Thursday, January 06, 2011

Clients should make clear & specific wills after ‘surprise twist’ lawyer's 'file note' backs sale of elderly lady's house for care home expenses

will photo stockThe poor wording of wills, often the blame of solicitors can lead to financial disasters affecting families & beneficiaries later on. CONSUMERS across Scotland should heed warnings over the correct preparation & wording of their own will & final testament, paying particular attention to any involvement by solicitors in their residual estate after a Glasgow Sheriff heavily criticised the lack of full clear notes & instructions given, and retention of files by an unnamed law firm, after ruling on a case involving an application under the terms of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 for the appointment of a lay individual to be welfare Guardian to a lady aged 87 who owned her own home but is now living in a care home, and for a solicitor to be her financial Guardian.

The case, which for the avoidance of doubt, has not alleged any wrongdoing on the part of the unnamed law firm or beneficiaries, involved a wrangle over the status of the elderly lady’s house, which she had bequeathed in her will to a named beneficiary, although the ‘requirements’ to pay for care costs meant her house will have to be sold to fund the ongoing cost of care rather than pass on as per the apparent instructions of her will.

The unnamed elderly lady had made a will in 2003, when she still had capacity, in which she made a specific bequest directing her executors that in the event of her death, they should convey and make over to a named individual the house in which she then resided (or any other house which she might then own and occupy as her principal residence). She still owns the house in which she resided in 2003, but has not now occupied it since January 2010, and is not capable of returning there. She had also directed that the residue of her estate should be divided equally between two charitable organisations.

When the application was received at Glasgow Sheriff Court, it disclosed the provision in the Will and the need to sell the house, but the applicants did not seek to have the Application intimated to the individual named in the bequest (the beneficiary). The Sheriff stated he thought it was appropriate that it should be so intimated and ordered that it be done as the house is valued at £140,000, and the potential loss of that bequest is therefore substantial.

The solicitors suggested that since the house represented about 70% of the value of the unnamed adult's estate, the court should direct that a codicil be executed giving the beneficiary 70% of the estate remaining at death instead of the house itself, however Sheriff Baird doubted that the court had such a power under the Adults with Incapacity Act.

At the date of the Hearing, according to the Sheriff's opinion, there was produced a letter from the prospective beneficiary, indicating that it was understood that the need to make proper provision for the continuing care was paramount, however the Sheriff went onto say “it seemed unclear to me whether the individual concerned appreciated the full implications of what was proposed. Sheriff Baird stated in his opinion he was shown the letter which had been sent to that person by the applicants' solicitors”. Sheriff Baird then went onto criticise the terms of the letter, saying “it did not seem to me that it spelled out the potential consequences as clearly as it might have.

Sheriff Baird’s opinion, published on the Scottish Courts website then went onto report the “surprising twist” of a file note being found by the solicitors acting for the lady now resident in the care home, stating : “The case then took a slightly surprising twist. The applicants' solicitors, who had acted for the Adult when the Will was executed in 2003, looked out their file in connection therewith, and found a file note of the interview which the partner acting had had with the Adult. That note, written in the manuscript of the partner, but taken during interview with the client and clearly reflecting the intention of the Adult, states the identity of the potential beneficiary and then says "House only, not money if house sold". In fact, in the original manuscript version, the word "not" is underlined twice.”

While the Sheriff went on to say “All of the individuals involved here are thoroughly responsible professional persons, all acting from honourable motives”, the effect of the content of the apparently forgotten then found file note “is that there now exists clear and unequivocal evidence that the Adult did not intend to distribute her estate by leaving the potential beneficiary the equivalent of 70% of her estate; rather, she intended that person to inherit her house on her death, and nothing at all if it transpired that she did not own a house at the time of her death.” thus ensuring there was no question of the court intervening and authorising any alteration to be made to the terms of the Will.

Sheriff Baird concluded solicitors should learn lessons from this case in terms of the amount of documents & information engathered during the preparation of clients wills. He said : “There is a lesson to be learned. It is that practitioners who are instructed by a client to prepare a Will ought to make full and clear notes of the instructions given, perhaps ought to canvass alternative destinations in the event of subsequent changes in circumstances, and ought to give serious consideration to retaining all such files for future reference.”

Well, although again I would stress there is no evidence or claim of any wrongdoing in the case heard by Sheriff Baird at Glasgow Sheriff Court, from my personal experience of having been a victim of an executor, an accountant trying to insert apparently made up wishes or codicils into one of my own parent’s wills, anyone who has made a will or is thinking of making one should ensure the wording of their will is strict and to the letter of their precise instructions, while of course, ensuring you never making the mistake of appointing an untrustworthy solicitor, or an untrustworthy accountant as your executor, as you will be preparing the ground for another successful rip-off where your family and beneficiaries end up with not one penny, and in fact possibly being asked to contribute to paying the extravagant fees of the lawyer & executor, along with unjustifiable bank interest charges.

