Friday, March 25, 2011

Ex-Law Society Boss involved in Master Policy memo scandal & Climategate inquiry Chief retain 5 year, £290 a day Judicial Appointments quango jobs

Kenny MacAskill denies existence of memosEnsuring establishment support for another 4 years as Justice Secretary ? AMONG the multitude of justice related quango appointments quietly announced in the past week by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, are the reappointments for five more years of former Law Society President Martin McAllister and former Permanent Secretary for the Scottish Government (Chief of the civil service in Scotland), Sir Muir Russell to the quango which recommends the appointments to Scotland’s judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Board, with salaries of £290 per day plus expenses for a meagre time commitment of 20 to 30 days per year.

Martin McAllisterMartin McAllister, former Law Society President. Martin McAllister, who was implicated in the memogate scandal involving the Law Society of Scotland, Marsh and Douglas Mill over ‘claims fixing’ allegations made by Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney, retains his well paid Judicial Appointments Board position on top of yet another publicly funded quango position as part-time Convenor of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland with a whopping recession busting payment of £430 per day plus expenses.

My earlier report on Mr McAllister's controversial initial appointment to the Judicial Appointments Board, including details of the Law Society’s secret memos implicating his involvement in a scandal which went onto claim the resignation in January 2008 of Douglas Mill the then Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, is here : Justice Secretary MacAskill denies knowledge of ‘claims fixing’ memos identifying former law chief sent to Judicial Appointments.

When asked about Mr McAllister’s past for my earlier report, the Justice Secretary’s spokesperson claimed there was no information of any matter involving Mr McAllister and his role in claims against the Master Policy during his time as Law Society President : Mr MacAskill’s spokesperson said at the time : “Mr McAllister was appointed through fair and open competition by an independent panel. We are not aware of any formal complaint about Mr McAllister’s role in relation to claims and complaints during his time as President of the Law Society of Scotland, and no evidence has been presented to us which would raise any questions over the decision of the selection panel.”

John Swinney, a trustworthy manJohn Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance & Sustainable Growth. However, the Scottish Government Finance Chief, John Swinney when in opposition during the summer of 2006 at the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee, questioned the then Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill over contents of his own memos, which referred to Martin McAllister. Mr Swinney said : "I am interested in what the witnesses have just said about the Law Society having nothing to do with the arrangements for handling negligence claims. I have in front of me a memorandum in connection with the case of one of my constituents. It was issued by Mr Mill on 5 July 2001.”

"Mr Mill's memo was written to the then president of the Law Society, Mr McAllister. It refers to the broker of the master policy. Mr Mill suggests that it would be good if he and the others involved all got together and had a "summit meeting" to discuss how to dispose of my constituent's "several valid claims". Mr Mill and I have discussed the matter at length over the years, but I find that a rather strange memo if it is to sit comfortably with the statement that the president has just made.

“The memo of 5 July encourages "a summit meeting on the up-to-date position"to be held to look at "both the complaints and the claims aspects." That rather suggests that the Law Society has been involved. The claim remains unresolved to date and yet the memo is dated 5 July 2001."

Clearly Mr Swinney’s evidence to the Justice 2 Committee during 2006, which can be viewed in video footage on InjusticeTV HERE, raises serious questions over the honesty of the Scottish Government’s claim not to have known of Mr McAllister’s past involvement in the Marsh memo scandal.

In the case of the reappointment of Sir Muir Russell to the Judicial Appointments Board, the former head of the civil service in Scotland, is now better known for his chairing of the Climategate inquiry into into allegations that leading academics at the University of East Anglia manipulated data on global warming. The ‘results’ of that ‘inquiry’ can be found HERE.

The Herald newspaper revealed in a report “Holyrood fiasco peer’s £40k for chairing Climategate review” by Paul Hutcheon that Sir Muir Russell walked away with nearly £6000 a month (totalling £40,000) for leading the Climategate probe which unsurprisingly cleared scientists at the University of East Anglia of data manipulation.

The Herald report said : “The inquiry chaired by Sir Russell investigated claims that researchers at East Anglia had distorted statistics on global warming. Hacked e-mails written by university staff led to fears that information on climate change was being manipulated, a row that was played out internationally. The six-month probe concluded with Russell and his team noting the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists. A freedom of information request has revealed that the university paid Russell a £40,000 fee for his chairmanship. He also benefited from £2908 in travel and £976 for accommodation.”

