After two years the SLCC has failed to live up to consumer expectations. AS THE Scottish Legal Complaints Commission prepares to publish its latest annual report, which is expected to show a drop in complaints being investigated by the hapless law complaints quango which itself has yet to produce any successful prosecutions of ‘crooked lawyers’, it was revealed earlier this week in the Scotsman newspaper the SLCC, which has so far not endeared itself to solicitors or the typical annual roll of thousands of victims of Scotland’s notoriously poor legal services market now faces around 15 legal challenges from the legal profession to its authority in Scotland’s Court of Session.
The SLCC have already lost two court challenges, one brought by a complainant who was awarded rare legal aid to pursue a full court of session appeal, while the other was brought by the Law Society. I reported on both those cases in an earlier articles HERE & HERE. A source close to the law complaints quango claimed earlier this week they expected to lose many more of the court challenges now building up.
While the SLCC has attempted to portray itself as an ‘independent’ regulator of complaints against solicitors, the past two years of its work, and nearly three years of existence have if anything produced a slew of revelations the law complaints quango is more anti-client, or anti-consumer than as it would have us believe, a fearless defender of client’s best interests.
Diary of Injustice reported how SLCC Board members had berated consumers in internal emails. Over the past two years, investigations into the conduct of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s own board members has revealed a culture of hate fuelled remarks directed against consumer groups, clients, while board members openly expressed antipathy & animosity towards claimants to the Law Society of Scotland’s Guarantee Fund, which is one of the areas the SLCC was given a mandate in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to oversee, along with the infamous Master Policy, the latter of which was the subject of an independent investigation carried out by the University of Manchester’s Law School, who revealed in their final report there were client suicides connected to the Master Policy, information the insurers who run the Master Policy, Marsh, Royal Sun Alliance & others, and Law Society had suppressed.
Master Policy report revealed client deaths covered up by Law Society. You can read more about the University of Manchester’s report on the Master Policy, here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'. However, three years on since the law complaints quango was created in a blaze of publicity to restore public confidence in the handling of complaints against Scottish solicitors and to keep an eye on how clients are compensated for the actions of ‘crooked lawyers’, and over a year on since the SLCC’s own report tied up the Master Policy to deaths, the SLCC is still bogged down in discussing what it should actually be doing with regards to the highly contentions Section 39 of the LPLA Act : Monitoring effectiveness of guarantee funds etc
The latest references in the SLCC’s most recent published board meeting minutes (September 2010), make for further, almost hopeless reading on the subject of monitoring of the Master Policy, where the SLCC’s board were told :
“5.1 Guarantee Fund Research: An update was provided. Members noted the progress being made on procuring a suitable research company.
5.2 Master Policy Research: The approach to information gathering was discussed and the cost implications of this piece of research. Once costings have been attained a further discussion will take place at the next suitable Board meeting. There was wider debate about the direction of the research and the ongoing need for a steering committee separate to the Board and whether the project should report directly to the board via the ICEO. It was agreed that the Chair, AP and ICEO should meet separately to discuss this.”
Taken in terms of what the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s board have achieved so far this year on their monitoring remit, this is indeed a poor state of affairs.
The SLCC’s Board meeting of January 2010 revealed :
“The Chair of the Research Group gave an overview of the paper on Oversight and a brief discussion ensued. It was agreed that the Board would authorise the Chair of the Research Group:
8.1 to instruct Professor Stephen to conduct the necessary statistical analysis of such worthwhile data as is made available to him by the Law Society and Marsh in relation to the two schemes at a cost not exceeding £6k inclusive of VAT;
8.2 and to prepare a tender for the survey research of a stratified sample of claimants and practitioners of each scheme if the Law Society and Marsh confirm in writing that they will assist in the distribution of such questionnaires
In the February 2010 board meeting minutes, the decisions of January had translated into inaction :
“10.3 AP updated all present on the progress of the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund Research. AP is still waiting on a response from the LSS and will ask for a response by the 5th March. “
By March 2010, little further action had taken place, and the SLCC Board meeting heard :
“AP updated the Board on the progress of the research currently being undertaken. The Board expressed increasing frustration at the lack of information being provided by the LSS on the Master Policy. The Board wish to be in a position to complete the research by the end of the financial year.
