Friday, November 26, 2010

‘Part-time’ law regulator Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to monitor consumer claims against lawyers ‘Master Policy’ insurance scheme

SLCCThe Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have refused to monitor claims against crooked lawyers. THE Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which has received over £2 million of public funds & many more millions from lawyers, and which was triumphed by both the Scottish Government & Scottish Parliament as an ‘independent’ regulator of complaints against the legal profession has today reneged on substantial parts of its legislative remit to ‘monitor’ claims made against the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy – the infamous insurance scheme which clients who attempt to recover financial losses through negligent or ‘crooked lawyers’ are forced to deal with, if they can find legal representation to take their case to court.

It can now be revealed the SLCC has refused the first ever invitation to monitor two claims made by an individual who contends negligence & more on the part of his legal representatives. The SLCC however went further in its response to the client’s request, and claimed it would not monitor any claims made against the Master Policy, despite the powers given to it under Section 39 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.

SLCC Master Policy Monitor request 19 11 2010Letter reveals SLCC’s latest Chief Executive told client they will not monitor claims made against crooked lawyers while revealing quango boss is part-time only at £35K a year. In a letter released today to Diary of Injustice, the SLCC’s latest Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew apologised for taking a month to reply to the claimant, as the SLCC’s Chairwoman, Jane Irvine who receives over £35,000 a year “only attends the office on a part-time basis”. Ms Agnew then went onto write : “..it is not within the SLCC’s remit to monitor individual claims made under the Master Policy. Under the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (Section 39), the SLCC may monitor the overall effectiveness of guarantee funds, etc and professional indemnity arrangements put in place by the Law Society of Scotland for its members (ie the Master Policy). This power does not extend to our active involvement in the way in which individual indemnity claims are being dealt with by the insurers.”

Ms Agnew, the SLCC’s second Chief Executive, who replaced Eileen Masterman who herself resigned after a bitter exchange with Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney over issues involving meetings the SLCC held in connection with the Master Policy, went onto question why the claimant was even writing to the SLCC with regard to monitoring Master Policy claims, even disputing the claimant’s capacity to invite the SLCC to carry out its monitoring role. I reported on Ms Masterman’s resignation, here : SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh

Douglas Mill 4Ex Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill, resigned after memo revealed he interfered in Master Policy claims. Legal insiders today questioned the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s refusal to monitor individual claims made against crooked lawyers to the Master Policy, saying it had been expected for some time the SLCC would involve itself in monitoring work to specific claims, as several MSPs, including John Swinney when he was in opposition, had hoped for and was intended in the spirit of the LPLA Act, which had a bitter passage through the Scottish Parliament during 2006, even provoking legal threats against both the Parliament & Scottish Government by the then Law Society Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, himself brought down by questions over his involvement in blocking claims against the Master Policy.

A consumer official also criticised the SLCC’s refusal to keep watch on claims made against the Master Policy and rounded on their refusal to look at individual claims. He said : “If the SLCC do not take up their monitoring role on claims made to the Master Policy in a fashion which allows them to keep an eye over individual claims, I have to wonder how the commission expects to gain any experience from how claims to the Master Policy progress once they have been made.”

Section 39 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 states :

39. Monitoring effectiveness of guarantee funds etc

(1) The Commission may monitor the effectiveness of—

(a) the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund vested in the Society and controlled and managed by the Council under section 43(1) of the 1980 Act (“the Guarantee Fund”);

(b) arrangements carried into effect by the Society under section 44(2) of that Act (“the professional indemnity arrangements”);

(c) any funds or arrangements maintained by any relevant professional organisation which are for purposes analogous to those of the Guarantee Fund or the professional indemnity arrangements as respects its members.

(2) The Commission may make recommendations to the relevant professional organisation concerned about the effectiveness (including improvement) of the Guarantee Fund, the professional indemnity arrangements or any such funds or arrangements as are referred to in subsection (1)(c).

(3) The Commission may request from the relevant professional organisation such information as the Commission considers relevant to its functions under subsections (1) and (2).

(4) Where a relevant professional organisation fails to provide information requested under subsection (3), it must give reasons to the Commission in respect of that failure.

Exactly how far along the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission actually is with its monitoring role of claims against crooked lawyers after three years of discussing the issue was revealed in an article of last week, here : 15 court challenges, huge expense claims, lack of consumer confidence & no Master Policy scrutiny after two years tells all on Scots law quango SLCC

Master Policy Report Suicides revealedSLCC’s Master Policy report revealed client deaths were covered up by Law Society & insurers. Clearly the word “may”, which is liberally inserted into the terms of the LPLA Act is playing a vital part in the SLCC’s lack of interest in monitoring claims against the Master Policy, a remit which is still in discussion three years since the Commission was created. Additionally, the 2009 independent investigation into the Master Policy, compiled by the University of Manchester’s law school, which I reported on report on the, here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night' appears to have had little effect on the road to taking the Master Policy issue 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’.

