The Law Society’s secretive Master Policy insurance protection scheme was linked to deaths in SLCC report. AS the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission effectively signalled earlier in July of this year it had abandoned its less than determined two year quest to secure documents & details from infamous insurers Marsh UK & the Law Society of Scotland of of how the Master Policy operates to protect the legal profession, a solicitor who has come forward over the issue said today the only way the SLCC or the public would ever see the inner workings of the notoriously anti-client Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme for the Scottish legal profession would be if it ends up on the whistle blowing website WikiLeaks.
The solicitor, whose identity I have agreed to withhold on the grounds he may face intimidation from the Law Society over his stance on the matter also said this morning he was fed up with the situation where the Master Policy brokers & insurance companies effectively make the whole process of dealing with clients ‘adversarial’ as soon as any doubt or questions over the solicitors work are raised.
He said : “Having read of the flawed, reticent steps the SLCC have so far taken in their attempts to secure documentation relating to how the Master Policy operates, I am now convinced the only way the SLCC or anyone outside the Law Society or Marsh will ever see a copy of the Master Policy and be able to understand its inner workings & policies on claims is if it all ends up on Wikileaks.”
He continued : “While I make no excuses for colleagues who provide clients with shoddy legal services, I would like members of the public to understand we are currently operating under a regime where as soon as a client raises issues with our work which may potentially lead to a complaint, the Law Society require us to inform them of what is going on. The solicitor client relationship possibly built up over a number of years then turns into an adversarial exercise of effectively closing down our end in representing a client’s best interests while the Law Society and Marsh work out the impact of a complaint or a potential claim against the Master Policy. Ultimately the solicitor & client part company and the client then experiences significant problems in obtaining any further legal representation.”
An official from one of Scotland's consumer organisations, commenting on the issue said today : “If we are serious about restoring client confidence in the legal profession, one of the first obvious steps is to open up the Master Policy to full transparency. Whatever way this is achieved, full disclosure must be realised in an effort to break from the way in which claims for negligence have been historically handled, in a manner of full confrontation which has ultimately caused the profession more grief that what its worth.”
A client who has been pursuing a claim against the Master Policy for over 5 years, a claim which involves the loss of the client’s home and business after his solicitor’s negligent actions wiped out his assets & livelihood described the Master Policy as “A killer insurance policy which is out to maim anyone who tries to recover from what the legal profession did to them.”
Earlier last month I reported how the ‘besieged’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had effectively wound down its pursuit of information connected to the Master Policy which would allow the SLCC to fulfil its “monitoring role” as mandated to it in Section 39 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which states :
(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.
Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have not done enough to secure Master Policy documents. However, despite having the power in law to monitor claims against the Master Policy, the SLCC’s board has singularly failed to achieve any movement on its request to Marsh & the Law Society of Scotland for accurate information on how the Master Policy operates. The SLCC’s board minutes of July 2010 depressingly concluded : “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.”
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'.
Only a few days after the release of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's investigation into the claims process against solicitors, harsh evidence emerged of the human cost to clients, where suicides, illness (some resulting in death), family break ups and huge financial losses are the horrific consequences sustained by members of the public who have tried to make claims against the Law Society of Scotland's 'Master Policy' insurance scheme, touted by the legal profession as protecting lawyers and clients but which the ground breaking report released by Manchester University School of Law on Monday reveals “is simply designed to allow lawyers to sleep at night.”
Suicides, illness, family breakdown, loss of homes, loss of livelihood were all identified by interviewees as being directly associated with members of the public’s dealings with the Law Society & Master Policy. During the research team's investigation of claims against the Master Policy, team members were told of suicides which had occurred due to the way in which clients of crooked lawyers had been treated by the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers who operate the Master Policy protection scheme for solicitors against negligence claims. Quoting the report : "Several claimants said that they had been diagnosed with depression; that they had high blood pressure; and several had their marriages fail due to their claim. Some had lost a lot of money, their homes, and we were told that one party litigant had committed suicide."