If you want to find out more about how lawyers and executors mishandle wills, you can read some of my previous reports on this subject, here : Wills - How your final wishes can turn into a final nightmare and of course, not forgetting if you want to read how Borders solicitor Andrew ‘Drew’ Penman & Borders accountant Norman Howitt ripped off my father’s will, you can read more about that HERE, & HERE. Just make sure what these people and their professions did to my family, and the hounding they gave us for trying to put it right, does not happen to you.

Perhaps I should also add that under the much less than perfect rip-off financial system we live in, clients should also remember they may well end up having to sell their own bones & DNA to pay for any required care services, before thinking of their families or beneficiaries. You can thank the various bankers, lawyers, politicians and various other wasters of public funds who remain in power for that one.

Sheriff JA Baird’s opinion from the Scottish Courts Service website is reprinted below, in full. Perhaps in terms of the circumstances of Sheriff Baird’s comments on the ‘surprising twist’ find of an apparently forgotten file note, the name of the law firm should have been published in the court opinion, in the public interest.

Application in Respect of BH

Sheriff J A Baird, Glasgow Sheriff Court 23 December 2010.

Nature of the Application

1. This was an application under the terms of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 for the appointment of a lay individual to be welfare Guardian to a lady aged 87, and for a solicitor to be her financial Guardian. The adult is an adult with incapacity as defined by the Act, and is no longer capable of living in the community. She is now resident in a Care Home. She owned her own house, but the need to pay for care costs is such that her house will require to be sold in order to fund the ongoing cost of care.

The Effect of the Sale on an Existing Prospective Beneficiary

2. The adult had made a will in 2003, when she still had capacity, in which she made a specific bequest directing her executors that in the event of her death, they should convey and make over to a named individual the house in which she then resided (or any other house which she might then own and occupy as her principal residence). She still owns the house in which she resided in 2003, but has not now occupied it since January 2010, and is not capable of returning there. She directed that the residue of her estate should be divided equally between two charitable organisations.

3. In two earlier cases, (T Applicant 2005 SLT (Sh Ct) 97 and JG 2009 SLT (Sh Ct) 122) I expressed views about the power of the Court to authorise the alteration of a Will, either by adding a codicil or by re-writing it completely, of an adult who had now lost capacity to make any such alteration. Such action may be required by the effect of intervening circumstances or the need to correct obvious errors. I stressed that before doing so, the Court would need to have clear and unequivocal evidence of the intention of the testator.

4. The effect of the sale of the house in the present case would be to defeat the specific bequest made by the Adult in her Will. Of course, that is a step she could always have taken herself, assuming she retained the capacity to do so, if, for example, she had decided to sell her house and move into care, and so the bequest would only ever have had effect if she had still been living in her own house at the date of her death.

5. When the application was received at this court, it disclosed the provision in the Will and the need to sell the house, but the applicants did not seek to have the Application intimated to the individual named in the bequest. I thought it was appropriate that it should be so intimated and ordered that it be done. The house is valued at £140,000, and the potential loss of that bequest is therefore substantial.

6. At the date of the Hearing, there was produced a letter from the prospective beneficiary, indicating that it was understood that the need to make proper provision for the continuing care was paramount, but it seemed unclear to me whether the individual concerned appreciated the full implications of what was proposed. I was shown the letter which had been sent to that person by the applicants' solicitors, and, with respect, it did not seem to me that it spelled out the potential consequences as clearly as it might have.

7. Accordingly, I continued the Hearing for another letter to be sent to that individual, and for that person to be advised to seek independent legal advice. That was done.

8. The individual did seek independent legal advice and the outcome was a passage of letters between the applicants' solicitors and the solicitors instructed by the potential beneficiary, which letters I was subsequently shown.

9. The initial response by solicitors on behalf of the potential beneficiary was that the application, including the grant of a power to sell the house which was the subject of the bequest, was not opposed, recognising again the need for the adult's future care costs to be fully met.

10. However, the representation was then made that it was clear that what the Adult had intended to do was leave what was effectively the bulk of her estate to the proposed beneficiary. The house represented approximately 70% of the value of the estate, and it was represented that what should happen was that after the house was sold, a codicil to the Will should be executed, altering the terms of the residue clause so that instead of leaving all the residue (which would by then of course include the free proceeds of sale) equally between the two charities, it should instead provide for 70% of whatever remained of the estate at the death of the Adult to pass to their client, the individual who had originally been named in the specific bequest of the house, with the remaining 30% being divided between the two charities.