Jane IrvineSLCC’s Chairwoman Jane Irvine who couldn’t answer letter sooner due to part-time position. While wronged & robbed clients have been left in the lurch by the SLCC’s refusal to monitor claims made to the Master Policy, its ‘part-time’ Chairwoman, Jane Irvine who receives over £35,000 a year in her post at the SLCC is revealed in the SLCC’s register of interests to have a string of jobs including that of Chair of the Disciplinary Board of the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries, and the position of Deputy UK Pensions Ombudsman, for which Ms Irvine receives a further £30,000 per annum with expenses claimed of £3883.70 up to August 2010, according to a response received in relation to a Freedom of Information request.

The Faculty of Actuaries are exempt from Freedom of Information legislation and would not reply to enquiries as to how much Ms Irvine earned in her position as Chair of the Disciplinary Board of the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries.

The SLCC’s register of interests also reveals Ms Irvine is a Director of a company called “Daleway Ltd” and a 2006 report in the Law Society of Scotland's in house magazine, the Journalonline stated Ms Irvine was a director of “Resolutions Ltd” “which provides decisions and mediation services for disputes in a range of areas including holidays, funerals, surveying and financial services. She is also the chairman of the Scottish Branch of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.”.

The Journalonline article of 2006 went onto state : “She sits on disciplinary boards for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Advocates. She has also served on the Local Government Property Commission in Scotland where she dealt with disputes over property ownership between local authorities.”

Many other SLCC board members hold multiple jobs & paid positions, as is revealed in their register of interests which will be featured in a further report next week, where it appears the board members have so many other positions, they don't appear to be able to focus on the SLCC’s expected remit to be a vigorous defender of maligned clients at the hands of many a crooked lawyer …

It is certainly a sorry state for consumers of legal services in Scotland that 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 be doing with regard to its ‘monitoring role’ over the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a less than convincing statement this afternoon on the matter of their monitoring role over the Master Policy, saying : “We understand that under the Act, the SLCC’s powers do not extend to the monitoring of individual cases.”

Clearly if the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is not up to the job of monitoring the most controversial parts of regulation of complaints & claims against the legal profession, the public need a regulator who can do, not one that cant do, or wont do …

45 comments:

  1. Clearly the SLCC is, as you have long since recognized, the Law Society's 'poodle'.

    I am surprised that anyone at the SLCC found the time to write a letter at all given their many and varied paid jobs elsewhere.

    And the taxpayer funds this waste of space, talk about adding insult to injury.........

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well she cant be expected to monitor everything if she isnt even at the SLCC.Come to think of it if she's got all those jobs and companies then why does she bother at all ?

    As you say Peter we need a regulator that can do not wont do or cant do !

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frequent use of the word "may" in Section 39 almost to the point one suspects they never wanted to do it in the first place.

    Your report is of course excellent and exposes yet again the SLCC is only a friend of itself and certainly its jobs hungry board members.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Law Society are paying them not to look at it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm all for having the right people with experience in particular positions but to have Irvine in all those jobs while there are all these problems with the SLCC AND they wont even look at claims against this master policy - its just a bit too much for my liking.

    No doubt they will be off to the newspapers for another softly softly story on how good they are without referring to actual facts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a disgusting letter for £2 million.
    I think us taxpayers should have a big refund coming!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The SLCC however went further in its response to the client’s request, and claimed it would not monitor any claims made against the Master Policy, despite the powers given to it under Section 39 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007."

    They wanted to make sure no one else could ask them to look at a claim.Evil.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This certainly proves what you've been saying all along Peter - the SLCC are as crooked as the Law Society so its little surprise they dont want to reveal the secret scandals of the Master Policy while the bodies pile up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They took a month to reply to the person to say they didnt have the power to do it yet the seems to say they can.Did they have to run back to the Law Society for instructions before replying ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. “We understand that under the Act, the SLCC’s powers do not extend to the monitoring of individual cases.”

    Any excuse to protect a filthy corrupt profession. The Act was watered down by the Law Society and corrupt politicians.

    As for the reference to individual cases they mean our powers do not expose individual lawyers. Avoiding the latter means no one to individually blame. This is the reason all lawyers are stigmatised as fundamentally corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  11. “We understand that under the Act, the SLCC’s powers do not extend to the monitoring of individual cases.”

