Representatives of the Glasgow Bar Association ‘hotly’ contest Law Society backed cuts to legal aid fees & access to justice. TESTIMONY from members of the Glasgow Bar Association & officials from the Law Society of Scotland at this week’s Tuesday session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee over the Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011, which propose a 25% cut in legal aid fees to Glasgow solicitors, raised some interesting viewpoints as to the credibility of the Law Society as a representative & regulatory body for both solicitors & the public.
The debate, which featured solicitors David O’Hagan & Gerry Sweeney appearing for the Glasgow Bar Association, and ‘access-all-areas’ Michael Clancy & Andrew Alexander appearing for the Law Society of Scotland, took place after a motion was lodged by James Kelly (Scottish Labour) recommending annulment of the of the Scottish Government’s proposal to cut 25% off the fees for attending Glasgow’ Stipendiary Magistrates Courts where solicitors currently earn £515 for each case. The proposed cut will leave that fee at £390.
The motion by Mr Kelly to annul the legal aid cuts affecting the Stipendiary Courts was defeated on a 5-4 vote after the Justice Committee Convener, John Lamont used his casting vote to decide the issue.
In the money : Lawyer v Lawyer at Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee over cuts to legal aid fees. Pity they wouldn’t expose the Master Policy & Law Society anti-consumer policies in the same terms (Click images to watch video footage)
Part 1 :
Part 2 :
The lively, if at times tedious debate between solicitors, the Law Society & msps who appear to blur into a striking similarity with each other, lasts nearly fifty minutes and the verbatim account of the proceedings can be viewed at the Scottish Parliament’s website, here : Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/162).
Much of the debate is about legal aid fees which lawyers pick up for appearing at Glasgow’s Stipendiary Magistrates Courts along with claims the Law Society has failed to represent the interests of Glasgow solicitors over the legal aid cuts. There is, sadly, little in the proceedings for those who are campaigning for fully independent regulation of the legal profession, or any mention of ideas along the lines of those I have proposed for years, and featured again earlier in the month, HERE.
As the debate closed, it should be noted the final say went to the Law Society of Scotland, where the well known Michael Clancy made some rather unconvincing claims about how the Law Society has ‘the public interest at heart when thinking about access to justice issues’.
According to the Scottish Parliament’s Official Report of the meeting, Michael Clancy said : “The society has a statutory obligation to promote the interest of the solicitors profession and the interests of the public in relation to that profession. Of course we have the public interest at heart when thinking about access to justice issues. The internal management of our committees is another matter… It is unfortunate to suggest that the society does not have access to justice concerns at its heart. We deal with people, too. We deal with people who are solicitors and people who are solicitors' clients. We accept that they are complex and human individuals, just as much as we are. We are not just statistical policy wonks.”
You must be kidding, Mr Clancy. No one outside the Law Society of Scotland’s sphere of influence believes this.
Of course, we should be under no illusions about the terms of this debate. Its about money, much more so than regulation or the or creation of separate organisations to represent solicitors & clients best interests.
The now well publicised bickering within the legal profession on the subject of legal aid cuts, which has led to several resignations from the Law Society’s Council reported by Scottish Law Reporter HERE, HERE and HERE along with several features in The Herald newspaper such as HERE, HERE HERE and HERE, seems to have spilled out into public after a Law Society Committee proposed, among other things, the merging of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which was reported HERE and, with the suggestion that “putting solicitors in charge of their own legal aid payments as "like putting Homer Simpson in charge of a doughnut factory", HERE
One of the protagonists in the debate, the well known Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre wrote on his blog in the independent Scottish legal publication “The Firm” earlier this week in a posting entitled “8 out of 10 cats” : “Dual regulatory and representative functions are incompatible. All of the discord and disharmony we have in Scotland's legal profession; and the concern or distrust that many members of the public have for lawyers; flows from this inherent conflict. Which is why we need an independent statutory regulator of legal services in Scotland - not for solicitors (and the oft-quoted poll of how 8 out of 10 of solicitors prefer the Law Society) but because the public interest demands it. Likewise, Scottish solicitors like any other worker should be able to choose their own trade union. It's that simple. If you fix this blockage, everything else will work.”