11. That raised two interesting questions; (1) whether it was clear that that had been the intention of the testator, and (2) more fundamentally, whether the court had any power to do what was proposed, given that the solicitors suggested that the court could "instruct" (which was the word used), the Applicants' solicitors to execute such a codicil, even assuming that it did accurately reflect the testator's wishes. They expressed a hope that the applicant for financial guardianship would agree to proceeding in such a manner.

The Powers of the Court

12. This raises a question as to whether the Court, assuming it decided that some form of alteration to the Will by way of codicil was justified in the circumstances, has the power ex proprio motu to instruct the taking of any such step. In the absence of any detailed argument on the subject, I have to say that I do not regard the court as having any such inherent power.

13. All of the principal sections which give the court powers in the situations provided for by the Act all refer to the need for there to be an application made by a relevant party. Sections 53 (Intervention Orders) and 57 (Guardianship Orders) both begin by referring to the need for an application to be brought by a person claiming a relevant interest. Section 20, which gives the Court powers in relation to the operation of a continuing or welfare power of attorney, similarly begins by referring to the need for there to be an application by a relevant party. I do not see in any of these sections any power given to the Court ex proprio motu which would allow it to order that the Will in question should be altered in the way suggested.

14. If that is correct, then it would mean that the particular matter which was raised by the solicitors for the potential beneficiary could not be ordered to be done ex proprio motu. It would have required an application to that effect by a relevant party, and that means a formal application in the appropriate court process by a person who was a relevant party to it. There was no such application here, and so, even if I had been minded to "direct" the adding of a codicil as desiderated, I had no power, in terms of the specific sections mentioned, to do so.

15. That left open the question of whether the court has the power to do what was suggested in terms of section 3 of the Act. As I have said before in other cases, I do not read that section as allowing the court carte blanche.

16. Again, without having heard argument on the point, I have to say that my inclination is that the provisions of section 3 would not have entitled me to "instruct" the making of a codicil as suggested here. Section 3(1) says that in an application or any other proceedings under the Act (and this was an application under the Act) the sheriff may "make such consequential or ancillary order, provision or direction as he considers appropriate". To my mind, the adjectives "consequential" and "ancillary" must be taken to qualify the nouns "provision" and "direction" in the same way as they obviously qualify the noun "order". Assuming that to be correct, I do not see how the proposed codicil altering the residue clause could be considered to be "consequential" or "ancillary".

17. There is of course a range of specific powers then given to the court by section 3(2), one of which, section 3(2)(c), allows the court to make such further inquiry or call for such further information as appears appropriate and was the one which I used in continuing the case for further information about the position to be adopted by the potential beneficiary. I do not however read any of those further specific powers as allowing me to "instruct" the making of a codicil as suggested here.

Evidence of the Intention of the Testator

18. That left the other question I mentioned above. If there had been clear and unequivocal evidence that the Adult had truly intended the potential beneficiary to benefit in the manner suggested by the solicitors in correspondence, and if the applicants had consented to it, it would still have been possible to authorise the making of a codicil to the effect suggested. As I have said, it was now being represented that the Adult had truly intended to make provision in favour of the proposed beneficiary of a substantial percentage of her estate, albeit it was explicitly accepted that the care costs must now take precedence with the effect of diminishing the estate.

19. The case then took a slightly surprising twist. The applicants' solicitors, who had acted for the Adult when the Will was executed in 2003, looked out their file in connection therewith, and found a file note of the interview which the partner acting had had with the Adult. That note, written in the manuscript of the partner, but taken during interview with the client and clearly reflecting the intention of the Adult, states the identity of the potential beneficiary and then says "House only, not money if house sold". In fact, in the original manuscript version, the word "not" is underlined twice.

20. They sent a copy of that to the solicitors for the proposed beneficiary, who after further consultation with their client, confirmed that their client had always expressed a desire to respect the Adult's wishes, and accepted that these had been made crystal clear in the terms recorded in the file note. The proposal to alter the residue clause was accordingly abandoned. They did point out, with some considerable force, that it would have been helpful if that material had been produced in the first place.

21. I should add that all of the individuals involved here are thoroughly responsible professional persons, all acting from honourable motives.

22. The effect of the content of the file note of course is that there now exists clear and unequivocal evidence that the Adult did not intend to distribute her estate by leaving the potential beneficiary the equivalent of 70% of her estate; rather, she intended that person to inherit her house on her death, and nothing at all if it transpired that she did not own a house at the time of her death. There is therefore no question of authorising any alteration to be made to the terms of the Will.

The Practical Effect

23. There is a lesson to be learned. It is that practitioners who are instructed by a client to prepare a Will ought to make full and clear notes of the instructions given, perhaps ought to canvass alternative destinations in the event of subsequent changes in circumstances, and ought to give serious consideration to retaining all such files for future reference.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reading between the lines it appears the Sheriff is really saying be Very Careful when appointing a lawyer to have anything to do with your last will and testament.

