Tuesday, January 25, 2011

‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report

SLCCThe Scottish Legal Complaints Commission received 1452 complaints last year, however it only fully upheld one single complaint. ANYONE hoping for a crackdown on 'crooked lawyers' in Scotland will be in for a shock today after the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, revealed in yesterday's announcement of the SLCC’s 2009-2010 Annual Report (pdf), it fully upheld only ONE SINGLE COMPLAINT against an ‘unknown legal practitioner’.

The SLCC’s evident unwillingness to tackle head-on the many well known rogue elements of Scotland’s legal profession appears to be the staggering product of a decade long consumer campaign & the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government’s attempt to bring ‘independent’ regulation to Scotland’s legal services industry in the form of what is now widely regarded as little more than a quango staffed by lawyers, ex-lawyers, retired senior Police Chiefs, legal academics and other multi-job quangocrats.

SLCC Annual Report 2010 How we dealt with complaints Page 14Musical chairs or musical complaints ? For the second year running, the SLCC sent most complaints back to the Law Society of Scotland. The amazing figures released yesterday in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s second annual report also show the famously anti-client SLCC yet again sent most of the complaints it received this year back to the Law Society of Scotland, just as it did last year. The second annual report, covering the period from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2010 reveals the SLCC received a total of 3,561 enquiries during that period, resulting as it claimed, in 1,452 cases classified as “legal complaints”. However, the majority of these cases (928) were sent back to the Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates under the SLCC’s controversial policy of refusing to deal with any legal business or cases involving instructions given to solicitors which occurred prior to 1 October 2008, the date the SLCC formally began operating, while others were apparently closed ‘as being out of the SLCC’s jurisdiction’.

After sending the majority of the “legal complaints” back to the Law Society of Scotland, the overfunded Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has also received millions of pounds of taxpayers money during 2007-2008, revealed it is now carrying a whopping current cash surplus (dubbed a ‘reserve’) of nearly two millions pounds while only managing to accept a meagre 204 complaints to be dealt with by its highly paid staff & board members, some of whom are pocketing salaries of around £1,300 per week.

SLCC Annual Report 2010 Complaints statisticsComplaints, and how they were handled by the SLCC. Of the 204 complaints the SLCC reported it had or was actually dealing with during the last year, amazingly, the law complaints quango only managed to fully uphold one single complaint, along with a handful of others being ‘mediated’ or ‘resolved’ in ways not fully described. The Annual report states : *17 complaints were resolved through mediation and 17 others still under consideration for mediation at the end of the year; * 170 complaints went to investigation, of which 92 were still in hand at the end of the year; * of these, 23 were resolved at or before the stage of an investigation report; * seven were withdrawn by the complainer; * 48 complaints were referred for determination, of which eight were partially and one fully upheld, 15 were not upheld, one was withdrawn, and 23 were still being considered at the end of the year.

Rosemary AgnewChief executive Rosemary Agnew said the number of enquiries and complaints coming to the SLCC was lower than originally predicted. She commented: "This may be due to a number of factors such as the economic downturn. We have responded by adopting a cautious approach to recruitment, expanding only to meet the needs of our current workload, and at the end of the financial year, we employed 29 members of staff instead of the predicted 45, which was the anticipated figure prior to our opening in 2008.”

Ms Agnew continued : “We have successfully established the ‘gateway’ for all complaints about legal practitioners and deal directly with complaints about inadequate professional service. In line with our aim to resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity, we continue to develop our mediation function and aim for resolution through both formal and informal approaches.”

SLCC Annual Report 2010 Performance Page 0013Breakdown of complaints made against solicitors to the SLCC. The SLCC’s media release reported that the largest proportion of complaints received related to residential conveyancing, areas of business not specified, followed by litigation, Employment Law, Executries & Wills (a favourite client rip-off) and family law. Complaints about a solicitor's or advocate's conduct are still referred to the relevant professional body. In the year there were 142 such complaints against solicitors and two against advocates. In addition 216 cases were accepted under the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman jurisdiction, and 180 opinions completed.