Here follows the announcement from the Scottish Government of Sir Muir Russell & Martin McAllister’s reappointments to the Judicial Appointments Board, for another five years on £290 per day plus expenses, all coming out of public funds :

Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice today (22/03/2011) announced the reappointments of Sir Muir Russell as the Chairing Member, and Mr Martin McAllister as a member to the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.

Sir Muir Russell was first appointed as Chairing Member of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland on October 1, 2008 for a three year period. His background is as a civil servant and he held a number of posts before being appointed Permanent Secretary at the Scottish Office in 1998. He was Principal of the University of Glasgow from 2003 until his retiral in 2009. He is a Vice Chair of Governors of the Glasgow School of Art, the Chairman of the Dunedin Concert Trust, a Member of the Board of the Moredun Research Institute, the Chairman of the Council of the Hannah Research Institute and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

This reappointment will run for a further three years from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2014. He is an experienced chair who demonstrates particular strengths in building relationships both internally and with external partners. This post is part-time and attracts a remuneration of £17,500 per annum for a time commitment of 20 to 30 days per year. He has no other public appointments.

Mr McAllister was first appointed as a legal member on September 1, 2008 for a three year period. He is a partner with Taylor and Henderson Solicitors. He is a former President of the Law Society of Scotland and has convened several of its Committees including Legal Aid, Professional Practice and Professional Conduct. Mr McAllister is currently a part-time tutor at the University of Strathclyde and a part-time Convenor of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland.

As a practicing Solicitor and former President of the Law Society he brings valuable experience of the largest element of the legal profession in Scotland. This reappointment will run for a further three years from September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014. This post is part-time and attracts a remuneration of £290 per day a for a time commitment of 20 to 30 days per year. Mr McAllister is also a part-time Convenor of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland with a remuneration of £430 per day.

The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland was established by Ministers in 2002, and it became an independent advisory non-departmental public body on June 1, 2009. The Board has statutory responsibilities under the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) act 2008. The Board's role is to make recommendations to Ministers for appointment to the office of judge, sheriff principal, sheriff, and part-time sheriff as well as other judicial offices set out in the Act.

These Ministerial public appointments were 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 any to be declared) to be made public. There is no political activity to be declared.

BACKGROUND to the Judicial Appointments Board:

The role of the Judicial Appointments Board is to recommend to the Scottish Ministers individuals for appointment to judicial offices within the Board's remit and to provide advice to Scottish Ministers in connection with such appointments. The Board is responsible for recommending individuals suitable for appointment to the following judicial offices Judge of the Court of Session, Chair of the Scottish Land Court, Sheriff Principal, Sheriff, Part-time Sheriff, Temporary judges.

The JAB’s website claims : “The selection of individuals for recommendation must be made solely on merit and an individual may only be selected for recommendation if he or she is of good character. Only the judicial and legal members of the Board may assess the applicants' knowledge of the law or their skill and competence in the interpretation and application of the law. Decisions about an applicant’s suitability to be recommended for appointment are made by the whole Board.”

Ironically, a research report carried out by the Judicial Appointments Board claimed that jobs for Scottish judges were controlled by an old boys network , probably the same old boys network which ensures who gets jobs on the Judicial Appointments Board itself.

54 comments:

  1. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours..

    A horrid thought we may be stuck with MacAskill for another 4 years or more as Justice Secretary.Why does he appear to have the monopoly on the position anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  2. These people display intense loyalties to each other in public. How much more are their loyalties when a complaint is received by the Law Society ot SLCC.

    No wonder the public don't trust lawyer garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Mill suggests that it would be good if he and the others involved all got together and had a "summit meeting" to discuss how to dispose of my constituent's "several valid claims".

    THIS MR MACASKILL IS SELF REGULATION IN ACTION. KILLING OFF CLAIMS AGAINST THE MASTER POLICY AND PROTECTING CROOKS LIKE DOUGLAS MILL IS WHAT YOUR LAW SOCIETY, SLCC, ARE THERE FOR.

    IF I LIED UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW TO GET ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES OFF THE HOOK IT WOULD BE PERVERTING THE COURT OF JUSTICE. IF CAUGHT I WOULD BE JAILED.

    APPLY THAT LEGAL PRINCIPLE TO YOUR LAWYERS WHO HIDE CRIMINALITY & CORRUPTION BEHIND A VEIL OF SELF REGULATION THE OUTCOME IS DIFFERENT, A RUINED CLIENT AND ANOTHER LAWYER LEFT TO WORK WITH UNSUSPECTING CLIENTS.

