One in the same ? : Scottish Government side with Law Society against Holyrood petition to repeal complaints whitewash law. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT has pointedly & expectedly, sided with the Law Society of Scotland over the debate on consistently poor regulation of Scotland’s solicitors & legal services market, telling the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee it will not repeal the much hated, much questioned, much misused & infamously anti-consumer Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, the Westminster enacted thirty year old legislation which allows the Law Society of Scotland to ‘look after & cover up after their own’ by investigating complaints against their own solicitor colleagues.
Colin McKay, image sourced from Scottish Government online documentation. COLIN MCKAY, the Deputy Director of the Scottish Government’s Legal Systems Division, responding on behalf of the current SNP minority Scottish Government which has done little for consumer protection against ‘crooked lawyers’ in Scotland’s monopolistic legal services market, currently dominated by the Law Society of Scotland, said “The Scottish Government has no plans to repeal Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”), to fundamentally alter the current regulatory arrangements for solicitors, or to remove the independence of the legal profession. A strong and independent legal profession, with core values that protect the interests of justice and of the public, is a fundamental part of our democracy.”
Kenny MacAskill’s Justice Department laughably claims regulation of lawyers in Scotland ‘is robust enough’. The terse Government response from Mr McKay, which goes on to laughably argue Scottish lawyers face “a robust … regulatory system already in place”, comes in response to a petition, Petition PE1388, originally filed as an e-petition at the Scottish Parliament by a Mr William Burns calling “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.”. The online petition drew some 161 signatures, and a number of discussion comments highly critical of the Law Society of Scotland and its regulation of complaints against solicitors.
Mr McKay’s questionable references to a ‘robust regulatory system already in place’ for the Scottish legal profession may refer to the hapless, anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who as I reported late last month, has only managed to uphold one complaint against an unknown solicitor or law firm in three years : ‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report
‘Robust regulation’ or the usual anti-consumer, anti-client bias towards complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’ ? The SLCC’s second annual report, almost identical to it's 2009 annual report reveals the ‘robust’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 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’.
SLCC fiddled while complaints burned : Statistics reveal one single complaint upheld in three years ! Buried deep in the annual report, the sobering statistics of Mr MacAskill’s ‘robust regulator’ reveal that 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.
Robust regulation ? … well its a good thing the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland are not in charge of the Police, or there would be no prosecutions of criminals in Scotland, ever !
Colin McKay’s full response to Petition PE1388 can be downloaded from the Scottish Parliament’s website HERE (pdf), and is reprinted below in full :
The Scottish Government has no plans to repeal the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”), to fundamentally alter the current regulatory arrangements for solicitors, or to remove the independence of the legal profession. A strong and independent legal profession, with core values that protect the interests of justice and of the public, is a fundamental part of our democracy. A robust system of regulation for the legal profession is also vital, and the Scottish Government believes that such a system is currently offered by the Law Society of Scotland (“the Society”), one of the objects of which, set out in section 1 of the 1980 Act, is to promote the public interest in relation to the solicitors’ profession.
Furthermore, any complaints relating to the services provided by solicitors are handled by an independent body, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), which was established by the Legal Professional and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Complaints relating to misconduct are investigated in the first instance by the Society, which can refer cases to the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal, an independent body which has equal numbers of solicitor and non-solicitor members, appointed by the Lord President.
The SLCC has the power to investigate the way a conduct complaint was handled by the relevant professional body (in this case, the Society). This is known as a handling complaint and the SLCC can produce a report including making certain recommendations relating to the way the complaint was dealt with. The professional body then has a period of three months in which to notify the SLCC, the practitioner concerned, and the person who made the handling complaint of any actions it has taken to comply with the recommendations. If no action has been taken, it must specify why not, and can actually be required to take action by the SLCC.
In response to the Petitions Committee’s question to the Scottish Government : “More generally, what is your response to the points made in the petition?”, Mr McKay replied :
The petitioner raises concerns about the “self-regulation” of the legal profession and, in particular, about the tension between the Society’s duty to the public and its duty to its members. While the Scottish Government believes that the Society currently has a robust system of regulation in place, it does recognise that modern regulatory systems must be seen to be independent. In particular, it believes that regulatory functions such as those exercised by the Society must be carried out by a body with significant lay membership, to ensure such independence and a focus on the public interest.