By May 2010, again, little had changed although the SLCC’s board were told that Marsh were not likely to give any more information on the Master Policy :
“11.1 AP updated Members and reported that research continued to be undertaken in terms of the Master Policy. Members expect to be in a position to complete the research by the end of the financial year.”
By July, 2010, it appears disaster had struck the SLCC’s intentions to do anything with regard to monitoring claims against the Master Policy, with the board meeting of that month hearing :
“5.1 Master Policy and Guarantee Fund: A verbal update was given which touched upon the issues of the time it was taking to obtain information, and the fact that information may never be forthcoming from Marsh as they are under no legal obligation to provide it and because of commercial sensitivity may not be able to provide it. A discussion took place on the merits of splitting the research and Members agreed to separate research in relation to Master Policy and Guarantee fund and press on with research on the Guarantee Fund.”
A legal insider this morning condemned the amount of time the SLCC had wasted over moving on its remit to monitor claims against the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund.
He said : “The SLCC have been around for nearly three years and should have had all this in hand when they opened for business on October 1st 2008. It is ridiculous for the SLCC’s board to sit around discussing what is to be done when we all know what needs to be done, which is a forceful audit of all claims made against the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund.”
A client who has been attempting to make a claim against the Master Policy for over two years said the SLCC were obviously not interested in looking into claims if all they have done in two years is talk about it’.
He said : “I have a pile of letters between the Law Society, Marsh and me which go back over two years yet I am no further forward with my claim and the SLCC have done nothing. Life is clearly cheap at the SLCC when it comes to trying to get them to investigate whether you are going to get your money back after your lawyer has stolen it.”
However, I can reveal today the SLCC have now been invited to monitor at least two claims against the Master Policy, and I will report developments on this at a later date.
SLCC’s Board members quick to claim expenses, not so quick to help consumers. While the SLCC has no explanation for the ongoing difficulties it seems to encounter at every turn in relation to its monitoring role in connection with the Master Policy, the law complaints quango and the Scottish Government have started a recruitment campaign for an extra four board members to ramp up their expense claims to allegedly given the SLCC some ‘consumer credentials’. This latest attempt to dress up the SLCC, dubbed by one MSP as “a front company for the Law Society” will see three non lawyer & one extra lawyer board members being added to the SLCC’s already cumbersome, costly, and very much anti-consumer operation, as I reported earlier this month here : Quangocrats wanted : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seek ‘non-lawyer’ board members with legal & ‘consumer’ backgrounds at £209+ a day
I doubt stuffing the SLCC’s board with extra quangocrats will do anything to promote the SLCC as a fearless defender of consumers who fall victim to the reliably crooked elements of Scotland’s legal profession, when after nearly three years, nearly half a million pounds in expenses claims, and a consumer attitude which basically stinks, there is really little to show for consumers best interests against rogue solicitors, while the Law Society of Scotland, still very clearly rule the day on complaints, claims, & court cases against the legal profession ...
Your heading Peter demonstrates Mr MacAskill has succeeded in putting his friends in the right places.
ReplyDeleteCorrupt lawyers need corrupt politicians to maintain the status quo. Talk about whitewashing the whitewashers.
Thankfully you are on the case.
What a sham, and to think someone actually got an award for helping put this crowd in place.
ReplyDeleteThe sooner we are rid of them and get truly independent regulation of the Scottish Legal Professions the better.
Someone should rename this the Scottish Legal Crooked Commission
ReplyDeleteWhy spend 2 years f*cking about discussing something when they all come from the Law Society anyway ?
I dont read the Scotsman so wasnt aware of that story you linked to.
ReplyDeleteSuffice to say these legal challenges are all a put up job - it looks like the Law Society is taking legal action against itself probably to burn up the SLCC's reserves and then take it back into custody.Do you agree Peter ?
"A discussion took place on the merits of splitting the research and Members agreed to separate research in relation to Master Policy and Guarantee fund and press on with research on the Guarantee Fund.”