Further excerpts from the Manchester University report into the Law Society's Master Policy & Guarantee Fund show the intolerable strain clients who attempt to claim against their 'crooked' solicitor have to endure : Claimants "described being intimidated, being forced to settle rather than try to run a hearing without legal support, and all felt that their claims’ outcomes were not fair. Some claimants felt that they should have received more support, and that this lack was further evidence of actors within the legal system being “against” Master Policy claimants. Judges were described as being “former solicitors”, members of the Law Society – and thus, against claimants. Some described judges and other judicial officers as being very hostile to party litigants."
One direct quote from the report, depicts a claimant, who was forced to become a party litigant : "I keep fighting cases, and they keep coming at me, and now I have become ill. But they still keep coming at me. They threw me out onto the street, I couldn’t get my medication, I’ve got nothing, I was homeless, ill, sleeping in the car. Now I am appealing. But I can’t get a solicitor. They are just shutting me down…. My health has been damaged, they kill you off. It's a proven fact. All of us have stress related problems after years and years of stress."
Insurers Marsh & Law Society imposed conditions on SLCC’s research team. However, in a startling revelation which gives an insight into the difficulties the research team faced in compiling the report, legal insiders allege that corruption is so rife in the legal services sector, the Law Society refused to hand over actual copies of the Master Policy to the research team, fearing disclosure of the highly secretive & sensitive documents would cause a rush of bad publicity to the Scots legal profession for its consistent cover up of claims & complaints against highly corrupt law firms and individual solicitors. In response to enquiries, Dr Angela Melville, who interviewed many clients for her final report, confirmed the research team did not receive a copy of the Master Policy, despite requesting it. Instead, a letter from Alistair J Sim, Director of the US Insurer Marsh, who had executives convicted of criminal offences in the United States , attached strict conditions to what little information was disclosed : “Please note that the consent of Marsh and Royal & Sun Alliance plc to the production of the enclosed documents is condition on the research team agreeing not to quote from the documents, or any part of them, whether text or figures, in the report to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.”
The letter from Marsh banning the SLCC or University of Manchester from publishing information and refusing a copy of the Master Policy went onto say : “The documents which are produced are confidential and are commercially sensitive. They are provided to the research team only and neither the documents nor copies should be provided to any other party nor should the content of the documents be disclosed to anyone outside the research team. At the conclusion of the research project, the documents should be returned with confirmation that foregoing conditions have been complied with and that no copies have been retained. If the research team is unable to agree to the foregoing conditions, the documents should be returned along with confirmation that no copies have been retained.”
The latest annual report of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is, apparently, weeks, if not days away from being published, and is expected to show a sharp drop in complaints, although suspiciously there is expected to be little mention of the SLCC’s failure to address the Master Policy issue, being one of the cornerstones of corruption in the Scots legal profession which has led to unrivalled consumer suspicion & distrust of the Law Society and individual solicitors.
So, while some appear not to be encouraging anyone to do or leak anything, in view of the fact people have died to allow lawyers to sleep soundly at night, I think its high time the public were able to inspect the full horrors of the Master Policy, the people involved & implicated in it, and how the Law Society of Scotland cut clients off at the knees from obtaining access to justice … just so some lawyers who would probably end up in jail if their acts were criminalised, rather than being investigated & judged upon by their own peers, can get a good night’s rest …
“While I make no excuses for colleagues who provide clients with shoddy legal services, I would like members of the public to understand we are currently operating under a regime where as soon as a client raises issues with our work which may potentially lead to a complaint, the Law Society require us to inform them of what is going on. The solicitor client relationship possibly built up over a number of years then turns into an adversarial exercise of effectively closing down our end in representing a client’s best interests while the Law Society and Marsh work out the impact of a complaint or a potential claim against the Master Policy. THE LAW SOCIETY AND MASTER POLICY ARE CORRUPT AND MUST GO.
ReplyDeleteENDING SELF REGULATION IS THE ONLY WAY TO REBUILD TRUST IN THE PROFESSION. THE LAW SOCIETY IS DESTROYING ALL OF YOU.
“The documents which are produced are confidential and are commercially sensitive. NO THEY WILL POINT TO THE FACT YELLAND AND HIS GOONS SHOULD BE JAILED FOR TORTURING ANYONE WHO DARE QUESTION THESE LEGAL DICTATORS.
