Friday, February 11, 2011

Poisoned Chalice : MacAskill forced to parachute Government’s own lawyer onto Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after Advocates shun job offer

MacAskill tight lippedHumiliation for Justice Secretary MacAskill in latest SLCC appointments round as no one applies for lawyer position. KENNY MACASKILL, Scotland’s Justice Secretary and the controversial anti-consumer Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) were both left in a humiliating position of being forced to beg Richard Keen QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates for help in finding a suitable recruit to fill a ‘lawyer-only’ position at the ‘independent’ law complaints regulator, the SLCC, after documents published today reveal not one single member of the entire Scottish legal profession applied for one of four newly created & lavishly paid positions on the SLCC’s board.

The lack of any candidates subsequently forced the Scottish Government to appoint its own standing Junior Counsel to the advertised position at the SLCC, in what some say amounted to a face saving exercise for the Justice Secretary.

The humiliating lack of interest from Scotland’s 460 or so Advocates in the latest recruitment drive for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s already lawyer-heavy board was revealed in documents obtained through Freedom of Information legislation which show only one Advocate ‘was identified’ by the Scottish Government’s own recruitment team for the ‘lawyer-only’ position, after no one else from the Faculty of Advocates applied to join the infamously anti-client, anti-consumer SLCC.

The sole ‘identified’ Advocate whose name was entered into the recruitment process was later named by the Justice Secretary as the well known Maurice O’Carroll, who happens to be the Scottish Government’s own standing Junior Counsel.

Scottish Government officials were forced to write to Faculty of Advocates after no one came forward to join the SLCC’s board. According to papers released in response to a Freedom of Information request to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Scotland (OCPAS), a recruitment panel chaired by Colin McKay, the Scottish Government’s Head of Legal Services Division, encountered difficulties in its stated mission to “identify specific advocates that they could approach” to fill the lawyer-only board appointment, forcing Mr McKay to write directly to the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates himself, Richard Keen QC “for his help in encouraging applications” to join the SLCC. However, it appears the Scottish Government’s plea to the Faculty fell on deaf ears, and not one Advocate came forward to join the frequent flyers from the legal profession who are already rooted on the SLCC’s board.

The lack of interest from advocates in joining the SLCC became such a humiliation, the Scottish Government were forced to ask for an exception to the code of public appointments. An email from the Scottish Government to OCPAS, obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information request read : “The panel interviewed the candidate and considered them suitable for appointment. The Lord President has now confirmed that he is content to accept the Panel’s assessment that the candidate is appointed.“We confirm that the current SLCC lawyer round resulted in there being a lack of choice to fill the lawyer member position on the Board. A low response was not unexpected as the applicants for this appointment must be a advocate practising in Scotland and therefore the pool of candidates is very small. The appointing Minister [Kenny MacAskill] was informed of the situation and gave his approval for the appointment round to continue. I therefore request an exception to the Code to allow us to proceed with the round on that basis.”

Humiliation for MacAskill as “no Ministerial choice being achieved” in SLCC’s lawyer-only board member recruitment process. The OCPAS assessor who sat in on the Scottish Government’s recruitment process reported to her superiors, stating : “This appointment was for a lawyer member with the person specification requiring applicants to be an Advocate practicing in Scotland. This appointment was part of an appointment round also appointing non lawyer members but it was able to proceed on a separate timetable resulting in a much shorter timescale being achieved. This was achieved primarily because of the limited field of potential applicants and the targeted advertising and short application form used.”

“Historically it has been difficult for the Commission to attract Advocates to these appointments. The targeted advertising and short application form may have contributed to the outcome of an appointable candidate being recommended albeit with no Ministerial choice being achieved.”

The Justice Secretary chose to omit any reference to the lack of interest in joining the SLCC, and simply, announced Mr O’Carroll’s appointment in a quietly issued press release, stating : “Mr O'Carroll has extensive and varied advocacy experience. His breadth of experience and professional standing will complement and strengthen the current Board. This appointment will run for five years from a date which has still to be confirmed but likely to be sometime around March. This post is part-time and attracts a remuneration of £212 per day for a time commitment of up to six days per month.”