Sadly this will not come as news to many.

Anonymous said...

Old lady in a care home incapable of living in the community and has a house worth £140,000.

What are the odds some lawyer or housing association will get it on the cheap?

Anonymous said...

I'm with you on this one - the lawyers should be named so people are alerted to what has happened here.Its not on some file note can re write the terms of anyone's will whether its care charges or anything else

Anonymous said...

very fishy and if I was the Sheriff I wouldn't bother praising the lawyers one bit.

No one is THAT professional if they end up being criticised,right?

Anonymous said...

How can lawyers sleep at night?

Anonymous said...

You must understand a fair bit of law by now now Peter. But breaking the law is allowed if the culprit is a lawyer. Bad evil people, that is lawyers , I feel sorry for people who trust them. l did once and it has been the greatest mistake l ever made.

Please keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

AOL News

GPs are struggling to deal with a rising tide of patients faking injuries so that they can claim compensation. Nine out of ten report having had people coming to them with exaggerated or completely false injuries.

In a survey for the car insurance company Liverpool Victoria, more than half all GPs have seen an increase in fake patients over the last two years

Two thirds had seen an increase in 10 years. One in four had seen a surge since the recession began.

They blame 'no win no fee' personal injury lawyers who advertised on TV services. Virtually every doctor who responded to the survey (98%) said they had seen patients who appeared to be exaggerating an injury in order to claim compensation. And nearly as many - 85% said they had seen a patient completely making it up. The most common injury to fake is whiplash from a car accident.
---------------------------------
My sister had a no win no fee lawyer asking her to lie about being injured due to a minor car accident. She knew lawyers are all bastards. She told the lawyer on the phone she was NOT claiming but asked him to sue a Glasgow lawyer instead who had covered up her occupational injuries. That was the end of that conversation.

Lawyers and GP's are all bastards, trust none of them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Old lady in a care home incapable of living in the community and has a house worth £140,000.

What are the odds some lawyer or housing association will get it on the cheap?

6 January 2011 22:31

I'd say very high!

How come they get to withhold the name of the lawyer and the victim mm I mean client?
Didnt this supposed beneficiary twig there might be something up with what was being proposed?

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me what values lawyers have because from what I am learning they are all wicked trash.

Anonymous said...

The reappearing file note kills off any residual feeling the client's best interests were being followed.
One could almost say there is a degree of negligence afoot..

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS January 2011 Last updated at 09:47

Nick Clegg has set out plans to reform Britain's libel laws, branding the current system a "laughing stock".

The deputy prime minister promised a bill in the next few months to end "libel tourism" and protect whistle blowers and bloggers.


Protect Consumer focus Scotland too Mr Clegg.

Anonymous said...

Hmm this actually sounds like an important ruling for once.
What would your advice be for those who have written a will and might end up in the same position as this old lady ?

Anonymous said...

Very convenient when someone is stashed in a care home their will essentially becomes invalid.
Hope you uncover more of what is going on here.

Anonymous said...

There will be thousands more like her with not a clue in the world what they are signing or how they can write a will.Let it be a lesson yet again to all those idiots who put their blind trust in lawyers then start crying about it when everything hits the floor

Anonymous said...

Its a good thing the Sheriff said what he did or this case would never have been picked up for reporting.

Hope we get to hear which firm of lawyers is involved so we can all avoid any surprise notes turning up!

Anonymous said...

I walked by a legal practionar, who operates from castle street today. I have known this 'legal mechanic' for many years, and have, hitherto, had no reason to doubt his integrity. When I tried to acknowledge him, kindly, in princes street, on the passing, he shunned me. has this anything to do with this petition: who knows?
-----------------------------------
Perhaps so, I signed the petition, better him shunning you that representing you. All the best.

MSP's End self regulation.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me what values lawyers have because from what I am learning they are all wicked trash.
===================================
Please tell everyone you know because these people are evil scum. They steal peoples money, cover up occupational injures, prey on vulnerable old ladies. They do not have values, they cause suicides. Please tell everyone you know because I do not want you to learn what these people are the hard way. They are evil alright, that is why they sleep at night. Never ever trust any profession who investigate their own. All the best.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me what values lawyers have because from what I am learning they are all wicked trash.
===================================
Google "Crooked Lawyers". Checkout the following site

http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk/index.php

SO YOU WANT TO SUE A SO CALLED PROFESSIONAL?

Although the same applies if you go up against many other professionals - who are insured by the same insurers, Marsh, Royal Sun Alliance, let us say you want to sue your lawyer.