The Scottish Parliament recently had an opportunity to consider such matters, and the regulation of the legal profession in general, through the consideration of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. Although this Bill (which received Royal Assent in November 2010) was primarily directed at creating a regulatory framework for new forms of legal business structures, it also made significant changes to the 1980 Act in relation to the regulation of solicitors. These changes include provision to ensure that there is a clear split between the regulatory and representative functions of the Society, through the creation of an independent regulatory committee with at least 50% lay membership (section 133). That committee will be responsible for the exercise of all the regulatory functions of the Society, and will carry out those functions independently of the Council of the Society (and of any other person or interest). In addition, the Act will introduce certain “regulatory objectives” which will apply to all regulators of legal activities, including the Society. These objectives include promoting and protecting “the interests of consumers” and “the public interest generally” (see section 1).
Given these planned amendments to the 1980 Act (which the Scottish Government plans to implement this year), and the robust nature of the regulatory system already in place, the Scottish Government does not believe repeal of the 1980 Act, or the other measures suggested by the petitioner, to be necessary or desirable.
A campaigner speaking to Diary of Injustice on Friday afternoon said the Scottish Government’s reply to the aims of the petition sounded more like an advertisement for retaining the Law Society of Scotland as a complaints regulator in perpetuity.
He said : “I have to wonder which side the Scottish Government are on when it comes to protecting clients against crooked lawyers & poor legal representation when they sit back and simply allow solicitors to continue covering up complaints against their own colleagues. The response from Mr McKay is so similar to the Law Society’s letter from Mr Clancy, it is beginning to look obvious to all the Law Society are in charge of the Justice Department and Government policy on anything to do with the justice system or anything to do with reforming the way lawyers & the courts regulate themselves.”
My earlier coverage of the ‘anything-but-robust’ 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
Cowardly MacAskill wants to keep a complaints system which only considers 1 complaint about a lawyer in 3 years
ReplyDeleteWhat a joke the SNP are
Maybe the Law Society wrote it for him ?
ReplyDeleteKeep stealing from clients, the SNP are the Law Society.
ReplyDeleteI do not vote anymore. What is the point.
Here is what he means
ReplyDelete“The Scottish Government has no plans to repeal Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”), to fundamentally alter the current regulatory arrangements for solicitors, or to remove the independence of the legal profession. A strong and independent legal profession, with core values that protect the interests of MSP's, self regulators and oppress the public, is a fundamental part of our legal dictatorship.”
This chap does not understand that democracy means all are equal before the law. Oligarchy is what he means.
Yet another reason to get the SNP out this May.
ReplyDeletebtw is that picture of "Colin McKay" a real picture?
I downloaded the document you got it from - it looks very dodgy!
Mckay & Macaskill are living in a dream world if they think there is robust regulation of lawyers.Anyway Mckay is a civil servant so why isnt Macaskill himself replying for the so-called Scottish Government or is he just another coward hiding behind someone else too afraid to tell us what his so-called Government's policies really are?
ReplyDeleteWhat a disgusting bunch running the country they are.
The response from Mr McKay is so similar to the Law Society’s letter from Mr Clancy, it is beginning to look obvious to all the Law Society are in charge of the Justice Department and Government policy on anything to do with the justice system or anything to do with reforming the way lawyers & the courts regulate themselves.”
ReplyDeleteYes the Law Society control policy making. In this so called democracy the self regulators and the Scottish Government look after their own.
but you expected them to say this anyway right ?
ReplyDeletestill it shows this Scottish National Party up for what it is and I hope everyone with half a brain up there can see it
"robust regulation" my a*se!
ReplyDeleteI think Mr McKay's letter is full of BS but the ever willing to bend over msps at the petitions committee will swallow it whole and close the petition.
ReplyDeleteThe Parliament detest the public, what a crock of shit.
ReplyDeleteWhat else can we expect from the SNP where Scotland is being run so badly the schools are going to end up on a 4 day week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12376923
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12376779
ReplyDeleteMajor supermarkets are now the "barons of politics", according to First Minister Alex Salmond, who was speaking after MSPs voted down plans to introduce a so-called "Tesco tax".
