Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Law Society ‘warns’ Scottish Parliament : Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 ‘should not be repealed’ by msps or Scottish Government

Michael ClancyUnwanted reforms : Law Society's Michael Clancy wades into campaign to repeal laws which allow Law Society power to protect lawyers against complaints. THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND’S Director of Law Reform, Michael Clancy has written to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee expressing Law Society disapproval over a public petition asking MSPs to repeal the much hated, much questioned, much misused & infamously anti-consumer Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, the Westminster enacted thirty year old legislation which allows Scottish solicitors to ‘look after their own’ by investigating complaints against their own colleagues.

The petition, Petition PE1388, originally filed as an e-petition at the Scottish Parliament by a Mr William Burns calls “on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to repeal the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, end self-regulation, and remove the independence of the legal profession, bringing it onside with true democracy.”.

I reported on events surrounding the petition in an earlier article, here : Law Society’s legislative powerbase 'is anti-consumer' as Holyrood to hear petition calling for repeal of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980

Would Granny Swear by the Law Society - The Herald June 5 2006Holyrood has consistently failed to address reform of complaints against solicitors & serious evidence of organised corruption at the heart of the Law Society. The letter from Michael Clancy to the Petitions Committee, available here to read (pdf) and reprinted in full, below, goes on to remind MSPs they have considered the issue of regulation of the legal profession several times in the parliament’s history, giving the Law Society's glossed-over view of how the various debates over complaints reform have been handled, to the point complaints against the legal profession are still considered & investigated by the legal profession itself, or those connected to it.

While Mr Clancy claims enough consideration has been given to the issue of regulatory reform of the legal profession, the reality is that msps have never addressed some of the most damming evidence of collusion between the Law Society & insurance firms to protect ‘crooked lawyers’ from losing their jobs or having to compensate their victims for millions of pounds of fraud committed against clients each year.

Michael Clancy’s letter to the Petitions Committee said the Law Society does not agree it should be put out of business on complaints & cover-ups. Mr Clancy, who, along with his Law Society colleagues are now dubbed “access-all-areas” by MSPs & MPs due to frequent use of ‘parliamentary passes’ to communicate the Society’s ‘political & legislative wishes’ reveals in his letter : The Society does not agree with the proposition that the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 should be repealed. The 1980 Act is based on the Legal Aid Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1949 but has been amended at various stages since its consolidation in 1980, most significantly by the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions (Scotland) Act 1990, the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Act 2003, the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 and last year by the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010.”

Regulation of the legal profession in Scotland has been the subject of searching enquiry by the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament. In the first session of the Scottish Parliament, this Committee held an Inquiry into the Regulation of the Legal Profession. The Committee focused on the way in which the profession handled complaints which had been perceived to be the main source of public concern. The Committee also looked at the general arrangements by which the legal profession was regulated. The Committee concluded that the system of regulation should be retained but recommended that it should be reformed to make it more acceptable to consumers and more representative of the public interest.

Scottish ExecutiveWorking Groups’ full of Law Society members studied how complaints should be best handled by lawyers, for lawyers. In 2005 the then Scottish Executive, issued a consultation paper on complaint handling arrangements which resulted in the introduction of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 and the creation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Simultaneously the Research Working Group on the legal services market in Scotland was considering the legal services market and also considered the regulatory framework for legal services in Scotland. The Research Working Group identified the following strands in the regulatory framework:-

i) The role of Parliament, Government and the Court. The Working Group identified that the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament both had legislative powers in relation to the Scottish legal profession. The Scottish Government and the Office of Fair Trading were also involved in the regulation of the legal profession with the policy lead lying with Scottish Ministers. The Court of Session and lower courts also exercise regulatory power over solicitors in terms of lawyers who practice advocacy before the courts who must conduct themselves in a manner which is acceptable to the Court.

ii) Regulation of solicitors – arrangements for the regulation of solicitors by the Law Society of Scotland are set out in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. The Society has a statutory responsibility for the promotion of the solicitors’ profession in Scotland and the interests of the public in relation to that profession. In carrying out its functions therefore the Society must not only have regard to the interests of the solicitors’ profession but also the public
interest.