SLCC Annual Report 2010 reveals 1.8million reservesSLCC’s 2010 Annual Report (page 19) revealed the quango currently holds a whopping £1.86 million in ‘reserves’. The SLCC, attempting to play down its controversial gigantic cash surplus (dubbed a ‘reserve’), reported the figure it was currently holding, of £1.86 million, (£1,867,000.) compares with one of over £1.5m for the first nine months of the SLCC's operation, following which the Commission cut the annual levy payable by solicitors to £235 for the current year. The SLCC went onto claim that “actual reserves” at year end were £1.12m, or just under five months' operating costs” as it had decided to ring-fence some £740,000 to underwrite the generally levy in the 2010/11 operating year by transferring it from reserves to income – in other words, the SLCC is, of sorts going to hand back £740,000 to the legal profession when it reduces next year’s levy on all legal practitioners which are covered by its regulation.

SLCC LAW SOCIETYLaw Society of Scotland’s ‘Access to Justice’ Committee said the SLCC should be ‘taken over’ by the Law Society. The reported surplus of £1.86 million now confirmed in the SLCC’s 2010 Annual Report also pokes significant holes in the Law Society of Scotland/SLCC takeover spat which hit the headlines last year, when the Law Society of Scotland’s ‘Access to Justice’ Committee alleged the SLCC was supposedly carrying a gigantic six million pound surplus, with Society representatives apparently going onto suggest in the same newspaper stories that the Law Society of Scotland should, in the name of saving the taxpayer some money, take over both the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and even more worryingly, the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

Readers can find out more about the battle between the Law Society & the SLCC over a suggested takeover, and dubious media fiddling regarding a now wholly untrue surplus figure, here : Dailly's Law : Law Society ‘takeover plot’ for SLCC & Legal Aid Board backfires over leak of law complaints quango’s alleged £6 million surplus. The idea of a Law Society takeover was, however swiftly rebuffed by one of Scotland’s leading QCs, Paul McBride, who compared the idea to putting Homer Simpson in charge of a doughnut factory, reported here : Doughnuts, principles and no £6m surplus : Law Society’s backroom plot to take over Legal Aid Board attacked by top QC Paul McBride. The argument was closed down when the Law Society issued a media manipulation directive, reported HERE which may well also be aimed at me, bless their souls (if they have any).

Jane IrvineSLCC’s Chair Jane Irvine wrote in her annual message about providing a complaints service. Jane Irvine wrote : “Our priority this year has been to provide a complaint service. In my view, the range of legal services provided means our complaints are very diverse. The range can include complaints about limited advice on dog control, complaints that poor representation was provided in a murder trial or complaints regarding badly drawn up title deeds in a multimillion pound international property development. Every case we receive involves something important to the person who raises it and the person who provided the service, and just like diverse complaints, diverse people's’ needs do not always fit rigid systems. As a result we must flex our complaint handling powers to ensure we work in a way that meets multiple needs.”

On the issue of the many legal challenges to the SLCC’s powers over complaints in Scotland’s Court of Session, Ms Irvine went onto say : “It is inevitable that new legislation will be challenged. Our board prepared for this by setting aside money to fund any legal processes and during the year, we received 11 challenges with the majority still being heard in the Court of Session at the year end. The outcomes of these appeals are important to us”.

Readers can compare the ‘progress’ the SLCC has made in a year by reading last year’s SLCC Annual Report, which can be read in more detail, here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveals it passed most complaints about lawyers back to Law Society, has failed to act on Master Policy report where the quango revealed it was then carrying a surplus (now called a ‘reserve’) of £1.565 million pounds The SLCC’s full audited accounts for 2009-2010 can be found HERE (pdf)

The Law Society of Scotland’s almost simultaneous Press Release responding to the publication of the SLCC’s Annual Report quickly called for further reductions in the charges levied on all its member solicitors, charges which fund the operation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Lorna JackLorna Jack Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, revealed in emails to have apparently bullied Communities Minister Fergus Ewing into threatening the SLCC over the question of its levy rate earlier this year, said: "We are pleased that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has said they will be "asking for less" when they set the levy for solicitors later this year. We hope this will be a meaningful reduction given the Commission's reserves now stand at over £1 million.