If you try and sue a lawyer, you will find your lawyers are insured by Marsh & RSA, your crooked lawyer and their lawyers will be insured both by Marsh & RSA, the Sheriff or Judge in your case is a subscribing member of the Law Society of Scotland and this is also be insured by Marsh & RSA, and several of the Scottish Courts Service staff, as well as the Auditor of the Court, have similar insurance arrangements.

I think anyone would agree there is a problem in that - a client is fighting a system where everyone except the client, pays into the same insurance arrangement the client is trying to claim against. CORRECT PETER.

There is certainly a conflict of interest, which time & again, prevents negligence claims against crooked lawyers from ever getting a fair hearing.

How can a member of the public go into court when everyone except themselves is insured by the same insurers and ALL except themselves will benefit if their claim & case are dismissed !!

Most people would call that a fit-up. AND THE LAW SOCIETY SPECIALISE IN COVER UPS.

Lawyers will take cases on because they make money from Legal Aid but you will NEVER GET TO COURT.

Try complaining to the Law Society, a waste of time.

I know I have been there.

Anonymous said...

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP SELF REGULATION IN SCOTLAND AT

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=421

PROTECT YOUR FAMILIES FROM LEGAL TYRANNY.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me what values lawyers have because from what I am learning they are all wicked trash.
================================
THE LAW SOCIETY HAVE NEVER DENIED THIS, PLEASE READ

http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2009/07/suicides-illness-broken-families-and.html

MY SISTER LOST A LITIGATION CASE, HER LAWYER, FAMILY DOCTOR OF 30 YEARS STOPPED HER BENEFITS BECAUSE THE LAWYER, DOCTOR AND EMPLOYER SHARED THE SAME INSURERS, SHE HAD NO MONEY TO LIVE ON FOR 5 MONTHS, PLEASE NEVER TRUST A LAWYER. DO NOT TRUST YOUR GP EITHER IN A LITIGATION SITUATION. MR CHERBI IS RIGHT ABOUT THE SUICIDES, MY SISTER HAD A STRONG FAMILY, BUT THE COURTS, POLITICIANS, LAW SOCIETY WILL DO NOTHING, TRUST NONE OF THEM. CHRIST KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO HER WITHOUT US, PLEASE NEVER TRUST THESE EVIL BASTARDS, THEY ARE EVERY BIT AS RUTHLESS AS THE NAZI SS GUARDS. I COULD NOT DO WHAT PETER AND HIS TEAM ARE DOING BUT PLEASE LISTEN TO US. IF I PERSONALLY CAN WARN PEOPLE THROUGH ANY MEDIUM I WILL DO SO.

THESE PEOPLE DO NOT SUFFER LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. THEY ARE A SELF REGULATING TEAM WHO ARE ABOVE THE LAWS THEY APPLY TO THE MAN IN THE STREET.

NO THE NAZI'S AT THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND HAVE NEVER DENIED THE SUICIDES HAPPENED. THESE BASTARDS ARE LIVING BREATHING EVIL IN HUMAN FORM. LEARN FORM THOSE WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THEM. PROTECT YOUR FAMILIES.

NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING A LAWYER SAYS, YOU WILL LOSE I PROMISE YOU.

Anonymous said...

HBM SAYERS EDINBURGH WEBSITE CLAIM

Professional Indemnity

We offer a service to clients which incorporate the following features:-

A team led by one of the few Solicitor Advocate Queen’s Counsel in Scotland, ALL INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE.

Extensive experience in dealing with Professional Indemnity claims against solicitors, accountants, engineers, surveyors and veterinary surgeons. ALL INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE. GET REAL PEOPLE DO NOT CLAIM CROOKED LAWYERS, WHY, BECAUSE THEY NEED A LAWYER TO SUE A LAWYER. LAWYERS NEVER GO AGAINST THEIR OWN.


An extensive database of independent experts on all professional disciplines. INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE. ALL EXPERTS SAY THE PROFESSIONAL WAS NOT AT FAULT, THIS MEANS THE EXPERTS INSURERS DO NOT PUT THEIR PREMIUMS UP.

An approach which is sympathetic to the professional and financial consequences for a professional practice as a result of a claim being pursued against them.

We are one of a handful of firms selected by the Law Society of Scotland WHO ARE ALSO INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE AND HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIENT SUICIDES, to deal with claims against fellow Solicitors in Scotland, OUR PROFESSIONAL CHUMS. We have done so extensively for over fifteen years and this service has been extended to many other professional disciplines. VICTIMS OF CROOKED LAWYERS CANNOT GET LAWYERS TO REPRESENT THEM.

SO ALL ARE INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY. IF LAWYERS AND SO CALLED INDEPENDENT EXPERTS INSURERS WILL BE PAYING A CROOKED LAWYERS, ENGINEERS, VET, SURVEYORS DAMAGES, THERE IS NO POINT IN TRYING TO SUE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE.