A senior source within the Scottish Government’s Justice Department speaking earlier this week to Diary of Injustice said : “This has been a face saving exercise for the Justice Secretary. If Mr O’Carroll had not been parachuted into the appointments process, there would have been no takers for the poisoned chalice of a position on the board of the SLCC.”

SLCC jobsThe SLCC announced in November it was looking for four ‘Frequent Flyers” to join its board : High Salaries & little work as a sweetener. The latest recruitment round for adding four additional “frequent flyers” to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s board, where expenses claims are lavish, and work is minimal, were split into three positions earmarked for ‘non-lawyers’ with “consumer backgrounds” and one lawyer member’ who was “required to be a practising advocate”. I reported on the recruitment announcement in an earlier article of November 2010, here : Quangocrats wanted : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seek ‘non-lawyer’ board members with legal & ‘consumer’ backgrounds at £209+ a day

Solicitors were apparently excluded from the latest ‘lawyer-only’ board member position because the SLCC felt it looked like there were too many solicitors, former solicitors & even non-practicing solicitors on its board already, namely Professor Alan Paterson OBE, FRSE, David Smith, Margaret Scanlan OBE & David Chaplin.

It is also noteworthy that much of the SLCC’s current staff who actually handle the complaints work, migrated over from the Law Society of Scotland’s Client Relations Office, itself which has been the focus of well founded accusations of corrupt self-regulation of solicitors and regular cover ups to protect ‘crooked lawyers’ from complaints lodged by financially ruined clients.

It will be interesting to see exactly who qualifies for the SLCC’s three new ‘non-lawyer’ positions, as the current crop of ‘non-lawyer’ board members comprises two ex-senior Police Officers, a member of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and a Doctor with several other quango positions including one at the Accounts Commission for Scotland. More details on the SLCC’s board members and their numerous positions can be found in an earlier article, here : More ‘jobs for the boys’ than action on ‘crooked lawyers’ : What it takes to be a Board Member at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

A legal insider speaking to Diary of Injustice this morning indicated observers of the SLCC may not be in for too much of a surprise in who will be appointed by the Justice Secretary to the three ‘non-lawyer’ positions currently on offer at £209+ per day along with additional expenses, for as little as six days work per month and lasting five years.

It is also worth bearing in mind that work is not a problem at the SLCC, as there isn’t much to do, which I revealed last month, here : ‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report

Margaret Scanlan - Called to the Bars - Sunday Mail  15 March 2009 emailThe new quangocrats will have a chance to work with existing SLCC Board members already featured in newspapers for being ‘on the razzle’. The recruitment advertisement from the Scottish Government stated : “The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) requires 3 non lawyer members to become part of their Board with effect from February 2011. The successful candidates will be appointed by Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session.As a non lawyer member you will have the ability to apply objective and impartial judgement to the resolution of disputes, have the ability to offer guidance on one or more of the following Commission activities: regulation, consumer rights, consumer advocacy, consumer needs and have the ability to contribute to an effective team.”

The Scottish Government issued a statement in response to queries from Diary of Injustice about the latest failed SLCC appointments round. Their spokesperson said : "Mr O'Carroll was appointed following an open and transparent recruitment process regulated by the Scottish Commissioner for Public Appointments."

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a brief statement, saying : “All Members of the SLCC Board are Ministerial public appointments and are made in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland’s Code of Practice.”

Neither the SLCC nor the Scottish Government commented on allegations Mr O’Carroll ‘was volunteered for the appointment’, or revelations not one Advocate applied for the position other than one of the Government’s own lawyers.