ReplyDeleteYELLAND WAS ACCUSED OF CAUSING CLIENT SUICIDES AN ACCUSATION HE HAS DONE NOTHING TO REPUDIATE. THE LAW SOCIETY ARE CRIMINALS AND SO ARE MARSH.
Good to see some cracks appearing at the Law Society and I support leaking the Master Policy!
ReplyDeleteThis solicitor would get hung, drawn and quartered if the Law Society could get away with it. It is good to hear a Solicitor has said what we already knew.
ReplyDeleteThis Master Policy must implement its architects, the Law Society must be furious one of their membership have been so frank about this.
In my view the Law Society is a cesspit of corruption that has reaped what it has sown by destroying all solicitors reputations.
Quite right - get the damn thing leaked immediately !
ReplyDelete"So, while some appear not to be encouraging anyone to do or leak anything, in view of the fact people have died to allow lawyers to sleep soundly at night, I think its high time the public were able to inspect the full horrors of the Master Policy, the people involved & implicated in it, and how the Law Society of Scotland cut clients off at the knees from obtaining access to justice … just so some lawyers who would probably end up in jail if their acts were criminalised, rather than being investigated & judged upon by their own peers, can get a good night’s rest …"
ReplyDeleteThumbs up for Peter and anyone identified with the Master Policy should in my opinion be arrested over the deaths they have caused
THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND WEB SITE.
ReplyDelete“A warm welcome to the Society’s new-look website. The refreshed design and improved navigation provide easy access to information about the Society and the solicitors’ profession. Our modernisation plans also include the phased introduction of a membership database – to greatly improve the services we provide to solicitors and the public. Enjoy the site. We look forward to your feedback.”
Lorna Jack, Chief Executive
Hello Lorna,
We know about the cover ups your Law Society is infamous for so please do not attempt to patronise the public. You are in charge of an organisation infamous for its corrupt biased findings and its contempt for the public. You as an organisation have no credibility at all, even now one of your membership has spoken out against the Master Policy. Whether you like this or not, those who police themselves protect themselves. End the Law Society power now MSP's.
Good posting as ever Peter and with the SLCC annual report on doing nothing for victims of crooked lawyers coming out soon its a good time to remind everyone just how rotten and corrupt this Master Policy is and their failure to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteI HOPE TO SEE THE LAW SOCIETY AND MARSH MURDERER POLICY APPEARING ON WIKILEAKS SOON
ReplyDeleteMURDERERS FOR MONEY SHOULD BE EXPOSED EVERYWHERE
One only needs to add that or years every major political party in Scotland has been hand in glove with the Law Society and its corrupt insurer Marsh.
ReplyDelete"Ultimately the solicitor & client part company and the client then experiences significant problems in obtaining any further legal representation.”
ReplyDeleteTell us something we dont know already Mr solicitor!
If it does appear on Wikileaks how are we supposed to know if its real or not since no one seems to have seen or gotten hold of the original yet?
ReplyDeleteClearly its not just a case of Marsh and the Law Society not handing papers over since the SLCC dont appear to want to do anything about it therefore no real pressure on them to hand over the papers!
ReplyDeleteWell Peter I have to say I disagree with putting this on Wikileaks although as my opinion of them is so low I doubt they would publicise it anyway - just not headline grabbing enough for them and I'm sure they may argue they depend on lawyers so much to keep them going they cant touch it.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to the solicitor you were talking to - well he can say what he likes because as we all know these documents will never be leaked and how can they be leaked anyway because no solicitor that I know of has even seen a copy of the Master Policy.
I think you would gain more respect if you published the documents yourself (assuming of course they ever find their way into your possession) and just keep plugging away at it because lets face it,the chicken sh*t Scottish newspapers will never be allowed to publish a word of it - no matter how many deaths the Master Policy and the Law Society have caused.
Over & Out!