ReplyDeleteIt took them 3 years to decide this ?
They should all be sacked and forced to repay all their expenses and everything else claims !
May I suggest that the drop in complaints is a result of the public just simply not using lawyers?
ReplyDeleteThanks to you Peter the word is out there now, and the public are more educated with regards to the following equations:
LAWYER RIPS OFF CLIENT + LSS + SLCC DO NOTHING =
NO ONE USING LAWYERS.
NO PAY OUT FROM MASTER POLICY + SLCC NOT MONITORING CLAIMS + PUBLIC USING OTHER COMPANIES TO INSURE THEIR CARS AND HOMES INSTEAD OF THE RSA = A SITUATION BROUGHT ON BUY THEIR OWN DOING.
Any hit yet on which greedy wasters are applying to join up?
ReplyDeletethis slcc all they do is torture me with letters and not answer my complaint when i call they make fun of my english can you help please
ReplyDeleteWhat a joke.Did they get a reply from the LSS (Law Society of Scotland) yet?
ReplyDeleteIts only December no need to hurry up chaps!
Talking about it for years means they dont want to do anything about it and anyway why were they given a power in law to do something when they are now saying they dont need to hand over the details due to commercial sensitivity ?
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell has commercial sensitivity got to do with the justice system and these lying robbing thieving crooked lawyers getting away with stealing our money ?
Jane Irvine if you are reading please explain yourself !
1st comment SPOT ON !!
ReplyDeleteIts obviously worth the Law Society splashing out on this front commission to keep a lid on complaints and anyway the thieving lawyers will recover it from their clients.
ReplyDeleteOh and another thing.Didn't the Scotsman LEAVE OUT A LOT in their version ?!
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhat a sham, and to think someone actually got an award for helping put this crowd in place.
The sooner we are rid of them and get truly independent regulation of the Scottish Legal Professions the better.
19 November 2010 16:31
eehhhhhhhh ???
which twit got the award ???
It was never going to live up to consumer expectations when it took on all the leavings from the Law Society.Don they want it back now or something similar which I read in the Herald ?
ReplyDeleteyuk! If this "independent" quango (how can a quango be independent?) is as bad as this just think what the Law Society must be like!
ReplyDeleteIf that lot got £135,032.96 for sitting around shuffling those papers someone needs to claw back the £135,032 and just leave them with the 96p which is about all they are worth to the rest of us.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.scotsman.com/lawandorder/Call-to-scrap-Scottish-Legal.6578232.jp
ReplyDeleteScotsman werent so complimentary to the SLCC in this one,almost saying its a waste of money and then its supposed to be a defender of maligned clients and worth it ? haha pull the other one
I still read plenty stories about crooked lawyers in the papers so the slcc are obviously not doing their job even after all the money thrown at it!
ReplyDeleteA cohort of criminals protecting their vested Interests.
ReplyDeleteIf lawyers took legal action against each other for clients, and secured damages the current dissent would not have happened. These people are so loyal to each other they are a danger to everyone. Trust no lawyer.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThis slcc all they do is torture me with letters and not answer my complaint when i call they make fun of my english can you help please.
===================================
Yes letters and they will never deal with your complaint they are there to cover everything up.
The hootsmon let them off very lightly
ReplyDeleteWhich? chief executive Peter Vicary-Smith said: "Stewart's tireless campaigning to improve legal services for Scottish consumers has helped drive the creation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission........This makes him a worthy winner of the Which? Consumer Champion Award."
ReplyDeleteI find it incredible this slcc has been left alone by the papers and if anything that newspaper story is critical of those who are criticizing it.Why would anyone want to protect such a thing? well it must be lawyers because its not doing a damn bit of good for ordinary folks out there
ReplyDeleteThey've spent another year talking about doing something then do nothing and they expect consumer satisfaction ?
ReplyDeleteShut it down and make them pay all the money back to taxpayers!
As someone already said this is like the Law Society suing itself and no one is falling for it.