Given the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has only upheld one single complaint against an unknown solicitor or law firm in the past three years, I doubt the level of work will be much of a problem for any of the new recruits to the SLCC’s Board. Readers can find out just how effective the SLCC has been since it came into being, in my coverage of its 2010 annual report, revealed last month, here : ‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report

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

Background to new ‘lawyer board member’ of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission :

Maurice O'CarrollMaurice O’Carroll, appointed to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Mr O'Carroll is a graduate of the University of Edinburgh who was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1995. Prior to being called to the Bar Mr O'Carroll worked in Brussels for three years, initially with the European Commission and then with a commercial law firm specialising in international trade. Since 2002 he has been ad hoc Advocate Depute for the Crown Office and Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Government since 2003. He has a range of experience which includes planning inquiry work, public and administrative law, conducting employment tribunals and employment appeals tribunals, Inner House experience and providing opinions in relation to each of these areas.

57 comments:

  1. So even members of the Faculty of Advocates have given the SLCC a resounding 'thumbs down'.

    It will be interesting to see what 'lay persons' are willing to abandon any credibility or reputation they might have by joining.

    ReplyDelete
  2. статья super, автору респект

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice one Peter.

    I wouldn't apply for any job MacAskill would be offering either!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmm I am surprised Mr O'Carroll let himself be used to prop up the SLCC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Haha !

    McKay's letter to Keen is priceless He may as well have said "Please sir can I have some more !"

    Keep up the good work Peter !

    ReplyDelete
  6. “Historically it has been difficult for the Commission to attract Advocates to these appointments. The targeted advertising and short application form may have contributed to the outcome of an appointable candidate being recommended albeit with no Ministerial choice being achieved.”

    Sounds highly irregular to me the Government can just send in its own lawyer to something which claims to be independent (yet as we all know is not)

    Is this by any chance in line with that story you wrote about Fergus Ewing threatening the SLCC with a review if it didn't bend on the complaints levy ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. lol

    MacBuckfast is a dud of a Justice Minister

    Who is he going to appoint to the other 3 positions ?

    3 more malcontents willing to suck up to the Law Society ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another one to join Scanlan & co out on the razzle ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Its a wonder Kenny Macaskill didn't appoint himself.That way he can have a job after he gets thrown out of Government in May (here's hoping!)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Old firm games cannot have a ex Rangers or Celtic player as a referee. But MacAskill is a referee for the legal profession. He aint neutral so he does not stand for justice. Self regulation Kenny undermines justice because the latter is meant to protect the weak. The SLCC and Law Society, SDDT administer rough justice. Only criminals regulate their own.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The 3 others yet to be appointed - could this be why Consumer focus have changed their tune and are looking to get on this front for crooked lawyers?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very helpful you had the OCPAS assessor's report Mr Cherbi.
    I think if I had been sitting in on this appointment round I may have mentioned what a conflict of interest it is for the Scottish Government to appoint one of their own legal representatives to the SLCC.

    I suppose no one thought to even go there for some unexplained reason..

    ReplyDelete
  13. I know someone who could tell you a lot about Margaret Scanlan being called to the bars haha I'll tell them to get in touch

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think clients are better going to dissident websites anyway, the so called "legitimate" complaints channels are blocked by self regulators.

    Citizens with no rights cease to be citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Self regulation, the means by which the corrupt are not accountable to their victims. Institutionalised loyalties lead to serious injustice. Lawyers the enemy of all clients. MacAskill, the enemy of all Scots.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yuk what a bunch of people.No wonder they only upheld 1 complaint!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Real Justice Minister11 February 2011 at 22:02

    Your masterplan for the SLCC MacAskill is exposed for the crooked cohort of criminals like you that run it. You do not care what happens to clients and that makes me sick to my stomach, it is not you on the receiving end of lawyer corruption MacAskill.

    People are not losing a their wallets, they are losing their inheritance, health and the scum called the legal profession steal and cover it all up. This does not bother you, if I could take all you own with impunity you would want me executed.

    Only immature crooks like you think this is justice. I would like to see your reaction MacAskill in I did to you what Penmann did to Peters family. Grow up MacAskill the dissidents are increasing in number daily.

    Your Law Society, SLCC, SSDT are blocking channels for complaints that is why the dissidents have fought back. The internet is our only legitimate voice.