WAKE UP HBM SAYERS, YOU ARE ALSO INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE, YOU ARE FOOLING NO ONE.

NO ONE SUES A LAWYER, DOCTOR, VET, ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, THE LAWYERS ALL ARE IN BED WITH THE INSURER WHO WOULD BE PAYING THE DAMAGES.
==================================
LIKE I SAID LAWYERS HAVE NO VALUES, PROTECT ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE, THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE AND PROTECT THE PROFESSIONS. A LEGAL SYSTEM DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE ABOVE POWER NUTS IS NOT ABOUT JUSTICE. SCOTTISH JUSTICE IN ACTION.

WHAT DO YOU THINK LORD GILL?

Anonymous said...

The most important decision you can make in 2011 is never trust a member of Scotland's legal profession.

As I said before regulation is what Peter is doing. If the Law Society did this their would be no crooked lawyers. Law Society regulation has destroyed the reputation of every lawyer in the country.

Anonymous said...

LIKE I SAID LAWYERS HAVE NO VALUES, PROTECT ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE, THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE AND PROTECT THE PROFESSIONS. A LEGAL SYSTEM DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE ABOVE POWER NUTS IS NOT ABOUT JUSTICE. SCOTTISH JUSTICE IN ACTION.

WHAT DO YOU THINK LORD GILL? YOU WILL NOT COMMENT BECAUSE YOU TOO MUST ALSO BE A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND, AN ORGANISATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TORTURE OF HUMAN BEINGS FOR PROFIT. PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW LORD GILL, THE OLIGARCHS AT THE LAW SOCIETY PROVE THAT.

THE LAW SOCIETY WILL BE PROTECTING YOU CROOKS EVERY DAY. BUT YOU CAN DO NOTHING, LEGAL ACTION AGAINST DISSIDENTS WOULD ELEVATE THE DEBATE, WHICH WOULD SHOOT THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE FOOT. YOU ARE CAUGHT IN A LEGAL CHECK MATE, TOO MANY VICTIMS OUT HERE.

Anonymous said...

Peter and his colleagues are doing a great public service as a benchmark warning to those who have to trust lawyers.

Beware you do not live in a democracy, we are not equal before the law.

Anonymous said...

I walked by a legal practionar, who operates from castle street today. I have known this 'legal mechanic' for many years, and have, hitherto, had no reason to doubt his integrity. when i tried to acknowledge him, kindly, in princes street, on the passing, he shunned me. has this anything to do with this petition: who knows?

He may have a lot to hide William, and they cannot bear independent scrutiny of their conduct, because only criminals hide behind self policing. Self regulation is self protection, Mr Mill, Yelland, Pritchard and other reprobates have proved that fact.

Anonymous said...

Ian Hamilton QC says Scotland is a facist state with the SNP. Any comment on it ? http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/blog/

Anonymous said...

HBM Sayers say they have extensive experience in dealing with Professional Indemnity claims against solicitors, accountants, engineers, surveyors and veterinary surgeons. THEY ARE SAYING BY DEFAULT MANY IN THESE PROFESSIONS ARE CORRUPT OR NEGLIGENT.

So look at it this way, your dog, cat, house valuation, house structural report, your finances, house surveys, HBM sayers and all Scottish Law Firms are insured by Royal Sun Alliance, how do you get compensation against lawyers, accountants, structural engineers, surveyors, vets who are all Insured by Royal Sun Alliance? You cannot.

So here is the reality, they can kill your dog or cat, mess up your house valuation, get a structural report wrong, rob you of your finances, do dodgy house surveys. They do not need to be careful.

Who will you need if any of the above happens, one of Scotland's lawyers all of whome are insured by Royal Sun Alliance. F**k me the lawyers insurers would be paying your damages. But they take on the cases because they are making much money from your disaster.

WARNING DO NOT TRY AND SUE ANY OF THESE PROFESSIONS, YOU HAVE MORE CHANCE OF BECOMING AN ASTRONAUT.

Anonymous said...

Have any members of the public ever heard of a lawyer suing another lawyer for neglecting a client?

It never happens. Like the Russians at Stalingrad who cut off supplies to the German 6th Army we cut off supplies of clients to crooked law firms. Clients of lawyers are the ones to police the profession, that is the only solution to legal tryanny, what do you think Lord Hamilton, Arthur old boy?

Anonymous said...

Royal Sun Alliance insure the Law Society of Scotland whose membership are responsible for client suicides. I have cancelled my home insurance with Royal Sun Alliance. Murderers.

Anonymous said...

NHS Primary Care complaints system are the same as the Law Society. Institutionalised cover up ideologies prevail so crooked doctors keep working.