LIAR AID Solicitor in probe escapes prosecutionUseless laws allow lawyers to cover up for each other, a fact which Mr Clancy’s letter omits to tell Holyrood’s Petitions Committee. The 1980 Act provides for the statutory basis for the Society, the right to practise, professional practice, conduct and discipline, and complaints and disciplinary proceedings relating to solicitors in Scotland. It has since been amended by subsequent legislation which has enhanced some of the statutory protections available to the client. In particular the regulatory objectives contained in Section 1 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 will apply when that provision is brought into effect. The Council of the Society (which is to have a non solicitor component when the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 is implemented, deals both with the Society's regulatory functions (e.g. the setting of standards for entry and education, rule making and monitoring and enforcement) and its representative functions (e.g. negotiating with Government, contributing to the development of the law and the system of administration of justice, representing the profession to the public and other stakeholders, services to members, marketing, and international activities).

Law Society listed its many powers, mostly used to protect solicitors who find themselves the subject of client complaints on everything from embezzlement to criminal activities. The 1980 Act provides the Society with powers to:-

• make regulations in respect of admission to the profession and training within it (section 5);
• make rules in relation to applications for and issue of practising certificates (section 13);
• make rules relating to admission as a solicitor with extended rights of audience (section 25A);
• make rules relating to professional practice, conduct and discipline (section 34);
• make rules relating to the keeping of accounts (sections 35, 36 and 37(6));
• make rules relating to professional indemnity insurance (section 44);
• control and manage the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund (section 43, Schedule 3, Part I);
• handle compliance, enforcement and disciplinary issues arising out of the rules of the Society; and
• handle conduct complaints about solicitors (sections 38 - 42C). Service Complaints are dealt with by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

All rules require the consent of the Lord President before they come into effect.

When the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 comes into effect a regulatory committee (which will be composed of equal numbers of solicitors and non solicitors) will undertake the regulatory work of the Council in terms of Section 133 of the 2010 Act.

iii) External regulation – members of the Law Society of Scotland are subject to external regulation:-

The Court of Session : In the case of professional misconduct by a solicitor, the Court of Session on appeal from a decision of the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal may exercise certain powers.

Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal : The Tribunal is a statutory body empowered to adjudicate on complaints about professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional appeals. The composition of the Tribunal is defined in statute and must consist of equal numbers of solicitor members and non solicitor members, all appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session

Mr Clancy held up the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as an example of independent regulation, however most feel the SLCC is an example of a Law Society ‘front company’, the SLCC itself staffed mostly by former Law Society employees & Committee members. Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was created under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. It is the single gateway for all complaints against legal practitioners. The SLCC is an independent statutory body accountable to Parliament. Its Board is appointed by Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Lord President.

iv) External regulators also include profession specific activities. These include:-

a) The Scottish Legal Aid Board under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986;
b) The FSA under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;
c) The Department for Business Innovation and Skills in respect of insolvency practitioner regulation and consumer credit regulation; and
d) The Immigration Services Commissioner under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Law Chief held with rent boy - Sunday Mail 3 May 2009 eHighly regulated or highly insulted & protected from the law ? : Mr Clancy’s letter to MSPs concludes, rather mockingly considering copious media coverage of ‘crooked lawyers’ in Scotland, that : “The solicitors’ profession is highly regulated and has been the subject of searching and consistent parliamentary scrutiny over the past 20 years. The petition fails to acknowledge this and the points raised in the petition have been adequately covered by parliament, especially in the last year with the passage of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010.”

One MSP who read the Law Society’s letter commented this morning : “The Law Society may have all these rules & regulations behind them but it doesn't look like the Solicitors Act and related legislation are being used very well if at least twenty different cases brought to my attention by constituents who have problems with their lawyers, problems with the Law Society and problems with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are to be believed.”

He continued : “The terms of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act clearly grants too much power to a single professional regulator in today’s world of consumer protection. Clearly reform is required and perhaps it is now time for the Scottish Parliament to do what Westminster could not achieve with the 1980 Act, in giving power back to consumers, along with an independent body to represent their interests.”

A consumer official speaking to Diary of Injustice this morning agreed it is time to reform the way complaints against solicitors are handled by the legal profession, commenting that present ‘improved’ arrangements on complaints by way of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are proving “a disappointment” to many clients.

Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee considers petition calling for repeal of laws which allow Law Society to protect crooked lawyers from complaints (click image below to watch video)

The Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee considered Petition PE1388 during its session last week, 25 January 2011. The Parliament’s official report official report on the meeting stated :

Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (Repeal) (PE1388)

The Convener: The final new petition today—indeed, the final new petition of this session—is PE1388, by William Burns, on behalf of the crusade for the protection of true democracy, seeking a repeal of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. I seek members' views on how to take the petition forward.

Bill Butler: We should continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government, asking whether it will repeal the 1980 act, end self-regulation and remove the legal profession's independence. I realise that the proposals are radical, but they are worthy of a response at the very least. After all, the petitioner says that these measures will bring the profession on-side with true democracy, so we should ask the Government whether it will accede to the suggestions made in the petition and, if not, why not. To be fair, we should also ask the Law Society of Scotland and Consumer Focus Scotland for their response to the petition's fairly radical proposals.

John Wilson: As well as writing to Consumer Focus Scotland, we should also seek Citizens Advice Scotland's views.

The Convener: Do members agree to continue the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

The Petitions Committee decided to write to the Scottish Government, Law Society of Scotland, Consumer Focus Scotland & Citizen’s Advice Scotland.

The committee’s letter to the Scottish Government asked : “Will you repeal the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, end self-regulation, and remove the independence of the legal profession, bringing it onside with true democracy as called for by the petitioner? If not, why do you consider this to be unnecessary? More generally, what is your response to the points made in the petition?”

I will continue to report on events surrounding the petition as they unfold.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Law Society ‘warns’ Scottish Parliament : Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 ‘should not be repealed’ by msps or Scottish Government.

THIS ACT IS ANTI HUMAN RIGHTS. IT MUST BE ABOLISHED BECAUSE THESE CRIMINALS NEED INDEPENDENT POLICING.

BY PROTECTING CROOKED LAWYERS THE LAW SOCIETY IS GIVING THEM A MANDATE TO RUIN MORE CLIENTS. END SELF REGULATION, PROTECT THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE FROM LEGAL TYRANNY.

Anonymous said...

That was a short one at the petitions committee.

Where they afraid to say too much about whether any of them had received letters complaining about the Law Society ?

I bet they have !

Anonymous said...

Law Society's Michael Clancy wades into campaign to repeal laws which allow Law Society power to protect lawyers against complaints.
==================================
Another reason to never trust lawyers.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society can go to hell for all I care - Just like the Police shouldn't be allowed to investigate their own neither should lawyers.

Stand up to Law Society thuggery!

Anonymous said...

Self regulation did not work for MPs, bankers, and as your article clearly demonstrates it does not and has not worked with the legal profession.

Simply put, the Law Society of Scotland is not fit for purpose.

Anonymous said...

Of course Mr Clancy doesnt want the Scottish Parliament to repeal the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (also seems a bit old to me,could probably do with being shut down itself)

They have a great money making operation going on so no one should dare touch it or else the Law Society's black book of dirty tricks will be out along with all their files on these chickensh*t politicians

Anonymous said...

Clancy's letter is full of crap.He reminds me of Mubarak on tv the other night telling the poor Egyptians they didnt matter because Egypt is his

Get some protests going and get the UK Uncut people up to help you because I'm bloody sure these miserable lawyers will be ripping off the country just as much as they are ripping off their customers

Anonymous said...

End self regulation, it is exoneration for the lawyer and legal hell for the client.

If Mr Glancy's Law Society fought to protect clients this would not be happening. They are abusers of human rights, lawyers do not sue lawyers so they are a law unto themselves.

Anonymous said...

Total rubbish from Mr Clancy

Anonymous said...

The former Legal Services Ombudsman Linda Costelloe-Baker noted in her final interview that she and her predecessor were still waiting some 15 years on for an answer to their question;

'Why is it so difficult for a party to engage one Scottish Solicitor to prosecute another for Professional malpractise?'.

Now, several years later still, the same question remains unanswered.

Anonymous said...

Yes Peter quite right the Law Society should be shut down immediately we dont need their grubby hands over everything and another thing - THEY DONT REPRESENT MY VIEWS even though they claim to represent the public!

Anonymous said...

lol ! I dont think I'd be letting Mr Clancy or any of his colleagues access all of my areas

anyway if they are using their "parliamentary passes" to the point of annoying msps/mps I think we need an inquiry into that on its own

Anonymous said...