Again the insurance companies appear to be profiting from death.How about a boycott campaign against those involved in the Master Policy?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.icas.org.uk/site/cms/contentcategoryview.asp?category=4305
ReplyDelete"Complaints
A primary aim of ICAS is to safeguard the reputation of the profession by maintaining public confidence in the accountancy profession. The Institute addresses this aim by setting high standards of integrity and professional competence and by ensuring, through periodic quality reviews of members’ practices, that these standards are maintained".
Danger, Before you trust a chartered accountant with your money remember accountants self regulate. If you need a lawyer to sue an accountant are they both insured by the same company? They can destroy your inheritance and cover it all up because,
1) They investigate the complaints from you about how their colleagues have treated you. The result, a cover up.
2) How will you get compensation through the courts without a lawyer. Even if you represent yourself, the Sheriff or Judge will be insured by the same company as all lawyers & accountants. The system is designed to protect them, not their clients.
I wonder if the accountants Professional Indemnity Insurance pays out £0.00 like the Law Societies Master Policy? Who is the broker? Marsh UK perhaps?
Trust no self regulator.
Any sane person would come to the conclusion that keeping an insurance policy which has been linked to deaths of members of the public is corrupt in itself.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you keep up the pressure on this very important point although I'm sure you will do so anyway.
Good luck Mr Cherbi.
Suicides, illness, family breakdown, loss of homes, loss of livelihood were all identified by interviewees as being directly associated with members of the public’s dealings with the Law Society & Master Policy.
ReplyDelete==================================
The reason for this outrage to anyone with human values is simple. Who do you turn to in this situation, a lawyer, doctor, there is nowhere to turn to because the Nazis who do this to people are omnipotent. Their power must & will be smashed. Self regulation is not about protecting the public, it is about protecting people like Philip Yelland who has no compunction for clients who kill themselves. You are an evil man Yelland. All lawyers are evil.
??
ReplyDeletehttp://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/about/as/audits.php
# Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - Grant Thornton UK LLP
Audit appointments for 2009/10
Audits are undertaken by Audit Scotland's Audit Services Group or private firms. The audits in each sector, and who carries out the audits are listed below.
Audit appointments were made by the Accounts Commission (for local government) and the Auditor General for Scotland (for other sectors) and will extend until completion of the 2010/11 audits.
The number of audits can change due to legislation (eg, new bodies being formed). These lists are regularly updated but may not reflect the current position.
As all other dictatorships in the world have eventually all been smashed, the same will happen in Scotland. The pressure cooker lid will undoubtably blow off whether amicably or not, hundreds of years of statistics regarding human rights violations tells us this, even countries where people go missing eventually stand firmly against their oppressors and win.
ReplyDeleteShame on David Cameron because a true Prime Minister would put an immediate stop to this arrogant shower of greedy bastards, so take a moment to digest this for just a second the Prime Minister knows all about this and is doing nothing.
Any profession that drives clients to suicide, beware one day you may go with the suicide victim. If it happens I will have compassion only for the client.
ReplyDeletenot a bad idea to leak it although I think you might need some help..
ReplyDeleteA fool and their money are easily parted. Just like an uneducated client, who does not realise what rats lawyers are.
ReplyDeleteGet wise potential clients, look at the websites before you trust a Law Society rat lawyer. They are all bad people. Their silence on client suicides is evidence of that fact.
“While I make no excuses for colleagues who provide clients with shoddy legal services, I would like members of the public to understand we are currently operating under a regime where as soon as a client raises issues with our work which may potentially lead to a complaint, the Law Society require us to inform them of what is going on.
ReplyDelete===================================
I will tell you what is going on. The Law Society a hotbed of coverups has done more to damage all of your reputations, by protecting the Penmans. Poor legal service is a direct consequence of self regulation. Douglas Mill proved that fact with his tenacity for protecting lawyers. He is a fanatic where protecting lawyers is concerned.
In my opinion all lawyers are dishonest. Their reciprocal bonds of loyalty and trust, ensure that clients are lawyer barred as soon as one of you does what you are best at ruining people.
If a garage issues an MOT when a vehicle is in a poor condition ie dangerous, that garage will lose its right to test vehicles, this happened to a small garage owner when I was a kid, when the police stopped the vehicle. We need this for lawyers. Ruin a client and you never work as a lawyer again. Severe penalties that is how to clean your filthy profession up.