The levy would have brought in an extra £30m a year - with £23m of that from the largest supermarket chains.
But Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories branded the plan "anti-competitive".
The retailer Sainsbury's would have paid £2.5m more a year, the equivalent of its hourly profit, Mr Salmond said.
"And yet they moaned about having to pay the additional sum to help everyone in difficult circumstances," he told BBC Five Live.
When asked why opposition parties - other than the Greens - did not support the proposal, Mr Salmond said: "The supermarkets have the most enormous lobbying power.
"I think they are the barons of politics."
================================
Just like the Law Society Alex.
Destroy as many lives as you want. I cannot trust politicians either
ReplyDeleteWell, not long to the Scottish parliamentary elections people of Scotland and time to get the Scottish "Nasties / Nazis" kicked back into touch and away from any "Government" departments - especially "Justice".
ReplyDeleteI warned the people of Scotland before the last election in May 2007 that they would get nowhere with Salmond as First Minister and MacAskill as his "Cabinet Secretary FOR JUSTICE" - especially all those looking for major and radical justice reforms.
I have it on good authority that MacAskill is an absolute "s*****g" who does nothing for constituents who go to him pleading for his help and intervention in their cases and protects the guilty parties who cover up such cases over several years.
I also understand that he currently has such a case "under lock and key" at his constituency office and is refusing to apologise to a family who he miserably, recklessly and repeatedly failed over the past 12 years, since 1999 - instead preferring to protect and cover up for all those who were / are involved.
Like I say ... MacAskill is nothing better than an utter "s*****g" and, whilst I have no time for any politicos at Folyrood now, I would urge all Scottish voters to kick MacAskill, Salmond, Sturgeon et al out at the Scottish elections on Thursday 5 May - for you will NEVER EVER find the "truth and justice" at their doors.
Kenny MacAskill, Alex Salmond and the SNP OUT at the Scottish elections ...
Keep up the great blog and brilliant (injustice) reporting Peter - if only you were in charge of the justice department and the law society my friend!
Mr William Burns, I am sure we could predict this outcome. I signed the petition, but one thing is certain. The SNP are the sworn enemy of all Scots. They support an organisation and its membership responsible for client suicides. Clearly they are all benefiting from this.
ReplyDeleteMr McKay is talking a lot of rubbish.The Legal Services Act makes no overall changes to the 1980 act as far as the rights of clients who make complaints or "consumer protection issues" are concerned.
ReplyDeleteThe same problems with the complaints system which have always existed because of the 1980 Act will continue to drown out any pretence these issues will be resolved with the 2010 Legal Services Act.
Colin McKay's letter clearly fails to consider the obvious, namely, the world and his wife have known for years that Scotland does not have 'a strong, independent legal profession' but rather one that is openly manipulated to serve the business interests of its disgraced insurer Marsh.
ReplyDeleteConsequently the interests of justice and the Scottish Public are routinely ignored by this Government and we have nothing but a pale imitation of a democracy.
Again not a peep in any newspaper about this petition or even the Scottish Government's reply you just featured.
ReplyDeleteIt cant be because of lack of public interest because taking down the law which allows the Law Society to operate must be of extreme public interest.
I wonder how much this is costing the Law Society to keep off the television & newspapers or do they just snap their fingers and all agree to hush up the story ?
Nothing in the UK is "robustly regulated" which is why everyone gets a raw deal when trying to complain.
ReplyDeleteWere the banks robustly regulated Mr MacAskill?
To the comment 12:24
ReplyDeleteYes its beginning to look awfully like media censorship.
What if this had been Egypt and Mubarak had prevented the lawyers from speaking up for the protests ?
The BBC would have assigned 5 of their best news hosts to it at our expense yet here not even a whimper of public dissent against the legal profession is allowed on any national television network.
Very suspicious.
All thieves together then ?
ReplyDeleteWe always knew it !
Out of interest why is a civil servant giving Government policy on something of such public interest the Justice Secretary should be saying it ?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteNothing in the UK is "robustly regulated" which is why everyone gets a raw deal when trying to complain.
Were the banks robustly regulated Mr MacAskill?
7 February 2011 12:46
Exactly.