LAW SOCIETY REGULATION IN ACTION.


Law Society of Scotland’s weak touch self-regulation allows ‘crooked lawyers’ to continue working for unsuspecting clients.

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND’S self serving, self protecting system of lawyers regulating each other has once again demonstrated the Scottish legal profession is thoroughly unfit to regulate its 10,000 solicitors and protect the client’s best interests at the same time, as the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed this weekend yet another ‘disgraced lawyer’ solicitor Steven Anderson, has returned to work after the Scottish Legal Aid Board found him guilt of making ‘unjustified claims’, while the Law Society has taken NO ACTION to protect the public.

The Sunday Mail’s investigation into Steven Anderson came after Scottish Legal Aid Board issued an earlier Press Release stating an investigation had found non-compliance with SLAB’s Code of Practice for Criminal Legal Assistance.

The SLAB Press Release identified solicitor Steven Anderson, stating “this non‐compliance included: holding unnecessary meetings with clients, and making inappropriate, multiple and repetitive grants of advice and assistance”.

Curiously however, the Press Release from the Scottish Legal Aid Board contained no figures of how much money in terms of claims to the Legal Aid Board Mr Anderson had received, now revealed by the Sunday Mail to stand at a staggering £560,330.

Post your complaints on Solicitors from Hell. Law Society is a waste of time for clients.

THE ABOVE LAWYER IS STILL WORKING BUT CANNOT DO LEGAL AID WORK.

WHY HAVE THE LAW SOCIETY TAKEN NO ACTION, BEWARE.

WAKE UP MR GLANCY, LEGAL DICTATORSHIP MUST END.

Anonymous said...

Yet another example of an issue purposely kept out of the Scottish newspapers by the legal profession.


How much is it costing the Law Society to keep everyone ignorant of this petition ?

Anonymous said...

Mr Clancy's worn out record is a good enough indication on its own the LSoS should be wound up.

Anonymous said...

This is an identity problem. The Law Society regard clients as unimportant, you never hear Glancy screaming about protecting clients. The latter are simply money to lawyers. No one can get justice against a lawyer so long as they deal with complaints: if this happened in a sheriff court, ie lawyer charged with embezzlement and the jury were all lawyers there would be a public backlash. This arrangement is self regulation. It would never be allowed in public, why is allowed behind the closed doors of the legal Establishment? Corruption is self regulation, the legal loophole that allows lawyers to do what they want. Abolish the Act.

Anonymous said...

After reading Michael Clancy's letter to the PPC it looks to me more like he is pleading to keep his own job along with the Law Society - both of them forced on us by the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

Without it or the Law Society Mr Clancy and his colleagues are nothing therefore I support repeal of the act.

Anonymous said...

"Mr Clancy, who, along with his Law Society colleagues are now dubbed “access-all-areas” by MSPs & MPs due to frequent use of ‘parliamentary passes’ to communicate the Society’s ‘political & legislative wishes’ reveals in his letter"

I dont like the sound of this one bit.

If Clancy & colleagues are wandering round the parliaments purveying their goods,wares & directions to elected representatives on how to vote I think there should be an investigation into this.

After all the Law Society is little more than a lobby group and I think its high time this fact was recognised.

Access all areas is clearly being used for nefarious purposes in my view.

Anonymous said...

Mr Glancy l have no doubt the names of the signatories to Mr Burns petition are with every law firm in Scotland, and these persons, are detested by your Law Society, and will never get legal representation. At least I will not need to complain to the law society again, because it resulted in a cover up the first time, to all new readers, trust no lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Interest groups are members of something. Their purpose is to promote the interests of their membership. This is the reason self regulation is in conflict with justice because colleagues are important and clients are not. Although he would never say this in public I am sure Mr Glancy will agree clients are not important other than to make money. His Law Society is a graveyard for client complaints.

Anonymous said...

Client suicudes due to Law Society tyranny. They never denied it. Repeal the Act to stop this happening again.

Complaining to Mr Glancy or the Law Society is pointless, they would send us to Siberia before they would help a client. The law society is a cover for corruption.

Anonymous said...

MR GLANCY HERE IS WHAT YOU WILL NOT TELL THE PUBLIC.

DANGER EVEN IF YOU ENDED UP IN A WHEELCHAIR SCOTLAND'S LAWYERS CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO SUE YOUR EMPLOYER.