TRUST NO LAWYER, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME, WAITING TO ROB CLIENTS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE LAW SOCIETY HATE CLIENTS AND LOVE LAWYERS.
“The Law Society of Scotland acted to protect the firm’s clients and Ms Macadam has not been able to practise as a solicitor in Scotland since 2004. Solicitors are trusted to handle millions of pounds of client funds each year. Honesty and integrity are absolutely paramount within the solicitors' profession. Those who are suspected of stealing from clients will be investigated and, if they are found to be acting dishonestly or fraudulently, strong action will be taken against them, both by the Society and the courts.” I HAVE NO DOUBT MR YELLAND BELIEVES HIS OWN SPIN, TRUST NO LAWYER. LOOK AT THE INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS, ANTI CLIENT, JUST LIKE MR YELLAND.
ReplyDeleteThe letter alone from Marsh is reason enough for it to end up on Wikileaks.
ReplyDelete"“While I make no excuses for colleagues who provide clients with shoddy legal services, I would like members of the public to understand we are currently operating under a regime where as soon as a client raises issues with our work which may potentially lead to a complaint, the Law Society require us to inform them of what is going on. The solicitor client relationship possibly built up over a number of years then turns into an adversarial exercise of effectively closing down our end in representing a client’s best interests while the Law Society and Marsh work out the impact of a complaint or a potential claim against the Master Policy. Ultimately the solicitor & client part company and the client then experiences significant problems in obtaining any further legal representation.”
Straight from the horses mouth although many of us have already guessed this much.
Justice in Scotland clearly does not exist.
Suicides, illness, family breakdown, loss of homes, loss of livelihood were all identified by interviewees as being directly associated with members of the public’s dealings with the Law Society & Master Policy.
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
Only evil people would remain silent on this corrupt bullet proof indemnity insurance. What would you lawyers do to clients if the torture victims were members of your families?
Self regulation is the protection of criminals and murderers for money. Hang your heads in shame.
I wonder how much cash lawyers have lost and how many clients have been warned by your work Peter. Evidence of how corrupt the Scottish legal establishment are undermines the public trust in lawyers, simply because of those you accuse, none try to refute the evidence against them. In my view they are all bad.
ReplyDeleteJobs at SLCC
ReplyDeleteWe pride ourselves on the professionalism and expertise of our people, who ensure that every complaint is given the most appropriate attention. BURY IT.
With clear personal and organisational goals, competitive terms and conditions and regular feedback from our staff, we recruit and retain excellent people who handle complaints fairly, quickly and amicably. THIS MEANS A LAWYER IS CLEARED. HOW MANY HAVE YOU PROSECUTED SINCE YOUR INCEPTION IN 2008. LORNA JACK CONTROLLS THE SLCC.
How to Complain
ReplyDeleteWhat you need to know
You must first of all give your legal practitioner the chance to resolve your complaint. If you have not done so, we will ask you to make the complaint to them and it will be recorded by us as premature. We will also write to the practitioner to tell them we have done this. A practitioner is someone who is a solicitor, advocate, commercial attorney, conveyancing or executry practitioner. B******T ALL PRACTITIONERS ARE ABOVE THE LAW, A WASTE OF TIME COMPLAINING ABOUT THESE PEOPLE, AVOID LAWYERS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, MUCH BETTER THAN HAVING TO COMPLAIN TO PEOPLE HELL BENT ON PROTECTING LAWYERS.
**STOP PRESS**
ReplyDeleteGOOD NEWS STOP LAWYERS ARE LOSING INCOME STOP
http://business.scotsman.com/legalissues/Law-firms-face-reality-of.6657706.jp
Law firms face reality of lower incomes and focus on cost cuts
Published Date: 12 December 2010
By Kristy Dorsey
SCOTLAND'S law firms are facing a new era of lower income as the "gruelling pressure" to reduce fees looks set to continue well beyond the economic downturn, the Law Society of Scotland has admitted.
Lorna Jack, chief executive of the society, said firms will be forced to innovate over the next few years as they face a continued squeeze on price.