He continued : “Let's face the truth. The people of Scotland deserve an independent statutory regulator of legal services; and Scotland's solicitors should be entitled to choose who represents them.”
Yes this is very true. However, if this is really to happen, as consumers, campaigners and even some solicitors now recognise, all of us will have to come together to debate & argue for this cause at the Scottish Parliament and in public with the same veracity as the Glasgow Bar Association are arguing their corner over the legal aid fee cuts.
A few solicitors & advocates trading doughnuts, a few insults, and throwing street-wise moggies at each other over the issue will not get the job done.
However, if the public were to be more widely engaged on the debate, and particularly those with experience of dealings with the Law Society on a wide range of issues (including regulation) allowed to speak, the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government may finally have to listen and be made to understand the present system of the Law Society of Scotland ruling over all it sees, does not work.
If anyone is up for campaigning for necessary & real changes to the legislation which governs those who represent the public and the legal profession, you know where to reach those who share the same views .. if not, well it just wont happen any time soon. Capisce ?
29 comments:
"You must be kidding, Mr Clancy. No one outside the Law Society of Scotland’s sphere of influence believes this."
That about sums up this argument in a nutshell.Money and Law Society attempts to keep it all for themselves.Must admit though its funny to see them throw the GBA to the wolves.A wee spot of revenge I assume?
I can see the farthest thing on their minds is accountability!
Arguments over legal aid tends to bring out the best (or worst) in lawyers LOL
Cats & Doughnuts - that'll be Mike Dailly & Paul McBride ?
Best of luck trying to unite those two haha I better not say any more.
The only thing the Law Society has at its heart is self interest which you have proved time & again in your blog!
A debate where all interested parties are allowed to put their point of view to a Parliamentary committee is exactly what's needed, but no member of the public will be allowed within a mile of such a committee while Clancy of the Law Society and his cronies in politics - stand up McAskill, Don, Aitken, Jamieson et al - have control.
They are getting £515 for each case which is to go down to £390 - We are in a recession right ? Well do your bit Glasgow lawyers BECAUSE WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER AHEM AHEM !
All the Law Society needs to do is withdraw their practising certificates end of story
You are correct Peter nothing will come of this and anyway its just about money not about clients or consumers getting a better deal against lawyers.
Your Scottish parliament doesnt look very professional in its meetings
As a solicitor of 16 years experience albeit in a law firm I see on your list to avoid I trust you are by now experienced enough yourself not to be taken in by Mr Dailly's sudden transformation to independent regulation of complaints.
Perhaps you should focus on how a faction of the legal profession was able to secure a proposed amendment to prevent legislation bringing savings in the legal aid bill along with 4 votes of a Justice Committee while 'campaigners' have barely been able to secure the hearing of a petition.
Food for thought Peter ?
Law Society claims ‘public interest is at it’s heart’.
Here is what we experience as we grew up. My father had four sisters. When we grew up we watched when disputes between (our mother us and them happened) my aunts WERE NEVER WRONG. My father was driven to defend them. I spoke to my brothers and sisters the other day, and we all agreed my father would protect his sisters no matter what, actually he thought they were better than us.
His decisions were never based on facts and evidence only bias. He did not want to see they were wrong because that meant he would have to confront them. One time my five year old brother was accused by my fathers sister and his father of stealing batteries and a Yorkie chocolate bar. They were going to get the police, I wish they had. But later my young brother did not want to go back to their house, my father forced him to go into the house where his accusers lived. The unwritten rule was you can never offend your aunts or grandfather.
My sister was quite a talented pianist, she passed Grade 8 Royal Schools of Music. My fathers niece went to piano lessons and in his view she was concert pianist material, when she quit he said she did not have the time to practice. Alison herself said the instrument was too difficult for her. I asked my father one day "why do you think your neice is better than your daughter"? He was angry but agreed he did think she was better.