Ms Jack continued : "It is important for the Commission to work as efficiently as possible and carefully manage its budget, particularly in the current economic climate when the solicitors who fund the Commission still face tough business decisions. The consultation on the Commission's budget will begin shortly and we are urging solicitors to contact us so their views can be included in our own submission to the Commission as part of that consultation."

Philip YellandPhilip Yelland, the Law Society of Scotland’s Director of Regulation & previous Director of the Society’s ‘Client Relations Office, well known for its brutal, even deadly treatment of clients who dared complain about their solicitor, said: "It is good to see a fall in the number of complaints made against solicitors compared with last year, which we believe has been party driven by firms dealing more effectively with complaints at source. However, more work needs to be done to ensure a better understanding of the reasons behind this reduction."

While the legal profession pats itself on the back for yet another year which has seen such successes as the SLCC board member’s lavish expenses claims, its continuing failure to monitor the Law Society of Scotland’s infamously corrupt Master Policy & Guarantee Fund after more than two years of operation, an unrivalled anti-client attitude openly displayed by many of its board members & staff, and of course, its mounting troubles in the Court of Session with lawyers openly seeking to challenge its remit, any thoughts of consumer protection appear to have taken a back seat against the many rogue lawyers who remain working in Scotland’s legal services market.

One single complaint fully upheld in a year. Its not much of a badge of success now, is it. We don't even know which law firm this one complaint involves, nor do we know the identities of all the other law firms, solicitors & others reported to the SLCC, Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates. However, in England & Wales, their new Legal Ombudsman may soon be publishing the names of solicitors & complaints decision. Now … how about bringing some of that openness to Scotland, so consumers really do know what they are getting into when they walk through the doors of a lawyers office ?

Kenny MacAskillJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill spent over £2 million of public funds on the SLCC’s lavish start-up costs. I’d also like to suggest, as we are in a recession, and since the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is so flush with cash, the SLCC should now begin to pay back its start-up costs of two million pounds to the public purse. After all, two million could be better used for hospitals, community care, or even other parts of the justice system such as Policing & anti-crime measures, rather than continuing to give taxpayers money to the legal profession and its anti-client regulatory regime which is anything but independent.

My earlier coverage of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its much less than expected performance as a regulator of complaints against Scotland’s legal profession, can be read here : The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – The story so far

53 comments:

dognamedblue said...

As I am not a member of the "Law Society" do their rules (laws, statutes & acts) apply to me?

Anonymous said...

So thats another 928 off the hook then!

Anonymous said...

I think we all have a right to know which lawyers are being complaint about and also you are right about the 2mil - they should bloody well pay it back!

Anonymous said...

MacAskill would spend one hundred million pounds to protect lawyers, no surprise here.

All you nice people out there post your crooked lawyers names on Solicitors from Hell. All those complaints going back to the Law Society, Yelland will keep them for the 5th of November. These lawyers are an unlawful profession, criminality is rewarded. Clients hit an invisible wall of resistance when complaining. Why do you think ex Rangers or Celtic players cannot be referees at old firm games, self regulation mirrors this situation.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission received 1452 complaints last year, however it only fully upheld one single complaint.

DANGER YOU CAN TRUST THE SLCC AND LAW SOCIETY LESS THAN YOUR CROOKED LAWYER.

THE RIGHTS THE MAJORITY SHOULD HAVE, ARE BEING SACRIFICED FOR THE OMNIPOTENT RIGHTS OF A CRIMINAL MINORITY, AND OUR SO CALLED JUSTICE MINISTER IS EVERY BIT AS CROOKED AS THE MINORITY.

Anonymous said...

I home said before an E bay feedback system created and maintained by clients is the only solution. These bastards clearly detest clients as the figures demonstrate.

I do not think the politicians will end self regulation in 100 years.

Anonymous said...

When I am in court now I cannot help questioning who the real criminals are. How many lawyers and sheriffs, advocates etc have criminal records or complaints made against them? One thing is clear, the Scottish system is not about justice when legal actors have complaints systems that whitewash complaints.