    ReplyDelete
  18. £212 per day for Mr O'Carroll seems small beer considering he like most advocates can probably charge clients around £1000 for a short meeting.

    Definitely another fishy appointment by MacAskill

    ReplyDelete
  19. What can I say, Peter you and your team are cutting through lawyer spin. I dealt with the Law Society and I warn all I meet because they are potential victims of lawyer injustice. This political issue, yes because it is about (difference), relating to the lawyer client power balance the former has all of the power.

    If I can teach anyone a lesson it would be, TRUST NO LAWYER. MacAskill and his colleagues are not like vicims of lawyers, we have right on our side. That is why Stuart Usher said none of the legal profession accused of coruption by Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers denied they were corrupt.

    These people are gradually destroying public trust in them, through misplaced loyalties and difference blindness. Clients are human, they deserve better than the poison lawyers are. Trust no lawyer or MSP.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Law Society are a club of crooks who members use people to make money and get upset if those people complain. Mental health problems and self regulation are inextricably linked.

    ReplyDelete
  21. An Act for the Prevention of Contagious Diseases at certain Naval and Military Stations, 29th July 1864.

    This Act allowed magistrates based on medical opinion to lock up women (they could not refuse to be examined as there were consequences) people who housed them could be locked up to three months hard labour. Sailors with sexually transmitted diseases were not in the navy's interest so the women were the scapegoats.

    I am male but men or women cannot get diseases like this if they abstain, but this act assumed that women were the culprits. Difference blindness again.

    The assumption of the architects of this act is that only women transmit these diseases. But men pass on diseases too.

    The moral of the story, if a lawyer or doctor said women spread these diseases it is cast in stone. This is the reason that self regulators lose touch with reality, they believe their opinions and judgements are the law. This is because their was no one to challenge this outragious act.

    Imagine a woman being sentenced to three months hard labour today for spreading diseases. These warped men who created this Act were above the law too, just like our friends in the legal profession today. With history such as the above is it any wonder they think they have the right to deal with complaints from the public.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A doctor who said she failed to spot that the abused toddler Peter Connelly, known as Baby P, had a broken back has been removed from the medical register.

    Consultant paediatrician Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat was facing action at the General Medical Council (GMC) over the care of the 17-month-old, who died in 2007.

    But a GMC panel granted her request for "voluntary erasure" from the register, meaning she avoids a full hearing.

    It also means that she can still practise outside the UK.
    ==================================
    Self regulators again protecting their own, just like Haggarty avoiding a court hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Don't you have a Parliament which should scrutinize these kinds of appointments?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Comment 4

    I am not surprised at all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm glad someone already said this position looks like a conflict of interest for the Scottish Govt!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I read the Press Release on the SLCC's website.

    Mr MacAskill obviously has a habit of not informing the public what is really going on just as in any other issue related to the Law.

    No wonder everyone doubts lawyers judges Angiolini the Law Society politicians Lockerbie verdict Police none can be trusted

    ReplyDelete
  27. How can politicians, who know what the Law Society SLCC do recieving a considerable amount of complaints about lawyers, do absolutely nothing to improve the situation, even when they are made well aware of criminalty. This situation can not go on any longer.

    SCOTLANDS MSP's ARE CORRUPT, THEY ARE REWARDED FOR THEIR LOYALTY.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Very good Peter.

    I would have thought it worthy of a column or at least half a page in a newspaper.

    However I can imagine little Jane,little Kenny & the little mongrels from the Law Society faxing out a few op notes warning the editors off.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous said...

    Very good Peter.

    I would have thought it worthy of a column or at least half a page in a newspaper.

    However I can imagine little Jane,little Kenny & the little mongrels from the Law Society faxing out a few op notes warning the editors off.

    Keep up the good work!

    12 February 2011 17:08

    Yes I think so too.Speaking of mongrels dont you think the SLCC needs to be wormed ?