Also it is a fact all politicians claimed the banks were already robustly regulated yet they collapsed and had to be bailed out by the Bank of England.
The term "robust regulation" has no meaning anywhere and certainly not in the legal world as we can clearly see from Peter's work on the subject.
1st comment I AGREE 1000% !!!
ReplyDeleteEvil looks after itself.
ReplyDelete'Cowardly MacAskill wants to keep a complaints system which only considers 1 complaint about a lawyer in 3 years.
ReplyDelete==================================
Loyal MacAskill that is what I would call him. This is what happens when professions and policing are mixed. This guy does not care one jot about clients being ruined, he has probably ruined a few himself. The system is robust for MacAskill and his cohorts, it protects only lawyers and that is the way the policimakers want it. One complaint upheld in three years. GET REAL FOLKS they do not want your complaints about their colleagues.
Curious motives all these people who support allowing lawyers to investigate themselves.Not a chance any of them are honest ones after all who would allow rapists murders or pedophiles to investigate themselves ?
ReplyDeleteCorrupt legal mafia runs Scotland let there be no doubt about it and those who defend their legal mafia friends are seen alright at the end of the day for their efforts.
If they had said otherwise the Law Society would order all its members not to vote snp
ReplyDeleteIn other news "Tail wags Dog" !
ReplyDeleteI agree it looks like the Law Society wrote the Executive's policy although that could be down to no one in the Government having enough of a brain cell to think of putting the public before big business and all the money which rolls into the Scottish Executive and the SNP coffers.
Also dont forget the Scottish Executive are heavily dependent on their legal teams to keep them out of trouble and just imagine all the complaints which could be generated from some of the filthy practices their own legal louts get up to against the public !
So the Scottish Government (equivalent of some little town council) thought there should be robust regulation of lawyers they went onto create a front company called the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which as you say yourself Peter is full of ex cops ex lawyers and even serving lawyers.
ReplyDeleteScotland's justice system is firmly in the sewer!
“The Scottish Government has no plans to repeal Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”),
ReplyDeleteor put another way “The Scottish Government has no plans to protect the people who elected them from the activities of crooked lawyers".
If lawyers control the police and forensic experts it means they can order the execution of a client and cover it up. Scary.
What a group of dishonest scum.
ReplyDeleteYes one in the same Peter.
ReplyDeleteIt was also quite mad seeing Alex Salmond blabbering away on Newsnight about Megrahi and what documents his Law Society supporting Executive are supposed to have released yet he wants to keep lawyers in jobs even though they are ripping off clients at every chance they get and to do nothing about it.
Although I have to say after watching Richard Baker I am now convinced the Law Society will get their way whoever is in power.Maybe the best thing to do is totally avoid using lawyers at all because in Scotland its lawyers who win and the people who are stupid enough to use them lose.
well I dont mind coming here to read about how crooked lawyers really are because at least I know I get the truth not some dressed up version courtesy of some lawyer posting as a journalist
ReplyDeletekeep up the good work :)
Lawyers Independent of public scrutiny so the Scottish Government cover up legal corruption.
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish Law Society Government.
Cowardly MacAskill wants to keep a complaints system which only considers 1 complaint about a lawyer in 3 years.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
He did say he owed a great debt to the legal profession. MacAskill is the same as Mill, Pritchard, Yelland, and all the other scumbags who think they have a god given right to protect their own no matter what crimes they perpetrate.
The Scottish Government are criminals not fit to govern never mind independence. Preserve the union that is what I say. Salmond critisized the English (I have many English friends) who are far more honest than he is.
The SNP the party of legal dictatorship.
The "gag contract" Wall of Shame
ReplyDeleteThese are the docs we know of that make prospective patients sign "gag contracts" before they are accepted as patients. If anyone has additions to this list, please add them to this thread and I will update this first post with their names.
More info on this topic here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34794632/ns/health-health_care/
==================================
Nothing wrong with self regulation MacAskill, wake up man, the internet is exposing all of you criminals.
feckin cronyism and corruption are standard agenda items I suspect in the snottish parly - why do the not bring back the old privy council, torture chambers and all and we can have a nice little earner as an inbound centre for 'extraordinary rendition' - after all we let the planes land in this s**t-hole!
ReplyDelete