Anonymous said...

A very detailed report as always Mr Cherbi.
Doubtless this is the 'Scottish approach' to the problem of 'crooked lawyers' (letting them off the hook)

Fair warning to all the legal services market in Scotland is not to be trusted.

Anonymous said...

Spot this !

The SLCC announcement http://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.com/press-centre/press-releases/slcc-publishes-second-annual-report.aspx says

Key points:

* SLCC case load - 3,775 (3,561 enquiries and complaints and 214 in hand from previous year) of these, 1,452 were legal complaints
* Cases considered under the powers of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman - 216 accepted for investigation; 180 opinions completed; 49 outstanding
* The largest proportion of complaints was about residential conveyancing
* 204 cases were considered for mediation
* 17 cases were resolved through mediation

but they forgot to mention they only upheld one complaint so its obviously not a key point! hahaha

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission received 1452 complaints last year, however it only fully upheld one single complaint. What does this say? Institutionalised prejudice, where the many are robbed of rights to protect a corrupt minority.

Thet see it thus, lawyers and their families are of paramount importance, clients and their families are subhumans. To be honest I am shocked one complaint was upheld.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill stands for the fact victims of crooked lawyers are not full citizens of Scotland because they are denied legal rights of access to justice if a lawyer is in trouble. The legal profession are by reason a law unto themselves. Any lawyer can sue me, I cannot sue any lawyer. Where is the legal parity in that Mr MacAskill? You are not fit for the office you hold.

Anonymous said...

MacAskill stands for the fact victims of crooked lawyers are not full citizens of Scotland because they are denied legal rights of access to justice if a lawyer is in trouble. The legal profession are by reason a law unto themselves. Any lawyer can sue me, I cannot sue any lawyer. Where is the legal parity in that Mr MacAskill? You are not fit for the office you hold.

Peter Cherbi said...

This article has been modified today to include a further slide from the SLCC's 2010 Annual Report (Page 19) which reports the SLCC's current 'reserves' standing at £1.86 million, (£1,867,000.). The addition being required after attempts were made to 'play down' this amount to colleagues in the media.

#dognamedblue @ 25 January 2011 00:48

No, their rules dont apply to you if you are not a member of the Law Society of Scotland ...

# Anonymous @ 25 January 2011 02:20

Probably ...

# Anonymous @ 25 January 2011 02:38

I agree, on both counts ...

# Anonymous @ 25 January 2011 02:40

With the amount of money being lavished on the legal profession, perhaps that amount has already been spent .. at least over a few years.

# Anonymous @ 25 January 2011 13:19

Thanks. I also noticed this point while reading the press releases from the SLCC & Law Society.

Creative media at its worst ...

# Anonymous @ 25 January 2011 13:57

Yes ... and we dont even know what subject the complaint was about ... it could have been anything, possibly a minor matter ...

Anonymous said...

Glad you took my suggestion in hand Peter.Quite amazing the SLCC are more concerned with arguing how much money they are holding in the bank than attending to their role over complaints.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

I also support what you say they should be made to pay back the 2 million taxpayers money for their start up costs.
the lawyers made this mess in the 1st place so they should be made to pay for it not us

Anonymous said...

I dont agree with anything Jane Irvine is quoted as saying - it looks to me their priority for this year has been raking in the money and giving lawyers further discounts on these levies.

How about making it a priority to pay back taxpayers Jane ?

Anonymous said...

Why is a quango allowed to hang onto £1.8 million ?

Are they in the duckhouse business ?

Anonymous said...

As a solicitor let me just say I am so happy to see the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission putting the interests of solicitors before clients.I will sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge all of you will never have a leg to stand on no matter how much you complain!

Anonymous said...

Yes very interesting Peter and it seems you are also correct about the Law Society/SLCC takeover spat and the 6 million Mike Dailly claimed they had.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/law-society-committee-to-seek-abolition-of-legal-aid-quango-1.1060914

Law Society committee to seek abolition of legal aid quango
David Leask, Investigations Reporter 12 Oct 2010

An influential group of lawyers has called for the abolition of the quango that distributes legal aid.