    ReplyDelete
  30. My experience & advice to the slcc about advocates is don't go near them a colleague of mine used a Mrs Henderson when he fell off his bike she stung him for forty grand and lost the case which we all felt was a non starter to begin with. How on earth can the slcc deal with complaints properly if this is the mentality of the faculty of advocates counsel.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kenny MacAskill is always taking it in the chin & rightly so but dont forget about the poisonous arrogant bastards like roseanna cunningham & nicola sturgeon who are silently working him from the back.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Who would have thought the legal profession is so dirty!
    No wonder we are fed a constant stream of lawyers are good on tv to make up for the sleazy reality!

    ReplyDelete
  33. It seems you have proved Mr MacAskill to be a liar by omission of fact as there is no mention in the official Scottish Govt Press Release of there being only one candidate for the position at the SLCC.

    Actually one could be forgiven for thinking there were additional candidates if reading Mr MacAskill's announcement :

    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/01/20154436

    Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

    20/01/2011

    The Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill today announced the appointment of a new member to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

    The new member is Maurice O'Carroll, Advocate.

    Mr O'Carroll is a graduate of the University of Edinburgh who was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1995. Prior to being called to the Bar Mr O'Carroll worked in Brussels for three years, initially with the European Commission and then with a commercial law firm specialising in international trade. Since 2002 he has been ad hoc Advocate Depute for the Crown Office and Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Government since 2003. He has a range of experience which includes planning inquiry work, public and administrative law, conducting employment tribunals and employment appeals tribunals, Inner House experience and providing opinions in relation to each of these areas.

    Mr O'Carroll has extensive and varied advocacy experience. His breadth of experience and professional standing will complement and strengthen the current Board.

    This appointment will run for five years from a date which has still to be confirmed but likely to be sometime around March.

    This post is part-time and attracts a remuneration of £212 per day for a time commitment of up to six days per month.

    Mr O'Carroll does not hold any other public appointment.

    The SLCC was established by virtue of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Its main functions are to resolve complaints alleging inadequate professional service or negligence by legal practitioners, to refer complaints which allege professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct to the relevant professional body and to promote good practice in complaints handling.

    This Ministerial public appointment was made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland's Code of Practice.

    All appointments are made on merit and political activity plays no part in the selection process. However in accordance with the original Nolan recommendations, there is a requirement for appointees' political activity within the last five years (if there is one to be declared) to be made public. Mr O'Carroll has no political activity to be declared.

    ReplyDelete
  34. So now we have an ad hoc Advocate Depute for Angiolini also on the SLCC yet as you've pointed out before Peter the Crown Office wont even take crooked lawyers to court!
    The SLCC sham just got worse!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Restricting applicants to advocates only could be viewed in some quarters as illegal even under the argument of not having an experienced advocate on the SLCC
    Little wonder they got no takers

    ReplyDelete
  36. Good expose of a dishonest Justice Secretary.
    From the sounds of his own press release I think we all have a right to know he was forced to appoint his own man after no one came forward.

    ReplyDelete
  37. http://news.aol.co.uk/main-news/story/legal-aid-cuts-crude-and-brutal/1585349


    Proposed cuts to the legal aid budget will cost more than they save and could leave more than half a million people "silenced in court", legal experts have warned.

    The Bar Council and the Law Society, representing barristers and solicitors in England and Wales, said the cuts could leave hundreds of thousands of people unrepresented.

    The warning comes as veteran campaigner Joanna Lumley backed the Sound Off For Justice campaign against Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke's plans to axe civil legal aid for a wide range of disputes, including those over relationship break-ups, school admissions and expulsions, as well as clinical negligence. THE LATTER, LAWYERS DOCTORS ARE INSURED BY THE SAME COMPANY SO YOU DO NOT GET DAMAGES FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE MISS LUMLEY.

    The Law Society, which represents solicitors, also criticised the proposals, saying they would mean more than half a million people each year "find themselves unrepresented and ultimately 'silenced in court'".

    WELL THEY CAN JOIN THE MANY WHO CANNOT GET LAWYERS TO SUE CROOKED LAWYERS.