    GOOD BUSINESS MODEL FOR LAWYERS, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE AS ANY RATIONAL BALANCED HUMAN BEING WILL AGREE.

    EVIDENCE AND ARGUEMENT MR MACASKILL. THEIR ARE TWO KINDS OF EVIDENCE, THE FIRST YOU WANT TO DESTROY TO PROTECT THE MILL'S YELLANDS ETC AND IGNORE THE EVIDENCE THAT CONDEMNS THE LAWYER.

    I HAVE SEEN THE SAME WITH NHS MANAGERS PROTECTING CORRUPT GP'S. I STILL HAVE THE DOCUMENTS TO PROVE IT THROUGH NHS LOCAL RESOLUTION.

    WHAT A CORRUPT JUSTICE MINISTER YOU ARE.

    ReplyDelete
  4. McAllister & Russell sound like they were made for each other

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perhaps Mr McAlliser could get Sir Muir Russell to do an inquiry into the Master Policy and come to a conclusion Mill's memo wasnt really addressed to him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/

    Stringer says Anglia appointee Muir Russell (a civil servant and former Vice Chancellor of Glasgow University), failed in three significant areas.

    "Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell."

    Stringer also says that it was unacceptable for Russell (who is not a scientist) to conclude that CRU's work was reproducible, when the data needed was not available. He goes further:

    "The fact that you can make up your own experiments and get similar results doesn't mean that you're doing what's scientifically expected of you. You need to follow the same methodology of the process."

    and courtesy of the SNP Russell has a 5 year job at our expense helping to choose our next judges ?

    Sick

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doesn't seem right these kind of people get 5 year jobs on the taxpayer at £290 a day for basically shuffling a few papers.
    Couldn't we do with a few more schools or hospitals instead?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very nice for Mr McAllister and Mr Russell yet somewhere else in real Scotland there are a few people fighting to get cancer treatment only to be told there's no money to do it while these two scoop up £290 a day on top of McAllister's extra £430 per day at the (haha I've got to laugh) Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland which is probably as big a rip off as the Law Society.

    Doesn't it just make you all sick ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm pleased you highlighted Muir Russell's recent re-appointment. The University of Anglia (the Climategate perpetrators) apparently paid the Muir Russell inquiry around 300K.See for yourself:http://www.thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/2550-climategate-the-muir-russell-contract.html

    Climategate: The Muir Russell “Contract”

    Apparently the U of East Anglia paid the Muir Russell inquiry over £300,000. David Holland has requested information on the contractual basis of these payments. Situation normal – the UEA has refused to provide the information and it looks like another appeal to the ICO.

    David Holland’s correspondence on the file is online here http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/more_climategate_loose_ends

    His original request was simple enough:

    Please provide me copies of the Correspondence between the University and Sir Muir Russell that, in the view of the University, comprises the contractual basis under which Sir Muir and his team operated and under which the University was contractually obliged to pay the sums that you have disclosed of what, I assume, is taxpayers money.

    Please advise me as to how the disbursements were made. For instance, were the fees of the legal advisors paid directly by the University? If not who paid and how were they reimbursed.


    Rather than answer the question in a straightforward way, the UEA refused. In previous FOI cases, the institutions have often caused more damage to their credibility with implausible excuses and this appears to be one more example. In this case, the UEA denied that there was a “contractual relationship” between UEA and Muir Russell (despite some correspondence otherwise), thus claiming to possess no relevant information to the “contractual relationship”:

    The University does not consider that there was a contractual relationship with Sir Muir Russell or the inquiry team; it was by way of a public appointment (as is commonplace in these circumstances). Nonetheless, it may be helpful to you in understanding the terms on which the appointment was made if we refer you to the agreed terms of reference (see: http://www.ccereview.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf, p.22) and certain email correspondence between Professor Acton and Sir Muir. see this file : http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/55579/response/145166/attach/4/Russell%20Acton%20101203.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  10. 19 Nov 2010
    Cameron Fyfe joins Drummond Miller in Ross Harper partner exodus

    Litigation specialist Cameron Fyfe is one of four partners who have announced they are leaving Glasgow giants Ross Harper.

    Fyfe, together with Professor Alan Susskind & criminal law specialists Harvey Diamond and Richard Freeman will be leaving the nine-partner firm over the coming months.

    Fyfe, who is joining Drummond Miller after 30 years at Ross Harper said he had left the firm on entirely amicable terms and was looking forward to joining Drummond Miller.