ReplyDeleteKenny MacAskill, Scotland's esteemed INjustice Secretary, was appointed by King Alex Salmond now over 3½ years ago when the Scottish "Nasty / Nazi" Party scraped to power by the skin of their teeth on Friday 4 May 2007 - and they both re-appointed Angiolini as Scotland's Lord Advocate and chief protector of the Scottish Crown Office ... we all know of her appalling track record at the Scottish Crown Office over the past 27 years, since she qualified as a solicitor in 1983.
ReplyDeleteUnder MacAskill, Salmond and their SNP "Government" we now have almost double the number of "Government" lawyers (200 or so) and MacAskill is clearly only interested in protecting his bum chums at The Star Chamber at Drumsheugh Gardens, the SLCC and Scotland's 10,000 lawyers generally - and to hell with his constituents in Edinburgh East and Musselburgh who very foolishly voted him into power (corrupts... ) and his 5,190,000 fellow Scots.
Your problem in lack of progress in radical reforms to Scots law is MacAskill, Salmond and the SNP folks.
Why not put theses allegations to him when he appears at Portobello Town Hall in Edinburgh on St Andrew's night (Tuesday 30 November 2010) or at his constituency office at 16a Willowbrae Road ... not that he will be very welcoming you understand! ( http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/memberspages/kenny_macaskill/contact.htm ).
Good luck with trying to change the laws in the Banana Republic of Scotland, Peter - you have to be greatly admired for your great tenacity, but I can't help feeling it really is a lost cause ... at least so long as MacAskill, Salmond and the Scottish "Nasties / Nazis" remain in power.
God help Scotland under these bunch of Tartan Tories and crooks!
Irvine & Agnew appear to have been given an easy ride in the Scotsman.
ReplyDeleteTheir annual report should be interesting for what it doesnt reveal,much like their own comments in the newspaper!
Looks like you have a lot of foi'ing to do Peter - definitely a scandal here!
ReplyDelete"Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'"
ReplyDelete149 comments on this article Peter, all lawyers are evil.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI still read plenty stories about crooked lawyers in the papers so the slcc are obviously not doing their job even after all the money thrown at it!
Yes the SLCC was setup as a front to protect the public. It is achieving it's real mission in protect crooked lawyers. The only defence is to avoid lawyers and as this is not always possible those of us who are aware of the situation should warn those who are unaware of what they are up against. Complain about a lawyer and the result is musical letters, without any intent to prosecute. A complaints system that gets results for clients is non existent.
Again I think your headline says it all about the SLCC - useless,no good and they dont want to do anything.
ReplyDeleteWho would take over 2 years to discuss monitoring claims against crooked lawyers then 2 years later say they are never going to get the info and split the research and then expect not to be criticised for doing it ?
I'm surprised the newspaper story in the Scotsman was so soft on them considering what has been revealed.It is also very interesting why the newspaper version appears to attach no importance to these monstrous expenses claims yet they will go after politicians expenses at the drop of a hat some much lower than the figures you are quoting for the SLCC board members expenses claims.
I have to say I am more than a little bit worried after being told to read your blog this evening.I have a complaint with the SLCC regarding my solicitor who misused our land titles and have struggled for weeks to even get them to acknowledge there is a legitimate complaint.I was told recently it would have to be passed to the Law Society who I am sure will do nothing and we are stuck in a situation where we cant sell our house because our solicitor (I wont name him just yet) used the titles to get some kind of loan.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it will do any good calling up a newspaper?
Presumably they will talk for a few years more if they hear of more suicides which they dont seem to like discussing in their minutes you quoted.
ReplyDeleteCover up of the most disgusting order if you dont mind me saying so.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI have to say I am more than a little bit worried after being told to read your blog this evening.I have a complaint with the SLCC regarding my solicitor who misused our land titles and have struggled for weeks to even get them to acknowledge there is a legitimate complaint.I was told recently it would have to be passed to the Law Society who I am sure will do nothing and we are stuck in a situation where we cant sell our house because our solicitor (I wont name him just yet) used the titles to get some kind of loan.
Do you think it will do any good calling up a newspaper?