In an interview with Scotland on Sunday, Jack said the roughly 1,400 practices across the country had so far fared reasonably well given the hammering taken by key client sectors such as banking, finance and property. However, even though there have been no major firm failures north of the Border so far, staying afloat has come at the price of profitability.
"What I hear is that corporate clients across the board are looking for more for less," Jack said. "That is a constant theme."
The society's annual Cost of Time survey, to be published next month, will show that the average profitability per partner (PEP) in Scotland fell to £67,150 last year, a decline of about 7 per cent. That came on top of the previous year's 31 per cent plunge in PEP.
The Law Society survey, which samples firms of all sizes, follows similarly grim findings last week from another annual study produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
It found that PEP across Scotland's biggest legal firms fell 18 per cent to £239,000, even though most had frozen or reduced partner numbers.
Jack said the surveys were based on figures covering the worst part of the downturn - participants in Cost of Time, for example, had on average a financial year ending in December 2009.
"But the picture of more for less continues," she said. "Though there is work around, the price you can charge for that work is still coming under pressure."
2nd PART http://business.scotsman.com/legalissues/Law-firms-face-reality-of.6657706.jp
ReplyDeleteSole practitioners and smaller firms have been hit particularly hard by the plunge in conveyancing work for residential properties, while the decline in commercial property activity has hampered the bigger operators in the Central Belt.
Corporate practices, meanwhile, have suffered from the Scottish profession's bias towards the financial industry.
"They weren't the only game in town, but that probably accounts for a disproportionate amount of the downturn in profitability that we have seen," Jack said.
Dealing with the new reality of lower fees should drive innovation across the Scottish profession, which has yet to seriously take up trends seen elsewhere such as the outsourcing of lower-level work to overseas bases.
Further changes should follow next year's introduction of alternative business structures (ABS) in Scotland, which will allow legal firms to take on partners and investment from other regulated professionals such as accountants.
The protracted debate over ABS caused deep divides among Scotland's legal firms but the models were finally given the green light earlier this year. Jack said it is unlikely that many firms will transfer to ABS in the early stages of their introduction.
"I don't think there will be a rush through the gate as many will be cautious about how to use that in response to what is a very different market than pre-2008," she said. "But the legal services market is not going to get any less competitive. Some firms will continue to do great business structured as they are, but others will need ABS."
Further changes should follow next year's introduction of alternative business structures (ABS) in Scotland, which will allow legal firms to take on partners and investment from other regulated professionals such as accountants.
The protracted debate over ABS caused deep divides among Scotland's legal firms but the models were finally given the green light earlier this year. Jack said it is unlikely that many firms will transfer to ABS in the early stages of their introduction.
"I don't think there will be a rush through the gate as many will be cautious about how to use that in response to what is a very different market than pre-2008," she said. "But the legal services market is not going to get any less competitive. Some firms will continue to do great business structured as they are, but others will need ABS."
In an interview with Scotland on Sunday, Jack said the roughly 1,400 practices across the country had so far fared reasonably well given the hammering taken by key client sectors such as banking, finance and property. However, even though there have been no major firm failures north of the Border so far, staying afloat has come at the price of profitability.
ReplyDeleteWhat about your collective reputations Lorna, you are in charge, how are you going to restore your lawyers reputations?
You have more problems than the economic ones.
What surprises me is that due to such unrelenting pressures being applied to the legal profession is that there does not appear to be any body representative of ethical lawyers that subscribe to a basic statement of guiding principles.
ReplyDeleteA local lawyer tells me that he was approached as a possible member of a LSoS sub-committee but refused to serve as basic undertakings for the committee to act ethically were refused!!
We have a negligence claim - being handled by a LSoS panel recommended solicitor - and we have also read the report by Prof Stephens. Everything which he reports on is identical to our experience thus far. We believe that a website specific to claimants against solicitors whose insurers are acting would be a great addition to the armoury against the 'might makes right' attitude of all to do with the master policy. It would give some idea of the minimum number of claims which are being denied and would also give the insurers, usually RSA, some cause for concern.