    VICTIMS OF CROOKED LAWYERS CANNOT GET LEGAL HELP.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I thought Richard Keen had called for the SLCC to be scrapped

    ReplyDelete
  39. COVER UP AS USUAL FROM THE SNP

    ReplyDelete
  40. Very interesting Peter although I cant wait to find out which 3 malcontents have been selected for the "consumer positions"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Restricting applicants to advocates only could be viewed in some quarters as illegal even under the argument of not having an experienced advocate on the SLCC.
    ====================================
    Even if something is illegal a lawyer or police officer must act or it, might as well be legal. Punishment is only possible within the law if action is taken against the wrongdoer.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This doesnt surprise me at all.The SLCC are as crooked as the Law Society and no one even wants to go on it now.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Some Justice Minister Scotland has, he should Google Crooked lawyers and stop trying to sweep lawyer corruption away with his crooked quango.

    I tell everyone your all crooks Kenny, and your a corrupt politician, a front for your precious Law Society of Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ken Clarke Killing if Legal Aid.

    The Law Society, which represents solicitors, also criticised the proposals, saying they would mean more than half a million people each year "find themselves unrepresented and ultimately 'silenced in court'".

    For all of the victims of crooked lawyers (those who are discriminated against) we will not be silenced even though we are barred from court by the lawyers who argue half a million people each year "find themselves unrepresented and ultimately 'silenced in court'"

    All you nice people out there, lawyers do not give a shit about you being unrepresented, they care about the legal aid money Ken Clarke will take from their law firms.

    If any of you wanted Legal Aid to sue a lawyer the lawyers would phone their buddies in the legal aid board to kill your legal aid off. These scumbags are kidding no one.

    I hope lawyers go bust. Christmas 2011 come early. Good on you Ken Clarke, pay off the deficit by bankrupting law firms who are selective on WHO GETS LEGAL AID.

    Finally another excellent report Peter on our scoundrel of a justice minister.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous said...

    This doesnt surprise me at all. The SLCC are as crooked as the Law Society and no one even wants to go on it now.
    ===================================
    MacAskill would not take the job either, I mean who wants to captain a sinking ship? Or should I say stinking, Justice and the SLCC are mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I wonder if this puts Dougie Mills blood pressure up?

    ReplyDelete
  47. The SLCC was established by virtue of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Its main functions are to resolve complaints alleging inadequate professional service or negligence by legal practitioners, to refer complaints which allege professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct to the relevant professional body and to promote good practice in complaints handling.

    YES CATHY JAMIESON SENT LETTERS TO PEOPLE WHO HAD COMPLAINED TO THE LAW SOCIETY, THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT "REFORMING COMPLAINTS HANDLING BUILDING CONSUMER CONFIDENCE" CREATED THE SLCC, AND SALMOND APPOINTS MACASKILL A LAWYER TO BE A NEUTRAL JUSTICE MINISTER. THAT IS LIKE YELLAND FROM THE LAW SOCIETY BEING JUSTICE MINISTER.

    THE SNP ARE ANTI SCOTTISH, THEY BELONG TO THE CATEGORY OF THOSE WHO WANT TO CONTROL BUT BE UNACCOUNTABLE. JUST LIKE MACASKILL'S LAW SOCIETY.

    ReplyDelete
  48. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed her firm support for the thousands of opposition supporters who protested in Iran's capital on Monday. HERE WE HAVE ANOTHER LAWYER HYPOCRITE.

    Mrs Clinton said they deserved to have "the same rights that they saw being played out in Egypt" and that Iran had to "open up" its political system. SHE TOOK A LOT OF MONEY FROM HEALTHCARE INSURERS IN AMERICA AND WAS SUDDENLY SILENCED ON UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FOR ALL AMERICANS. MICHAEL MOORE'S "SICKO" SHOWS HOW HILLARY CHANGED HER MIND WHEN HER BANK BALANCE WAS AUGMENTED.

    THEY LOVED IRAN WHEN THEIR PUPPET THE SHAH WAS A DICTATOR.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I can see why the SLCC wanted an experienced advocate on their board however its clear the advocates wanted nothing to do with it.