    Diamond and Freeman are understood to be setting up in partnership together.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In the real world, if someone is caught fiddling their expenses, they are sacked. End of story.

    Then everyone else in the office – innocent or not – is put on a warning. A more rigourous system is put in place and those who escaped with their thieving breathe a sigh of relief.... until next time.

    This is the real world scenario, of course, and not Westminster Parliament. Oh no. Because there, the employees – our MPs – were caught fiddling expenses by the dozen with several actually ending up in prison, and even more to follow.

    Sure there were loud noises when they got caught and as each rat was flushed out, the mock shock and horror was hilarious. The new system was established, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority set up and we were promised a new regime and new approach. We even had a new Government.

    Now, these employees of the taxpayer – that's you and me – have decided the new system is too tough on them and they have forced a climbdown that will net them around £4million in extra expenses, including, get this, taxpayer-funded credit cards.

    That has got to be worth having.

    They'll also be able to claim more on accommodation, travel and staff as well us lump sums of cash up front! If IPSA is meant to be the new expenses watchdog, I wouldn't want them minding my home.

    They'd simply invite any passing burglars in, show them where the valuables are and give them a hand loading them into your car before waving them off. And this, believe it or not, is the tough new set of rules supposed to appease the angry voters.

    Who's big idea was this? Well, David Cameron had complained on behalf of his Tory MPs that the new IPSA regulations weren't "family friendly".

    I'll tell you what isn't family friendly. Cutting child benefit. Scrapping the child allowance scheme. Taxing fuel out of any regular family's financial reach. Sacking primary wage earners in the guise of 'we're all in this together'.

    I'm angry already and that's a pity, because the Day of Rage isn't until tomorrow and I've peaked early.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look at it this way Peter - they are keeping the cover up people in the same group so we know all their appointments will be trash!
    Trust any judge given a job by this lot at your peril!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr Mill suggests that it would be good if he and the others involved all got together and had a "summit meeting" to discuss how to dispose of my constituent's "several valid claims".


    You are a vile evil man Mill. All of your profession are the same. What you are doing is legalising theft.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Good man Peter, give em hell.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales will publish complaints data against law firms.

    With the power of the web why dont the publish Scottish firms too.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Lawyer Hunter26 March 2011 at 03:19

    Imagine you needed a heart operation and you were just about to ‘go under the knife’ when you found out the surgeon had killed every single former patient in the same operation you were to undergo. Would you still proceed or would you ask for another surgeon ?

    Chances are you would ask for another surgeon if you were told such a thing .. and thankfully in the medical world, there are plenty capable & qualified people who are not all a bunch of killers as some may put it so you might be in with a chance of finding the surgeon to your liking.

    However, what happens if you come to sell your house and the lawyer you are using makes a complete mess of the deal to the point you only get half the value or less of your property (YOU GET THE DOUGLAS MILL TREATMENT WHERE HE MEETS HIS COLLEAGUES TO KILL OFF YOUR COMPENSATION) .. or even worse, you find out the lawyer himself or one of his business partners bought your house on the cheap through a fiddled deal ? What would you do if that happened ? Would you try to find another lawyer to sort out the lawyer who ruined you (IMPOSSIBLE NO LAWYER RUINS A LAWYER FOR A CLIENT) … or even try to take legal action against your former lawyer for fiddling your legal & financial affairs ?

    Chances are you wont get another lawyer to do any of that .. because in the legal world, hardly any lawyer likes to ‘sort out’ another lawyer .. it just isn’t on chaps, not only because lawyers don’t usually sue other lawyers, but also because the Law Society of Scotland basically forbids such cases going to court in most instances or it might just have to start paying out huge sums of money from the profession’s Master Insurance Policy for professional negligence which you can read more about here : How to sue a lawyer in Scotland and get nowhere. SO WE HAVE LEGALIZED THEFT.

    So the lesson is .. TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT IF ALL OF YOUR LIFE SAVINGS, HOUSE, CAR, ARE TAKEN BY ANY LAWYER, YOU ARE IN A LEGAL CHECK MATE, BUT THIS GAME OF CHESS RUINS YOU THE CLIENT FOR LIFE. IT IS NO GAME, IT IS VERY SERIOUS.

    HOW THESE DEMONS THINK THIS IS RIGHT IS BEYOND ME.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.
    Eleanor Roosevelt

    In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?
    Saint Augustine

    Law and justice are not always the same.
    Gloria Steinem

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sir Muir Russell's interesting career history can be found on wikipedia, for example;

    He was widely believed to be primarily responsible for the massive overspend on the new Scottish Parliament Building and was criticised by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie's enquiry for failing to keep the politicians informed that the expenditure was far in excess of the budget.