    Where did they get this from ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Its the same story with all these so called ombudsman - they have about 10 jobs each,sit on each other's committees and if lucky get an obe or knighthood for services rendered.
    In reality they leave a trail of ruined lives and lost hopes.I'm all for making them personally meet each & every single victim of whichever profession they are involved with,in public, on camera,and having to explain why they did nothing when it mattered.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems to me the only way to avoid dealing with this horrible SLCC or its even worse Law Society is to avoid using lawyers altogether.I wish people would wise up to the fact the only winners in legal disputes are lawyers and not those who go to them so please think about it before actually using one of these spineless crooked reptiles (no offence to reptiles) before going through their doors and if you dont get some idea of what you are facing by reading this blog then well all I can say is you bloody well deserve to be robbed because you have been well and truly warned!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree do not use a lawyer unless you have to, because they will maximise your financial situation for their own gain. They do not give a toss about your situation and if you use a lawyer to get you money for an injury, not only will they charge you a fortune and take for ever, they will take your compensation too and then advise you to drop the case.

    Sorry to keep banging on but the answer is so simple DONT GO NEAR THE BASTARDS and remember don't give the RSA insurance any money for insurance because they don't give us any.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Whoever you are I'd say you are pretty brave to take on the likes of lawyers - they are worse than criminals and will stop at nothing to keep their victims silent.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  16. You lawyers out there, are you mentally reachable? Look where self regulation has got you. Trusting professions where colleagues investigate complaints is simply madness.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Easy to see from the letter these people have no will to investigate crooked lawyers which makes the SLCC about as useful as fake goods with no guarantee!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just downloaded that register of interests - what a shocker (not)

    Are this lot stocking up on jobs because of the recession ?

    At this rate there wont be any left for anyone else !

    ReplyDelete
  19. THE SLCC IS AN EXTENSION OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND. LAWYERS ENJOY RUINING PEOPLE'S LIVES. IMAGINE IF JOE BLOGGS GOT £500,000.00 ILLEGALY FROM THE LEGAL AID BOARD. HE WOULD BE A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SAUGHTON PRISON. THE RULES CHANGE IF THE MONEY IS TAKEN BY A LAWYER.


    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, OR THE SLCC, BEWARE.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rosemary Agnew is using a very loose interpretation of the law.Clearly they were meant to look at and monitor claims.Now they have changed their minds probably for all the reasons you have already outlined.

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  21. We are certainly all in this together arent we Jane?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Odd that the SLCC will not even ask the Law Society for a copy of the Master Policy - which it is supposed to oversee.

    But then the SLCC is bound by the FOI Act while the Law Society is allowed to remain above the law in this, as in so many other, regards.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1st comment I totally agree and it looks like it took them over a month to reply!
    They must all be too busy with all their other jobs which in itself tells us the SLCC is just a part time joke for all concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Law Society of Scotland is the enemy of most of the citizens of Scotland. The public just do not realise how dangerous lawyers are. Believe me when you are on the wrong side of the legal profession the legal system automatically makes you rightness.

    ReplyDelete
  25. (3) The Commission may request from the relevant professional organisation such information as the Commission considers relevant to its functions under subsections (1) and (2).

    Nothing will be asked for nothing will be given!

    (4) Where a relevant professional organisation fails to provide information requested under subsection (3), it must give reasons to the Commission in respect of that failure.

    why bother when they dont even want to do it!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Good morning Peter,

    You and your colleagues are doing a great job, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  27. A friend of my family went to the Citizens Advice Bureau because her lawyer overcharged her. When I found out about this l told her the Law Society control the legislature. She never heard from the CAB.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Interesting to see the kinds of letters this lot are sending out to people who end up having to go to them after being conned by their lawyers.
    As you say a part time regulator is no good,this kind of job requires someone with a focus and not 15 jobs each.

    For example how would people feel if the FSA were only part time regulating banks although having said that it might look like they were!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Our Scottish Parliament have thrown a lot of taxpayers money at a quango who's real purpose is protecting lawyers.

    The Law Society controls all things legal but it cannot silence its critics and this is the reason lawyers are in the social gutter. Trust none of them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry to keep banging on but the answer is so simple DONT GO NEAR THE BASTARDS and remember don't give the RSA insurance any money for insurance because they don't give us any.
    -----------------------------------
    I could never trust a lawyer again, so if at all possible avoid lawyers at all costs. I cancelled insurance with Royal Sun Alliance too although all insurance companies are like lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Letter reveals SLCC’s latest Chief Executive told client they will not monitor claims made against crooked lawyers while revealing quango boss is part-time only at £35K a year.