HERE IS THE REASON WHY.

ALL LAW FIRMS ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE THROUGH THE LAW SOCIETY MASTER POLICY.

IF YOUR LAWYER RUINS YOUR CASE AND YOU WANT ANOTHER LAWYER TO SUE YOU HAVE NO CHANCE.

BOTH LAWYERS ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE.

ALL DOCTORS ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE.

ALL EMPLOYERS ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE.

THIS IS WHY IF YOU ARE INJURED AT WORK AND YOUR INJURIES ARE NOT VISIBLE THE LAWYERS WILL TAKE YOUR CASE ON.

BUT THEY WILL NEVER BE WORKING FOR YOU.

IF THEY GOT DAMAGES FOR YOU THEIR 'INSURERS' WOULD BE PAYING THE DAMAGES?

HOW CORRUPT IS THAT!

THEY GET MILLIONS OF POUNDS IN LEGAL AID EVERY YEAR FOR CASES THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY WIN.

SCOTLAND'S LITIGATION LAWYERS AND GP's CONSULTANT DOCTORS COVER UP OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND HAVE DONE FOR YEARS.

THE LAW SOCIETY INSURERS GIVE LAWYERS BONUSES SO THAT THEY WILL NOT HELP VICTIMS OF CROOKED LAWYERS.

YOU CANNOT SUE THEM IF THE STEAL YOUR INHERITANCE EITHER. PUT THIS IN YOUR PIPE MR GLANCY.

PLEASE HEED THIS WARNING.

Anonymous said...

LAW SOCIETY AND NHS PRIMARY CARE JUSTICE, PROTECTS LAWYERS AND GP's NOT CLIENTS OR PATIENTS, HERE ARE THE FACTS.


A young woman injured at work.

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. He may be your lawyer? He may be covering up what has happened to you now?

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 privileged criminal doctors cover everything up encourage employers to injure others.

Her GP, made out to the court she had been seeing a psychiatrist (to kill her litigation off) 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. WE STILL HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS.

She does not have psychiatric problems.

So at least he told the benefits agency the truth. We told him to produce the psychiatrist, but he does not exist.

Simple strategy of the GP, stop her money from the benefits agency by stating there is nothing wrong with her and kill off her litigation in court by attempting to ruin her reputation. (She had no money for 5 months until her employer terminated her contract) previously 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. Is he your doctor? Why did the Lawyer take the case on Mr Glancy? He could not win it or his law firms insurance premiums would go up.

The employer, lawyer and GP cut off her money to starve her into submission. Has this happened to anyone else?

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. Why do you not put an advert in the press Mr Glancy telling the public lawyers doctors and employers are insured by the same company? Your litigation lawyers would lose a fortune that is why.

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. This is why Mr Glancy wants to keep self regulation, to cover up criminality so lawyers can do what they want. The above can happen to any member of the public.

People are genuinely getting injured and they are covering it up. This Mr Glancy your Law Society would not investigate and the NHS Primary Care Manager did nothing about it either.

MSP's Repeal the Act.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

After reading Michael Clancy's letter to the PPC it looks to me more like he is pleading to keep his own job along with the Law Society - both of them forced on us by the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

Without it or the Law Society Mr Clancy and his colleagues are nothing therefore I support repeal of the act.

2 February 2011 16:21

Spot on!

Anonymous said...

It is very strange a petition calling for such a major piece of legislation to be scrapped has not featured in any of your Scottish newspapers.

Are they all too afraid of the Law Society or just easily bought off ?

Anonymous said...

If Clancy & colleagues are wandering round the parliaments purveying their goods,wares & directions to elected representatives on how to vote I think there should be an investigation into this.

YES THE LAW SOCIETY RUNS THE COUNTRY. THE EXPLOITATION OF THE MANY BY A CRIMINAL MINORITY.

Anonymous said...

If Clancy & colleagues are wandering round the parliaments purveying their goods,wares & directions to elected representatives on how to vote I think there should be an investigation into this.

YES THE LAW SOCIETY RUNS THE COUNTRY. THE EXPLOITATION OF THE MANY BY A CRIMINAL MINORITY.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a good idea to get rid of the Law Society although you'll have to come up with a replacement as we all now know the SLCC is as biased against the public as the Law Society

Anonymous said...