    AND

    He took office as Principal of the University of Glasgow on 1 October 2003, but attracted much criticism for his handling of the 2006 lecturers' strike, as well as attempts to close the University's Crichton Campus in Dumfries and for receiving pay rises which were much greater than the rate of inflation.

    Is he a 'fit and proper person' - you decide.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Edinburgh 20 August 2009. The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 27 March 2009 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Catriona Margaret MacFarlane, Solicitor, Highfield Cottage, Loganswell, Newton Mearns, Glasgow; Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of her failure to disclose to her client the extent of her knowledge of her husband’s actings and her failure to timeously advise her client to seek separate independent advice and her failure to withdraw from acting for her client, all in breach of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors 2002; Censure the Respondent; Fine the Respondent in the sum of £2500 to be forfeit to Her Majesty and Direct in terms of Section 53 (5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that for a period of 3 years, any practising certificate held or issued to the Respondent shall be subject to such restriction as will limit her to acting as a qualified assistant to and to being supervised by such employer as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland; Find the Respondent liable in the expenses of the Complainers and of the Tribunal including expenses of the Clerk, chargeable on a time and line basis as the same may be taxed by the Auditor of the Court of Session on an agent and client, client paying basis in terms of Chapter Three of the last published Law Society’s Table of Fees for general business with a unit rate of £14.00 and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Respondent.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Edinburgh 26th April 2006. The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 27th September 2005 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Martin John Carey, formerly of Alexander & Martin, Solicitors, Falkirk and now of Scullion & Company, Solicitors, 5 Church Street, Hamilton; Repel the preliminary pleas of mora and personal bar; Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in cumulo in respect of his unreasonable delay in recording or registering title deeds in favour of clients, his unreasonable delay in recording or registering standard securities in favour of lenders and his failure to act in accordance with the principles set forth in Article 5(e) of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors 2002 in that he did not communicate effectively with clients; Censure the Respondent; Find the Respondent liable in the expenses of the Complainers and in the expenses of the Tribunal as the same may be taxed by the auditor of the Court of Session on an agent and client indemnity basis in terms of Chapter Three of the last published Law Society’s Table of Fees for general business with a unit rate of £11.85; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Respondent.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hmm how about John Swinney ?

    He doesn't come out of this looking very good because its his department who are paying these two yet as you point out he himself read out Mill's memo implicating McAllister.

    What kind of message is this sending out ? If you watch the video Swinney's body language & tone suggests everyone named in those memos are up to some corrupt scheme yet here we have one of them appointing judges and your friend Swinney is saying nothing about it?

    Cant say I'd call him "honest John" after this.

    ReplyDelete
  22. John Swinney said (according to your quote) "Mr Mill's memo was written to the then president of the Law Society, Mr McAllister. It refers to the broker of the master policy. Mr Mill suggests that it would be good if he and the others involved all got together and had a "summit meeting" to discuss how to dispose of my constituent's "several valid claims".

    I wonder if what they really meant was dispose the client instead of dispose the claims.

    For one thing I bet they would like to dispose of you Peter with all these exposes of their treachery.

    ReplyDelete
  23. One of your victims26 March 2011 at 14:14

    Litigation specialist Cameron Fyfe is one of four partners who have announced they are leaving Glasgow giants Ross Harper.
    =============================
    Well Cameron at least 10,000 members of the public know you are a solicitor from hell who takes legal action against companies who are insured by Royal Sun Alliance when you are also insured by Royal Sun Alliance.

    Your conflict of interest, if your client won damages your insurers would be paying the damages. You should tell litigants this, but you make money out of their misery and the Law Society refuse to investigate you. But they are insured by Royal Sun Alliance too.

    You covered up what happened to me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. How anyone can trust a lawyer after reading this blog is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I wonder if what they really meant was dispose the client instead of dispose the claims."

    Probably.Go dump the body someplace and then get one of their colleagues to defend them if they are actually caught.

    "For one thing I bet they would like to dispose of you Peter with all these exposes of their treachery."

    I'd say this is a dead cert and from what I've read of Peter they may well have tried it already.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Your Law Society are Sadists26 March 2011 at 17:06

    Scottish lawyers are shocking and disgraceful ... and should be ashamed of themselves ... words from Jack McConnell .. the Scottish First Minister.


