poor quality legal services market.
If anything can be learned from the way the Scottish Parliament handled the Legal Services Bill I'd say its this - collectively, msps in the Scottish Parliament cannot be trusted to pass a piece of legislation involving the legal system which puts the rights of ordinary members of the public over & above the interests of the legal profession. Its as simple as that. There is no other conclusion someone outside the Scots legal system’s bubble can reach on the available evidence.
It is with some irony that on the same day England & Wales placed the consumers interests first, moving to fully independent regulation of their legal services market, Scotland took a backward step which will see the Law Society of Scotland ultimately appointed by the current SNP controlled Scottish Executive as an “approved regulator” to wipe the floor with consumer complaints against legal services once again.
On this note, consumers in Scotland who actually value what they have left in their lives, what they have worked for, what they own, what assets they have, might wish to consider using legal services in England if at all possible because at least consumers might have better protection from independent regulation in the form of the new Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales, which at least so far, appears to be a world of difference from any Scottish solution born from the Law Society of Scotland’s grip over Scots legal reform …
30 comments:
ouch!
We have to go to England for a decent lawyer now!
"If anything can be learned from the way the Scottish Parliament handled the Legal Services Bill I'd say its this - collectively, msps in the Scottish Parliament cannot be trusted to pass a piece of legislation involving the legal system which puts the rights of ordinary members of the public over & above the interests of the legal profession. Its as simple as that. There is no other conclusion someone outside the Scots legal system’s bubble can reach on the available evidence."
the thing is Peter the Law Society as a profession can buy votes just as any other industry buys the services of politicians so consumers or consumer advocates such as yourself will always be at a disadvantage when dealing with Parliaments stuffed to the gunnels with backhanders.
In the end what counts is you were able to tell us what really happened as it happened which is something precious few people in the media seem able to achieve.
Good luck and best wishes.
People in Scotland have no legal redress against lawyers. I will use an English law firm because the law Solids of Scotland cue in change of complaints.
Some situation for legal consumers in Scotland when we have more protection in England.
Independence Mr Salmond? Non merci.
Its easy to see "consumers" wont benefit much because the Law Society are all welcoming it.They wouldnt be saying its good if it really hurt lawyers !
Its easy to see "consumers" wont benefit much because the Law Society are all welcoming it.They wouldnt be saying its good if it really hurt lawyers !
Law Society of Scotland’s weak touch self-regulation allows ‘crooked lawyers’ to continue working for unsuspecting clients.
THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND’S self serving, self protecting system of lawyers regulating each other has once again demonstrated the Scottish legal profession is thoroughly unfit to regulate its 10,000 solicitors and protect the client’s best interests at the same time, as the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed this weekend yet another ‘disgraced lawyer’ solicitor Steven Anderson, has returned to work after the Scottish Legal Aid Board found him guilt of making ‘unjustified claims’, while the Law Society has taken NO ACTION to protect the public.
The Sunday Mail’s investigation into Steven Anderson came after Scottish Legal Aid Board issued an earlier Press Release stating an investigation had found non-compliance with SLAB’s Code of Practice for Criminal Legal Assistance.
The SLAB Press Release identified solicitor Steven Anderson, stating “this non‐compliance included: holding unnecessary meetings with clients, and making inappropriate, multiple and repetitive grants of advice and assistance”.
Curiously however, the Press Release from the Scottish Legal Aid Board contained no figures of how much money in terms of claims to the Legal Aid Board Mr Anderson had received, now revealed by the Sunday Mail to stand at a staggering £560,330.
Post your complaints on Solicitors from Hell. Law Society is a waste of time for clients.
THE ABOVE LAWYER IS STILL WORKING BUT CANNOT DO LEGAL AID WORK.
WHY HAVE THE LAW SOCIETY TAKEN NO ACTION, BEWARE.
LAW SOCIETY JUSTICE IS LAWYER PROTECTION. PLEASE AVOID THESE PEOPLE WHO CONTROL THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT.
I doubt you will win many friends at Holyrood with your brutal assessment of msps but your are of course totally correct.
Scotland's banana republic justice continues ..
As I said before what the Law Society wants the Law Society gets and there's little Fergus blowing kisses back to his lawyer pals yesterday right ?
This is what happens when a country is run by lawyers but when you try and tell people about it they just laugh in your face until it happens to them.
The usual disgusting treatment of the electorate from the Scottish Parliament.If we had any balls left we would stop paying their wages and expenses until they acually did something good for the country!