    The Commission should be closed immediately, as it is not fit for purpose. They set up a so called independent front controlled by the Law Society, so that Mr Mills colleagues will be protected. Lawyers are bad people. I go to work to build houses, they go to work to ruin lives with impunity.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What this amounts to is that legal practitioners want to administer their idea of corrupt justice, whilst being exempt from scrutiny themselves. It is the lack of tough independent scrutiny of lawyers conduct that is the problem. I think these people have the same attitude as Douglas Mill, which caused his resignation. It is due to the bent system of self regulation Mr Mill, people like you are above the law. It is an outrage that it continues. Your average lawyer knows the Douglas Mill's at the Commission & Law Society, will save their skins when complaints are received. The consequences for clients Mr Mill are serious. Clearly you do not care about that as your conduct has demonstrated.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I can see now why you dont want to join the slcc - they certainly are nothing but a front for the Law Society and the Master Policy.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I've been sent a similar "get lost" letter from the SLCC after my solicitor ruined our mortgage to get the house we wanted for himself.Can I get the complaint published by you?

    ReplyDelete
  35. 35 grand a year for a part time job is pretty good !

    Any more like that going at this crooked SLCC ?

    ReplyDelete
  36. “We understand that under the Act, the SLCC’s powers do not extend to the monitoring of individual cases.”

    The SLCC do not want to monitor, they only want to protect Law Society members. Ideologies embedded in the Commission and Law Society which protect corrupt lawyers cannot be changed. Impartial regulation means no lawyers, or police, or Jane Irvine's, regulation means what Peter Cherbi is doing and other pressure groups, These lawyers talk about clients being uneducated idiots, the reality is that the Law Society provide the corrupt practices & the public are being educated of the dangers of using a law firm. We do not need law degrees, we need websites to bring ruined clients together. Cut off the supply of new clients to corrupt law firms. That is the preliminary solution to this most serious problem.

    ReplyDelete
  37. John Swinney when he was in opposition, had hoped for and was intended in the spirit of the LPLA Act, which had a bitter passage through the Scottish Parliament during 2006, even provoking legal threats against both the Parliament & Scottish Government by the then Law Society Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, MR MILL YOU THREATEN THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR CRONIES WANT TO MAINTAIN A CORRUPT SYSTEM THAT LED TO YOUR RESIGNATION AND THE RUINATION OF PEOPLE'S LIVES.

    IF YOUR ATTITUDE WAS TO PROTECT CLIENTS THE WAY YOU PROTECT LAWYERS, THE REPUTATION OF LAWYERS AS A PROFESSION WOULD BE BETTER FOR IT. GET REAL, IF YOU WERE A RUINED CLIENT WHAT WOULD YOU WANT? I AM ASSUMING YOU ARE REASONABLE ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THIS?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Among a few articles I missed in the media last week, was the story of one of the Law Society's shining stars, Angela Baillie, aka Ally McDeal, the drugs running lawyer who smuggled narcotics into jail for one of her clients, who managed an early release - earlier than probably anyone else, considering what she did. IF THE LAW SOCIETY AND COMMISSION COULD KEEP THIS QUIET, THEY WOULD IN MY OPINION WANT THIS COVERED UP TOO.

    ReplyDelete
  39. When people are being ripped off by lawyers they need something more than a part time regulator!

    ReplyDelete
  40. "I am surprised that anyone at the SLCC found the time to write a letter at all given their many and varied paid jobs elsewhere."

    I agree!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sorry to keep banging on but the answer is so simple DONT GO NEAR THE BASTARDS,

    This is very good advice, if people can settle disputes eg estates, wills, between themselves. If they go to a lawyer and the lawyer rips them off the Commission & Law Society only care about the lawyer. They will laugh at the lawyers victims.

    Any person who goes to a lawyer after reading this blog is either desperate or insane.

    ReplyDelete
  42. What did I tell you Peter ?

    At least the Client Relations Office never worked part-time.This is what you get when the Law Society is allowed to form a so-called 'independent' complaints regulator with people too busy adding to their jobs portfolio to make a difference to the task at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, their professional bodies, the Ombudsman are all the same. Cover up specialists.

    Access to the courts is controlled by lawyers (not the requirements of Justice). Never try to sue any of these people, you will fail. Medical negligence, your money stole by a lawyer or accountant, it does not make any difference. You will fail because the complaints system and the above people are against you. As Soon as there is a suggestion of litigation, you will fail because the above people make more money when you lose.

    ReplyDelete
  44. My guess is you can expose what you like about these people but nothing will change.

    Jane Irvine and the SLCC's board all attend dinners laced with msps and other people who dont deserve to have any influence in our society.This is the sad state of the world today and its so bad we may as well be voting for clones of Adolf Hitler because thats what we are getting in politics and the people around them or those they put in positions.

    Nevertheless (and I dont think I need to say this) keep up your exposes of just how rotten Scotland really is.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thought I would comment and say neat theme, did you make it for yourself? It’s really awesome!

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.