My mother, blind and diabetic was neglected by her GP practice because one doctor was previously shown publicly to be corrupt. We got out of hours doctors to treat her at night. She died in hospital and an uncle of ours did not believe us she was neglected by the GP's. He said "doctors are professional people who have been to university". My response, "University degrees in medicine. Harold Shipman had one of those qualifications". My uncle a plasterer intimidated by higher education assumes all professionals are decent honest people. More fool him.

Anonymous said...

What concern is it of anyone's if the lawyer or a housing association end up buying the house on the cheap?
If the client was so silly with their will in the first place they deserve the service they get and the beneficiary gets nothing serves them all right!

Anonymous said...

An old lady and a house worth £140,000.00. Austin Lafferty said this situation provided his ideal client, what a tit he is for saying it, at least I admire his honesty but not his common sense.

Your brethern at the Law Society are the same Austin regarding the client bit.

Anonymous said...

Old lady in a care home incapable of living in the community and has a house worth £140,000.

No lawyer would help her if she fell, but they would all help themselves to her money.

Anonymous said...

The appearance of the Queen's head on postage stamps is to be guaranteed by law after the Government struck a deal with Buckingham Palace to protect the tradition.

Amendments will be put forward by ministers next week to close a loophole that could have allowed a foreign buyer of the Royal Mail to remove the monarch's image.
----------------------------------
The same legal system cannot protect victims of crooked lawyers. Well they have to deal with important issues eh?

Anonymous said...

The fascist state of Scotland and the SNP
January 6th, 2011

By Ian Hamilton QC

I fear for what is happening to the administration of justice. I blame the SNP because they are the government. It started under Labour so an election will make no difference. Here are examples of what I fear.

In the Megrahi case it emerged after conviction that a foreign state had given massive bribes to a vital witness or to witnesses.

It emerged that a vital fragment of the fuse relied on for the conviction had never been tested for explosive residue, a vital test in any explosives case.

More recently, and in another case. A journalist heard of the existence of a recording. He bought it from the holder, who later gave evidence. Why were the police not told of the tape so they could get a warrant and seize and investigate it? Why was the journalist not rebuked for interfering with the administration of justice?

http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/blog/

This comment was automatically removed from the scottish Parliament epetitions website.

Anonymous said...

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "Scotland's jury service system was outdated, ageist and in need of modernisation.

"Scots continue to live active lives long after retirement and they make a valuable contribution to communities up and down the country.

"The idea that they should be debarred from taking part in jury duty was frankly ridiculous, insulting and it is time for change."

Macaskill you amaze me, if one of them had their assets stolen like Penman did to Mr Cherbi's family you would keep your mouth firmly shut. This is because you are a self regulator, you see only what you want to see.

Mr MacAskill said juries should be a true reflection of society. But not juries to investigate you crooked lawyer buddies MacAskill.

Currently those attending court for jury service have a right to be excused for five years, whether they serve or not.

Do I have the right to refuse jury service because your are criminals who are above the law, client suicides do not phase you one bit MacAskill, your previous Law Society are murderous Satanists.

Anonymous said...

Reading your blog Mr cherbi is a revelation, crooked lawyers cannot operate without the help of crooked politicians. I do believe the Scottish Parliament is a disaster of the greatest magnitude especially the Scottish National Party, who are welded to the hip of the Law Society of Scotland. The enemy of the Scots is Salmond and his justice minister and the majority of MSP's. The MSP's are like the nobles in William Wallace time, traitors to the man in the street.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

What concern is it of anyone's if the lawyer or a housing association end up buying the house on the cheap?

If the client was so silly with their will in the first place they deserve the service they get and the beneficiary gets nothing serves them all right!

YOU EITHER ARE A LAWYER OR HAVE NOT GOT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF ONE?

Anonymous said...

Your play a dangerous legal lottery every time you deal with a lawyer. Some of you will become victims, and I have every sympathy with you, so please learn from us.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me what values lawyers have because from what I am learning they are all wicked trash.

In certain circumstances you will discover doctors are also wicked evil trash.

Anonymous said...

Political philosophers have interesting ideas but where do we draw the line regarding who should have access to justice and who shouldn't. Clearly your work Peter demonstrates that even humans are outside the line where access to justice is concerned.

The Law Society is the denier of justice to people with legitimate complaints. Our legal practitioners with the support of biased MSP's are simply a union of lawyer protectors shaping policy against the many for the benefit of the few. They call it democracy, I call it oligarchy.

Lawyers may not be evil prior to university but they are Satan's graduate demons. Best to avoid them if possible.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article.

As always I would advise anyone who is making a will to think long & hard about who they name as their executors & legal agents ... check out the law firm and the solicitor first, no matter whether you have known them for years and please remember to tightly reign in the duties & costs of any Executor or legal agent, otherwise most of what you bequeath to your family, friends, or charities will end up either in the Executor or lawyer's pocket.