A key committee of the Law Society of Scotland has formally proposed wholesale bureaucratic reforms that it believes could save £40 million worth of red tape in just five years.

The Access to Justice Committee wants to shut down the Scottish Legal Aid Board (Slab), which spends nearly £13m a year on administration, and hand over its functions to a new “one-stop shop” body funded and managed by lawyers.

Committee convener Mike Dailly stressed the plan was designed to protect front-line services from an expected bid to rein in Scotland’s roughly £190m annual legal aid bill.

However, his proposal threatened to split the legal establishment.

Mr Dailly, of Govan Law Centre in Glasgow, said: “We can either sit back and wait for front-line legal services for vulnerable people to be cut, or we can seize the initiative.

“We are confident a new one-stop-shop that handled all legal complaints, payments and strategic planning could save the taxpayer up to £40m over the next five years, with further savings over the longer term.”

The Access to Justice Committee’s plan would see responsibility for administering legal aid transferred to a new body created out of the relatively new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which is currently paid for the solicitors it oversees and is in a surplus of £6m.

The committee has suggested that the new body, based on the SLCC and retaining all its existing functions, would be called the Scottish Legal Services Commission. It even suggests some bureaucratic work be delegated to solicitors, in the same way GPs administer some health matters for the NHS.

However, public spending watchdog Audit Scotland would be given new powers to check legal aid is spent properly.

Slab, run by chief executive Lindsay Montgomery for the past decade, has overheads and administration costs of £12.7m a year.

A Slab spokesman said: “We perform a wide range of important functions that save the taxpayer many tens of millions of pounds each year. It is unlikely the Access to Justice Committee’s proposals would lead to significant savings and may risk higher costs for the taxpayer.

“The board is continuing, to look at ways of making efficiencies in legal aid.”

Anonymous said...

1 COMPLAINT !!!!
WHAT A JOKE !

Anonymous said...

At the very least a few resignations or sackings would have been called for if this had been any other subject than "complaints against lawyers"

I dont know how Irvine and her lot can sit there with a straight face and tell us all they did was uphold one complaint in a year.I suppose it just goes to show what happens when you put people in charge of something with no one looking over their shoulder expect perhaps yourself Peter keeping us informed of their wretched behaviour.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

As a solicitor let me just say I am so happy to see the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission putting the interests of solicitors before clients.I will sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge all of you will never have a leg to stand on no matter how much you complain!
===================================
So you support legal dictatorship then?

Anonymous said...

I am not surprised.I have been trying to get the SLCC to investigate my solicitor over the loss of our title deeds and all they did was throw it back to the Law Society.We have heard very little since last August.

With the way my complaint is being treated I cant help wondering what kind of complaint they allwoed through

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

As a solicitor let me just say I am so happy to see the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission putting the interests of solicitors before clients.I will sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge all of you will never have a leg to stand on no matter how much you complain!

25 January 2011 16:57

Yes I'm sure you are happy being protected by a bunch of toffs ex cops lawyers etc with jobs coming out their ears.

I could say more but I'll leave it at that.

Anonymous said...

So its official and no more pretence - THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION IS USELESS AT COMPLAINTS AND PRO-LAWYER ANTI-CLIENT
A CLONE OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND !

Anonymous said...

The Access to Justice Committee (ONLY IF THE JUSTICE IS NOT INVOLVING A CROOKED LAWYER) wants to shut down the Scottish Legal Aid Board (Slab), which spends nearly £13m a year on administration, and hand over its functions to a new “one-stop shop” body funded and managed by lawyers.

I WOULD RATHER DIE OF CANCER THAN TRUST ANOTHER LAWYER, THAT IS HOW STRONGLY I FEEL ABOUT DEALING WITH THESE SCUMBAG BASTARDS.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Why is a quango allowed to hang onto £1.8 million ?

Are they in the duckhouse business ?

25 January 2011 16:30

I am wondering this myself.