We believe the same thing happens when the SLCC or Law Society receive a complaint. If one of our fathers sisters needed life saving surgery and one of us needed the operation at the same time, and only one operation was available, we are convinced one of us would be dead.
This mentality we witnessed for forty years, his goddess sisters could do no wrong EVEN WHEN THEY WERE WRONG.
If lawyers have the same loyalty to each other god help clients, and I can well understand how clients commit suicide.
In many ways our father was a good man, but with his loyalty to his sisters he sould have stayed with them.
Those who make decisions based on the evidence understand the concept of justice,
Lawyers do not. They are an evil, and their reputations will never recover until truly independent regulation is the reality.
Peter Cherbi once said in the Law Societies Mr Yelland told him the sky was blue Peter would need to check this himself.
Peter is right, no lawyer can ever be trusted.
A filthy profession is an accurate way to describe lawyers. I do not think the reputation of Scottish lawyers can be redeemed.
Challenge client victimisation, Yelland for causing client suicides, not only legal aid cuts.
Anonymous said...
As a solicitor of 16 years experience albeit in a law firm I see on your list to avoid I trust you are by now experienced enough yourself not to be taken in by Mr Dailly's sudden transformation to independent regulation of complaints.
I would not trust Dailly or you or any other member of this evil profession.
http://www.intmensorg.info/rogues.htm
SolicitorsfromHell.co.uk
Victims of the Legal Profession Society, there are plenty more sites. These are regulators not those with an LLB and a Nazi agenda. Only a fool or a maniac trusts a lawyer these days.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
As a solicitor of 16 years experience albeit in a law firm I see on your list to avoid I trust you are by now experienced enough yourself not to be taken in by Mr Dailly's sudden transformation to independent regulation of complaints.
Perhaps you should focus on how a faction of the legal profession was able to secure a proposed amendment to prevent legislation bringing savings in the legal aid bill along with 4 votes of a Justice Committee while 'campaigners' have barely been able to secure the hearing of a petition.
Food for thought Peter ?
20 March 2011 20:43
Whoever you are and if you are a solicitor by the sounds of what you say I'm glad you are on Peter's avoid list.
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/15/0/Complaints
The Judicial Office for Scotland will consider any complaint about the personal conduct of judicial office holders, but cannot deal with complaints about judicial decisions or the way in which cases have been handled. The usual way to challenge a decision is to appeal. If you are considering appealing a judicial decision, we would recommend that you obtain legal advice. You can obtain such advice from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau.
If you wish to complain about the personal conduct of a judicial office holder whether inside or outside of the court, you should write to:
The Executive Director Judicial Office for Scotland
Judicial Office for Scotland
1A Parliament Square
Edinburgh
EH1 1RQ
or email: judicialofficeforscotland@scotcourts.gov.uk
The rules and guidance above provide more detail, but you should note that your complaint must be in writing and clearly state:
* your name, address and telephone number;
* the name of the judge, or sufficient information to enable the judge to be identified;
* where appropriate, the court, and the date of the hearing; and
* specific details about the grounds of your complaint.
You must include copies of all the documents that you have that you are relying on to support your complaint.
Your complaint should be made as soon as possible and, in any event, no later than 3 months after the incident that you wish to complain about. If your case or appeal is ongoing, your complaint may not be considered until your case is closed but you should still make your complaint in time. The time limit for making a complaint may be extended only in exceptional circumstances.
Service complaints
If you have a complaint regarding the service provided by the Scottish Court Service or a member of its staff or your complaint relates to your role as a juror please visit this page and follow the relevant links.
Complaints about solicitors or advocates
All complaints against legal practitioners should be sent to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). They act as a gateway or single point of contact and will advise you on what you need to do. For further information visit the Scottish Legal Complaints website.
I DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY POINT COMPLAINING ABOUT A JUDGE PETER. I MEAN LOOK AT HOW THE LAWYER RIFF RAFF IN LAW FIRMS ARE PROTECTED.
IMAGINE GETTING A COMPLAINT UPHELD AGAINST ARTHUR HAMILTON. OH HE IS A LORD ALL RIGHT.
Does John Scott deserve to suffer a boycott from those arguing for more legal aid ?
solicitors who want rid of the Law Society v customers who want their own organisation - now this will be an adversarial approach !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-12806415
The new Forth bridge crossing will end up like Edinburgh trams - double the budget and half finished!
I dont trust any of these lawyers at all nor the politicians - they are clearly on the side of big business or the Law Society where all the money is
Anonymous said...
I dont trust any of these lawyers at all nor the politicians - they are clearly on the side of big business or the Law Society where all the money is.
EXACTLY
Well Peter I watched the videos and I dont believe anyone at that meeting!
Also I think I could make do with £390 a case!
When I look at the evil conduct of lawyers, politicians, doctors, and clergy I know the religious ideology I was spoon fed as a child is bull.
If they feared god they would fear the judgement day they profess will happen.
Whether it is stolen inheritance, occupational injuries covered up, stolen legal aid money, clergy and Magic Circle judges abusing children. These people do not believe in god, they are evil incarnate. Look at those so called respectable people in power, above the laws they impose on the public. God is not there for them, the only thing they love is money and protection of reputations. That is the lynchpin of self regulation, protecting criminals behind a veil of respectibility when the majority of them belong behind steel doors.
You see Peter if I could break into your house, throw you and your family onto the street, raid your bank accounts, I would be a criminal, but when a lawyer does these things a different set of rules are applied.
They operate through trust because your legal business must be done by a lawyer, and when they steal, Mr Mill wants to protect a LLB thief by stopping your legal aid. How can any balanced person call this fair, Mill by his actions was saying to lawyers, help yourselves to clints assets. Try being on the receiving end Mr Mill? If Peter could do this to you would you set up a blog? What a tosser you are.
The Scottish Parliament a Law Society front, its politicians as corrupt as Yelland.
I will not vote for the Law Society.
Ross Harpers Solicitors in Glasgow taught me how intensely corrupt lawyers are and the Law Society of Scotland taught me lawyers can get away with anything.
I would never complaint to the SLCC, and writing to the Scottish Parliaments Justice committee was a waste of time.
I learned when lawyers are corrupt no one in a position to help a client will do so. It is no exageration to say the legal, political system goes into automatic shutdown mode. It is an outrage.
“The society has a statutory obligation to promote the interest of the solicitors profession and the interests of the public in relation to that profession.
================================
Statutory means nothing, a law passed by statute or any other means Glancy needs enforcement. Who enforces it, YOUR LOT. I am sure you believe your own spin, but you are only kidding yourself. No doubt you have a nice big bonfire every year burning clients complaints documents. Let me put it this was, you are simply a Fawkes.
It is quite strange reading this. Having worked in the industry for over 20 years I cannot for the life of me think when we have went through a period with a client not complaining. We have paid compensation without quibble we are human we make mistakes we have a complaints procedure in house and have been to the law society only once for a complaint all having been dealt with through our internal procedure. It is annoying to see hate this hate that posted on a web blog when it seems to lowly me that the so called top of the profession and high earners seem to be the ones with most to make and of course we as a profession fund them. I do not see what is wrong with having a self styled regulation body with a separate discipline body. Really what has the law society done to protect and advance its membership. They sat on legal aid rates which didn’t move for nearly 15 years those rates although increased were immediately returned to below those rates all ratified by the representative body the law society. Can I just say as a balance The recent cuts in travel rates to solicitors was way long overdue. I had brought it up at a local level some time ago. You know many people on here despise Lawyers probably for very good reasons but lets not tar everyone with the same brush or we will all become as bad as those we criticize.
Post a Comment