I can just imagine the Law Society will be calling up all their friends at Holyrood to make sure this goes nowhere.Fat brown envelopes at the ready for any willing politician!

Anonymous said...

so its now time for Consumer Focus Scotland and Citizens Advice to speak up and see we get rid of this monster Law Society

Anonymous said...

If the law society are so switched on and so tough, what have they got to fear by giving up their self regulation rights? I will tell you quite simply they are all cowardly bullies all hudeled together working their highly illegal cartel.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for your comments & emails on this article.

Some comments have not been published due to their 'strength' ... however I'm sure many clients who have been ruined by their solicitors may sympathise with the content ...

It has also been brought to my attention from a supporter that some individuals either connected to the Law Society of Scotland or Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have been posting comments which the SLCC in turn have attempted to use to justify withholding information from FOI requests. I will be reporting on this issue in a forthcoming article ...

In the meanwhile I would urge readers to support the aims of the petition to repeal the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 by writing into their MSPs and the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee directly.

Anonymous said...

"It has also been brought to my attention from a supporter that some individuals either connected to the Law Society of Scotland or Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have been posting comments which the SLCC in turn have attempted to use to justify withholding information from FOI requests. I will be reporting on this issue in a forthcoming article ..."

Sounds like the Law Society or SLCC's dirty tricks department have been out in force again?
I'm looking forward to your expose of it.

Keep up the good work Peter!

Anonymous said...

I think we could all do with less lawyers and less "Law Society" ruling over us

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

It is very strange a petition calling for such a major piece of legislation to be scrapped has not featured in any of your Scottish newspapers.

Are they all too afraid of the Law Society or just easily bought off ?

2 February 2011 19:21

Both!

Anonymous said...

I also feel there should be an investigation into these parliament passes of the Law Society because I know its hard enough for an ordinary person trying to get a meeting with an msp.If Law Society people can just go through the doors anytime they please and meet whoever they want this is wrong.

Anonymous said...

If the SLCC have so much to do they are going around trying to knock out their critics they certainly need to be scrapped!

Anonymous said...

can only say I agree with everyone else scrap the Law Society

Anonymous said...

Good comment earlier about the lack of coverage in the press but what can you expect from some newspapers where lawyers end up in the newsroom writing thinly disguised advertisements for the legal profession.And yet they wonder why their circulations are at rock bottom

Anonymous said...

This must have been the shortest debate on a petition at that committee for a long time.

Is anyone going to speak up for it next time its heard ?

Anonymous said...

Michael Moores film "Sicko" If the American doctor had shot or stabbed the patient to death she would have murdered him. She refused him an operation which would have saved his life because her insurers would have to pay half a million dollars. She told Congress no one has held her accountable for this but she is haunted by the number of times she has written condition not treatable when she knows it is.

These healthcare doctors are given bonuses and the more they save the insurers the more they make. Watch Sicko and see for yourselves.

Doctors, lawyers, are above the law, evil scum that is why they sleep at night.

Anonymous said...

Law Society ‘warns’ Scottish Parliament : Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 ‘should not be repealed’ by msps or Scottish Government.

I dont think they even need to warn the Parliament - they will never topple the Law Society from its perch - only Tunisian style protests will!

Anonymous said...

This is about identity politics where institutionalised values regard clients as things to be exploited. Self regulation is the mechanism by which this serious, injustice is covered up. The question for MSP's is a simply one. Are lawyers more important to you than the people who elected you? Our so called justice minister has answered this question. Let us hope you do not share his values.

Repeal the Act.

Anonymous said...

All Scots have a common enemy, the Law Society of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation is institutionalised injustice.

Anonymous said...

When I study the activities of Lords, etc I agree with you, a title is a mark of shame.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12360509

If he had been a lawyer we would have heard nothing !

Anonymous said...

More medical negligence and the lawyers will be fighting to cover it up so no one gets blamed as usual

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12366870

Father claims overdose medics 'killed his daughter'

The father of a teenager who died after being given overdoses of intravenous paracetamol has called on the medics who missed the error to be prosecuted.

John Welsh's daughter, Danielle, 19, died from liver failure after being given the drug at Glasgow's Southern General Hospital in June 2008.

A fatal accident inquiry said flawed procedures were to blame.

Anonymous said...

Legal theft is what self regulation is.