    Not forgetting of course if you had not written about it we would have known nothing of what happened at the appointments.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thanks for this - there can be no doubt now the SLCC and MacAskill are a pair of well matched liars even in their own press releases.What hope does any person now have going to the SLCC to make a complaint when all they do is lie?

    ReplyDelete
  51. MSP's WERE GIVEN A COPY OF THE BOOK "LEGAL HELL" BUT TURNED A BLIND EYE AND REFUSED TO END SELF REGULATION BY REPEALING THE (SOLICITORS SCOTLAND ACT) 1980. THE FOLLOWING IS WHY THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN.


    In 1982 the author consulted a solicitor and an architect with a view to extending his business and home. So began a nightmare journey of over 20 years that would take him through all levels of the Scottish legal system while pushing his finances, fortitude and health to their very limits. Join him on his marathon descent into Legal Hell? Featuring: First Solicitor Second Solicitor Third Solicitor (Troubleshooter) The Law Society Legal Aid Ombudsman Scottish Consumer Council Justice 1 Committee Public Petitions Committee Scottish Parliament Legal Hell not only tells the author's true story, it is also filled with advice for those who are undergoing a similar experience. Angus Brown points us towards a better, more accountable and democratic world ? one that is so badly needed in these current times.

    ANGUS HANNAH ARENDT IN HER BOOK "ON VIOLENCE" STATES,

    "Bureaucracy or the rule of an intricate system of bureaus in which no men can be held responsible makes it impossible to localize responsibility".

    Self regulation is a form of this which exonerates those who belong behind bars and condems clients to a legal hell. It is the duty of all of us to warn people what lawyers are and the closed shop complaints system maintained by a corrupt parliament manifesting themselves as spokespersons for their constituents. It is nothing short of criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I've spent 6 months trying to get this SLCC to investigate a complaint they keep saying they have to send to the Law Society because of their own rules and they are trying to say its too old for them to look at yet I only went to the lawyer last year

    Any suggestions from anybody appreciated

    ReplyDelete
  53. Poison chalice indeed Peter. One or two rats have already deserted this independent, so the spin claim Commission already. All that money spent to protect us from lawyers and they have done nothing. Only websites like your blog regulate these bastards.

    They hate you Peter because your are correct. Advocates you are right, you cannot stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

    ReplyDelete
  54. MacAskill and MSP's scales of justice favour the Law Society. This self regulation arrangement is augmenting all of their bank balances.

    This ensures that no client gets justice against a lawyer which is a profitable business model for all except the client.

    Scotland's politicians are more corrupt than the Law Society.

    ReplyDelete
  55. How anyone can believe a bunch of ex cops,lawyers and the rest will bother to help in complaints about lawyers is beyond me.
    All I can say is the Scots must be easily hoodwinked with ridiculous bodies like the SLCC in charge of saving all these crooked lawyers

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous said...

    I've spent 6 months trying to get this SLCC to investigate a complaint they keep saying they have to send to the Law Society because of their own rules and they are trying to say its too old for them to look at yet I only went to the lawyer last year

    Any suggestions from anybody appreciated.

    Post your complaint on Solicitors from Hell http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk/index.php

    No one succeeds complaining about a lawyer in Scotland, the SLCC and Law Society are run by criminals with one objective, protecting their own. SLCC whistleblowers were threatened with legal action. Lawyers want and have total power but self regulation ensures they are not accountable for what they do.

    The SLCC and Law Society are criminal fronts for protecting their own.

    Their rules are simple, KILL OF THE COMPLAINT AND KILL THE CLIENT. IF THEY CONTROL THE COPS THEY CAN KILL CLIENTS. NO ONE WAS CHARGED FOR THE LAW SOCIETY ORDERING THE ATTACK ON THEIR ACCOUNTANT MR CUMMINGS, A LEGAL MAFIA IS WHAT THEY ARE.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Any word yet on who the other 3 new stooges are ?

    ReplyDelete

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

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

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