Where is John Swinney when needed ? He should be seizing their assets to pay back that 2 million or is it one rule for lawyers and another for the rest of us ?

I'm looking forward to voting in May as never before and will make sure I DONT VOTE SNP

Anonymous said...

Have to admit I wasnt aware of the Dailly/McBride caper.

After reading your remarkable dissection of the SLCC report I went onto find Mr Dailly had made a complaint to the PCC about the McBride story in the Daily Record.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2132/Dailly_takes_Daily_Record_to_PCC_over_legal_aid_coverage.html

It seems to me Dailly's facts were wrong on the £6m wouldn't you say ?

Also allowing the Law Society to take over the SLCC & Legal Aid is a terrible idea although I better not say too much in case Dailly comes after anyone who disagrees with him.

Anyway he doesn't need to worry about the SLCC being taken over as it looks like the Law Society have them firmly in their pocket

Anonymous said...

Rosemary Agnew and Jane Irvine are clearly living on another planet - this is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

I see the prat who claims to be a solicitor is still with us - confirming what we all know already, trust no lawyer.

Anonymous said...

900 Aberdeen Council workers are getting sacked while this lot at the slcc gloat over £1.8million spare cash

Sick people!

Anonymous said...

I clicked on your "The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - The story so far" link

Well all I can say is this SLCC has absolutely no credibility at all.What a mess (an SNP mess!)

Well done for your coverage Mr Cherbi.At least there is someone telling us the truth not like in some quarters!

Anonymous said...

Good reporting Peter, you tell it as it is.

Anonymous said...

COMPLAINTS AGAINST LAWYERS ARE FORBIDDEN IN SCOTLAND.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission received 1452 complaints last year, however it only fully upheld one single complaint. SELF REGULATION IN ACTION.

Anonymous said...

Proof the SNP interfered with Jane Irvine's SLCC for the Law Society cause :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Fergus-Ewing-tells-complaints-body.6235750.jp

Fergus Ewing tells complaints body to lower lawyers' levy or face a 'review'

Published Date: 19 April 2010
By Christopher Mackie

A SCOTTISH minister threatened the independence of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after it refused to reduce the levy it charges for lawyers to fund its work, The Scotsman can reveal.

Fergus Ewing said he would "review" the relationship between ministers and the commission after this year's levy was set, issuing a threat that power could be shifted away from the body towards the Scottish Government should the commission not use its "discretion" to shape its budget appropriately.

Political opponents called on him to retract the threat immediately and his intervention was described as "concerning" by the SLCC, a body that reports to Parliament and has the legal right to independently set its own budget and levy structure.

It comes amid ongoing disquiet among solicitors over the level of influence Scottish ministers seek to wield over lawyers.

Last month, Mr Ewing was forced to withdraw controversial measures in the forthcoming Legal Services Bill that would have given ministers the power to step in and regulate law firms should ongoing legal reforms not produce a "suitable" regulator. The plans would have also permitted the Scottish Government to dictate the make-up of the Law Society's council, a move many lawyers found intolerable and one that has led to a growing schism within the profession, with the Law Society under pressure over its perceived close relationship with ministers.

The SLCC wants to retain a surplus of £1.5 million in its budget for next year amid uncertainty about the extent of its responsibilities that will be subject to test cases in the Court of Session.

The Law Society of Scotland is lobbying for that money to be used to drop the annual levy to solicitors, who pay between £90 and £275 a year to fund the SLCC's work. They have now been joined in their campaign by Mr Ewing, who appears to have acted after a request made by the Law Society. The society admits it lobbied Mr Ewing, but insists it has no power to direct the minister's behaviour.

SLCC chair Jane Irvine said: "The SLCC board has raised concerns at the minister's inference to the level of control the Scottish Government may wish to exert over the operation of the SLCC, should our board decide against reducing the levy."

John Lamont, the Tory community safety spokesman, called for the threat to be withdrawn.

And Julia Clarke, the Scottish spokeswoman for consumer body Which?, a body that campaigned for the SLCC to be set up, said she was concerned.