Thanks also to the person who left the comment regarding Ian Hamilton's blog and his article on "The Fascist state of Scotland" etc ...

Well, Mr Hamilton has a much greater experience in the law than myself, however from my own observations of Scotland's 'Justice" system the only thing I find fascist is the way in which the legal profession effectively ransoms every single Scot's access to justice at the point of money, or whether the profession itself sees fit to allow any individual access to justice or not.

Justice for all in Scotland is not a reality, unless someone can find a lawyer willing to represent them. With the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates effectively having the monopoly over access to the courts system, and being so bloody minded, hostile, even twisting the law to defeat the aims of justice when it comes to party litigants attempting to progress their cases on their own against the massed ranks of the legal profession, I'd say fascism in the 'Justice' system is a daily reality in Scotland - readers can go along to our fine Court of Session and witness many examples of it, day in, day out.

Normal reporting will be resumed tomorrow after a wee bout of flu, which was ironically passed onto me by a good friend in the legal profession !

Anonymous said...

PETER I HOPE YOU DO NOT MIND PUBLISHING THIS AS A WARNING TO YOUR READERS.

a young woman injured due to prolonged standing and stenciling at a hamilton bakers. her lawyer, all doctors, her GP for over thirty years covered up what happened to her. Her lawyer (well known in glasgow) got three years legal aid money, and we found out later the all lawyers and doctors were insured by the same company as her employer. So the doctors and lawyers insurers would have been paying her damages. She has not worked for years due to these ruthless criminals. Occupational injury where legally privilidged criminal doctors cover everything up encourage employers to injure others. The legal system is ruining people's lives and one day they will mess with the wrong person.

Her GP, made out to the court she had been seeing a psychiatrist for over twenty years, a lie and put a straight line through the box on the benefits agency form which asked if there were any psychiatric problems. She does not have psychiatric problems. So at least he told the benefits agency the truth. Simple strategy, stop her money from the benefits agency by stating there is nothing wrong with her (she had no money for 5 months until her employer terminated her contract) her GP sent her back to work for the third time her employer would not let her into work, the GP refused to give her another medical certificate and the Glasgow lawyer did not help her because his insurers would have been paying her damages, A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. The employer, lawyer and GP cut off her money to starve her into submission. This is the reality of the self regulators. I beg every member of the public reading this Please do not get injured at work, all of the lawyers, doctors, sheriffs are working for the insurers you are suing.

What did Motherwell Primary Care do to the GP, nothing. The Law Society refused to investigate the lawyer.

Yes these professions have horrendous power, they are nothing short of evil incarnate, do not try to sue your employer, you will lose, that is a promise. People are genuinly getting injured and they are covering it up.

LITIGATION IS LEGAL HELL, YOU CANNOT WIN SO DO NOT GET INJURED.

Anonymous said...

Normal reporting will be resumed tomorrow after a wee bout of flu, which was ironically passed onto me by a good friend in the legal profession !

Glad you are feeling better Peter, good job you are not reporting on doctors, they would bump you off.

Anonymous said...

First Stage - Local Resolution

The initial stage of the NHS complaints process is called Local Resolution. MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT (A DOCTOR INVOLVED IN SERIOUS CORRUPTION WAS PROTECTED AND HIS OTHER PATIENTS WERE NOT TOLD). At this stage the PCT will try to resolve things with you locally. Once we receive your letter of complaint, a member of the Patient Experience Service will appointed as your 'case manager' (THIS IN MY EXPERIENCE WAS MORE CROOKED THAN THE DOCTOR) and will send you an acknowledgement letter within three working days. This gives you their contact details.

THIS SYSTEM HAS LAW SOCIETY REGULATION ALL OVER IT. IT IS THERE TO COVER UP DOCTORS CORRUPTION, AND THE OMBUDSMAN IS THE SAME.

Anonymous said...

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2011/01/15/blair_wobbled_after_reading_bible


15 January 2011 12:19am

Tony Blair had a "wobble" on the eve of ordering a bombing raid on Saddam Hussein after a late-night session reading the Bible, former communications chief Alastair Campbell has said in an extract from his diaries.

Mr Campbell - who insisted during Mr Blair's time in power that "we don't do God" - made clear that the former prime minister's religious beliefs played a part in his decision-making.

=================================
I wonder if he was reading "thou shalt not kill"? It is what we expect from another no use lawyer.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 13 January 2011 03:35

Thanks ... although fighting flu seems as arduous as campaigning for reforms of the legal system !

Anonymous said...

Plenty flu and winter deaths around just now - lawyers will be getting ready to make another killing on wills or the lack of them.