GOD HELP YOU BECAUSE I PROMISE THE LAW SOCIETY, SLCC, NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER LAWYERS WILL NOT. LAWYERS USE LAWYERS TO COVER THEIR TRACKS. USING THE TITLES TO GET SOME KIND OF LOAN IS WHAT THEY DO, COMPLAINING ABOUT YOUR LAWYER IS LIKE A BLACK MAN COMPLAINING TO THE KLU KLUX KLAN ABOUT RACISM.
Thank goodness Class Actions are to become law - the question is will any of us live long enough to see it happen?
ReplyDelete"Do you think it will do any good calling up a newspaper?"
ReplyDeleteYes if you can find one which isn't under the thumb of the Law Society!
What a joke.Little wonder no one has any confidence in the way complaints against lawyers are interested when you get people like this sitting around and doing nothing while the crooked lawyers get off the hook!
ReplyDeleteOne only has to read this blog to realise lawyers are bad news. They condone client suicides because not one of them has stood up against it. It is indeed a reflection of their own ethics.
ReplyDeleteAll forms of self regulation are corrupt and the slcc are no exception - how dare they call themselves independent when its controlled by the Law Society and its own staff who transferred over along with lawyers and ex committee members
ReplyDeleteI hope everyone sends you their complaints documents from the commission Peter. If you put them in your Scottish Legal consumers Complaints register, that will make interesting reading.
ReplyDeleteThe press like the Law Society & SLCC are selective in what they do.
ReplyDeletePowerful forces are at work when the press keep quiet in a so called democracy about lawyer abuse of the public.
Complaining about lawyers is always guaranteed to drive the complainer to despair. Lawyers just cannot bear exposing corrupt colleagues so it is madness to trust any of them.
ReplyDeleteIf the complaints system protected clients the way it actually protects lawyers the legal profession would be held in the highest esteem.
ReplyDeleteSadly the converse is the reality so trusting any lawyer is great folly indeed.
The Scottish Government has thrown a lot of taxpayers money at this quango that victimises members of the public. The MSP's should be outlawed.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are writing about dont surprise me.
ReplyDeleteWe had same by a lawyer when we tried to buy a property in Scotland.
We complain about it and their Law society treated us badly.
On the contrary the SLCC is doing a fine job for crooked lawyers!
ReplyDeleteVery useful information Mr Cherbi although as many of the comments already reflect my view on the Master Policy there's nothing I can usefully add to the debate other than you should all be thinking about boycotting solicitors who are insured by the Master Policy.Customer power will eventually force change if you can muster the numbers or at least get people informed exactly what they are dealing with.
ReplyDeleteHow did Professor Stephen's £6k inclusive of VAT survey of the Master Policy turn out or has that been shelved too ?
ReplyDeleteAlso why another survey when they did that investigation you wrote about last year and came up with the suicide stuff ?
Are they trying to cover that one up too ?
I agree with you on the new SLCC quangocrats - they will make no difference at all other than more expenses ultimately paid for by the consumers they claim they are helping.A Criminal Scheme by any other name.
ReplyDeleteHow many of those expenses hogs in the troff have had to claim against the Master Policy for dealings with crooked lawyers?
ReplyDeletePROBABLY NONE
This "Master Policy is a protection racket where solicitors pay insurers who then make sure clients end up in such a state they kill themselves.
ReplyDeletetrue evil as we expect from the lawyers profession.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteVery useful information Mr Cherbi although as many of the comments already reflect my view on the Master Policy there's nothing I can usefully add to the debate other than you should all be thinking about boycotting solicitors who are insured by the Master Policy. Customer power will eventually force change if you can muster the numbers or at least get people informed exactly what they are dealing with.
==================================
Good point, but the problem is that all solicitors are insured through the Master Policy. So boycotting them means no access to legal services at all. What does a person do in this situation? This and self regulation are the causes of lawyer corruption. The client has no choice regarding using lawyers or their bent complaints system. These are the reasons trust in the legal profession is being eroded day by day.
Self regulation is simply self protection as was demonstrated by Mr Douglas Mill.