But a spokeswoman for the Scottish Government defended Mr Ewing's actions, and said: "The minister is entitled to make his views known to the SLCC, and any future changes which might be considered to ensure the SLCC operates efficiently and does not impose unnecessary burdens on the legal profession would ultimately be for Parliament to consider."

Anonymous said...

One complaint upheld, criminals protecting criminals with public money.

Anonymous said...

For a quango to have so much money in the bank during the biggest recession this country has ever seen is a disgrace.Especially a quango which only upheld 1 complaint!

How many other complaints were swept under the carpet I wonder?

Anonymous said...

The SLCC have put their budget & report into the Scottish Parliament

I wonder how many msps will be called in or bought off to wave it through without any questions

Anonymous said...

Investigating 1 complaint is nothing to brag about - no wonder they kept it out of their press release!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

As a solicitor let me just say I am so happy to see the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission putting the interests of solicitors before clients. I will sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge all of you will never have a leg to stand on no matter how much you complain!

So your are a criminal because your innuendo suggests you could not sleep if your activities were investigated without bias. Look at the big picture. If you are a solicitor, these further revelations about the SLCC undermine trust in the profession further, because the Law Society & Slcc are saying do what you want Mr Solicitor because we will protect you. My advice to you, grow up.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission received 1452 complaints last year, however it only fully upheld one single complaint.

The inevitable consequence of the legal loophole known as self regulation.

Anonymous said...

Chief executive Rosemary Agnew said the number of enquiries and complaints coming to the SLCC was lower than originally predicted. She commented: "This may be due to a number of factors such as the economic downturn.

ROSEMARY COULD IT BE A DOWNTURN IN THE TRUST CLIENTS HAVE IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

Anonymous said...

I hope all you Scots are paying some attention to whats going on in North Africa just now .........

Tunisia Algeria Egypt all the people who have no justice no freedoms are ruled by dictators and their pet industries are all on the way out

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12280552

Any comment on the Sheridan perjury sentence ?

Anonymous said...

Quite a balanced report I thought as you also included what the Shark Society said in reply.

At any rate the SLCC looks past its sell by date no matter what they do.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

You might be interested to know a will written under the will aid scheme has gone terribly wrong.The Law Society & SLCC apparently do not want to investigate (probably as it would generate bad publicity on will aid) so get digging Peter!

Anonymous said...

Actually I am a solicitor for those of you who doubt me.I maintain I am very happy to see the SLCC putting our rights first.After all we pay for it.
As far as I am concerned clients can go take a running jump over their petty complaints.

Anonymous said...

I dont believe the SLCC's stats on how many complaints it received (enquiries then those which ended up as complaints)

It'll be about honest as the employment figures 3,561 enquiries down to 1,452 cases classified as “legal complaints”

I'm sure some more of the missing 2000 or so could probably qualify as complaints if the rules were fairer and this quango wasnt stuffed with lawyers and cops as you exposed in another posting.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Actually I am a solicitor for those of you who doubt me.I maintain I am very happy to see the SLCC putting our rights first.After all we pay for it.
As far as I am concerned clients can go take a running jump over their petty complaints.

SO YOU WOULD NOT BE DOING WHAT MR CHERBI IS DOING IF YOU WERE IN HIS SHOES?

Anonymous said...

This solicitor who is commenting is probably one of the warped ******* who robs their clients then depends on self regulation to get him or her off the hook

You just need to read what Peter wrote about the SLCC report to realise its pedal to the metal at the SLCC to save crooked lawyers

Anonymous said...

There should be an independent investiation into the way the SLCC came into its position but I suppose there's no person indepednent enough to do it maybe except yourself.

One thing for sure anyone else will be bought off to give them the all clear - I dont think they could do it to you!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Actually I am a solicitor for those of you who doubt me.I maintain I am very happy to see the SLCC putting our rights first.After all we pay for it.

As far as I am concerned clients can go take a running jump over their petty complaints.
==================================
If you think someone having their assets stolen by a lawyer is petty you are a lawyer to avoid. That is why websites are naming bad lawyers and firms. If you were in a clients shoes you would not think it was petty. Your comment is simply a reflection of your intellect.