So what happens now Peter ?
I think I would rather burn my money than hand it over to some git of a lawyer to squander on paperwork.
From what I've heard today there are plenty of solicitors who dont like this bill either.Perhaps you should all get together and challenge it in court ?
Far from doing any good for their country politicians are the scum of the earth.They send out kids off to fight and get killed in wars around the world yet they cant even give us a decent justice system or make our streets safe.All their excuses of doing nothing are then backed up by their lawyer friends each support the other.Do I need to go on ?
Court is a rubbish idea since the Scottish courts are so willing to dance to politicians or lawyers.Just ask Megrahi and anyone with an ounce of sense who knows the Lockerbie case
“What principles and core values of the legal profession is Mr Millar talking about ? I know of one solicitor who is a cocaine user, another who is a convicted paedophile, another who was charged with raping & assaulting his own wife, and another who has defrauded over 15 clients of several million pounds yet each of these crooks are still practising law in Scotland.”
and I bet there are plenty more of these types in the 12,000+ of lawyers infesting Scotland !!!
Scots access to justice will never happen as long as Lorna Jack and her staff control the legal system.
We have to go to England for a decent lawyer now!
Yes. An unelected so called professional body removing consumer protection from the legal services bill because elected MSP's want to protect their legal buddies not their constituents. We do not have a Scottish Parliament when this is happening.
Scottish Parliament, a weak pushover who are against the electorate. I will not vote any more, pointless.
A very poor showing from Fergus Ewing who is probably thinking about what he (a lawyer) will do in opposition next year after the SNP are cbucked out by voters (phew!)
"....our businesses and consumers...the legal profession and consumers..".
Mr Ewing's own words reveal his order of priorities - lawyers first and, very near the bottom of the list, everyone else.
What a spineless and hypocritical 'welcome' from Which and Consumer Focus Scotland.
The former's proposals are butchered beyond recognition that they hail this as a 'success'.
A dirty trick from msps.I hope you link to the debate video so we can see the cowards giving it all over to the Law Society!
PS That clip with Dailly & Smart is hilarious.They are like a couple of kids squabbling in a sandpit!
Politicians are in politics for themselves, bending for their danger friends. Scum all of them.
No wonder the oft didnt bother with a statement - this was a fit up by the Law Society from the consultation to abs vote to Holyrood.
I also agree with your conclusion the proposal as passed will not benefit consumers one bit.
So Russell Brand was right when he said "Come back to England" !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLlVkONIWvY
Profession congratulates itself over dodging consumer bullet :
http://www.slas.co.uk/news_detail.php?newsID=776
A debt of gratitude is owed to those solicitors who, over the past two years, have stood up against the resources and spin that were employed to promote Tesco Law and their achievement in having the potential ownership of external capital restricted to 49% would certainly not have been attained without these efforts. Those solicitors, as well as contributing compulsorily to the machine which rolled out the new legislation, contributed from their own resources to achieve the amendment and they are due the congratulations and thanks of the whole profession, as well as of the public which it swerves, for doing so. At the AGM of the Law Society in May 2010, a number of experts confirmed the view that “ownership” and “control” were quite independent of each other, from which it follows that the restriction to 49% of ownership does not necessarily exclude control by external capital agencies, even although that control appears to have been accepted by every side of the argument as undesirable. Why else would there have been unanimity in the 49% restriction ? But what does that restriction actually achieve ?. Particularly when you consider that none of the other 51% need be solicitors or legally qualiied in any case, a consequence of the Bill of which many practitioners, and who know who else, remain blissfully unaware.
None of the terms of the final Act were determined by parliamentary vote, as this was unanimous, but rather by negotiations and deals carried out behind the vote. For that reason, it is quite likely that this Act will contain a number of inconsistencies and errors. Now, therefore, the profession has to take on board the terms of the Act which has been passed and examine it for legal validity and potential practical consequences.
Members’ views will continue to be solicited.
Yes quite a sell-out by Which? & Consumer Focus.Why are they not calling for independent regulation ?
Something you said in your replies to another posting about we should not treat the Law Society as an organ of justice is very true and probably something everyone should listen to.Using a lawyer is a business not a charity so we have a right to an expectation of decent service and cover if it all goes wrong.
Keep up the good work!
Call the Scottish Parliament the new law Society of Scotland. Politicians make me sick.
Perhaps some English law firms will represent Scottish clients, to the detriment of the legal services industry in Scotland. Clients should only use law firms who are independently regulated.
Post a Comment