    I would go further Jack, in my opinion from personal experience they evil ruthless devils who would murder clients if the roles were reversed.

    A Satanic profession and I do not mean devil worship, I mean devils.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Strange no newspaper has gone on the attack over this given the Climategate email inquiry fit up and this other one you mention with John Swinney & McAllister or did they just not notice it?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

    They sleep at night because they are evil scum but one day a frequent flyer will visit some frequent liars before the frequent flyers suicide.

    I could never be a lawyer because I could not sleep at night if I had to ruin lives.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Both of these guys will be insulated with their plenty salaries from all the financial cuts yet we hear nothing about cutting their £290 a day jobs

    ReplyDelete
  30. There are 129 MSPs elected to the Scottish Parliament. As well as their party allegiance, each must work for the Parliament and, of course, for their constituency or region.

    AND PROTECT THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND AND ITS MEMBERS.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Another fine example of blatant corruption in Scottish Legal and Political Circles.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi Mr Cherbi, I refer to a comment left by a fellow victim in one of your most recent posts, I am also aware of your wishes for comments to be as close to the topic as possible and for that I apologise.

    The person in question randomly advises people in the street to beware of lawyers and asks the most pertinent question, are you not concerned of your children's future and safety regarding the unlawful antics of the law society of Scotland.

    The author advises that everyone should do the same and so right he/she is, as I have started, whilst out with my grandchild, telling people to be aware of the dangers of these people and you will be surprised just how interested people are in what you have to say.

    You also get rewarded with the great satisfaction when they ask the identity of the firm that they should avoid.

    My advice to all victims of crooked lawyers is to get out and do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  33. MSP's are Traitors27 March 2011 at 15:39

    We all know what legal protection slaves have when the laws are made by their masters.

    Independent regulation requires the substitution of one group with another. That is why the SLCC is a joke, MacAskill makes sure those appointed will protect his precious flock.

    Which brings me to this question. How do you view clients Mr MacAskill, a good question to ask you in parliament. Are we human or rightless animals to be exploited or should we have the right to destroy lawyers careers who ruin us?

    It is a fail balanced question Mr MacAskill bearing in mind that you are an elected politician. Who are you loyal to, your fellow lawyers or do you see victims of lawyers who voted for you as unimportant non human animals devoid of rights.

    Actions speak louder than words, my question has already been answered Mr MacAskill. I mean Lady Smith's (Oh the titles of these people) husband called Law Society suicide victims frequent flyers, he has a high compassion level for those victims and their families.

    You see Mr MacAskill ideas become ideologies which become movements. Ideas of lawyer investigating lawyer became an embedded ideology in the movement managed and protected by the Law Society of Scotland. Institutional ideologies cannot be changed if the control group are not expunged like a rabid virus.

    That is why there have been no actions against your lawyers since the SLCC inception. It is achieving the goals you all set for it.

    That is why I do not trust you Mr MacAskill or any other MSP. Cutting the teeth from the LPLA Act proves that all MSP's regard clients as less than human, because political animals have rights.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mr MacAskill do you get an annual bonus from the insurers of the Law Society Master Policy, Royal Sun Alliance?

    Lets face facts. You always appoint people who will protect lawyers and by protecting lawyers against negligence claims means no Master Policy payouts to ruined clients.
    A nice earner for you and a healthy way for RSA to keep their money. And your lawyers know legal theft is legitimate because no client has any rights against any lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  35. http://bentjudges.com/

    Check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://bentjudges.com/cheating_justice.htm


    The Lawyer Who Robbed a 100-year-old Lady - was sentenced to 7 years - but still walked free

    In 2000, Solicitor Andrew Drummond, was jailed for seven years for stealing thousands of pounds from a dying centenarian. Drummond, 39, was supposed to be looking after the trust fund which paid Violet Cuthbert's nursing home bills. But instead he used his law firm's access to her bank accounts to siphon off £48,000 for his own purposes. Even when the old lady was virtually on her death bed in a Newport-on-Tay nursing home, Drummond was still taking her cash. The money was part of a total of nearly £84,000 which Drummond took from clients of Drummond, Robbie and Gibson, the law firm he ran from offices in Meadow Place Buildings in Dundee between March 1993 and June 1995.

    THE AMOUNT OF WEBSITES I AM FINDING AND THE DEGREE OF EVIL I SEE CONVINCES ME THAT THIS PROFESSION IS SATANIC, NOT ONE LAWYER ALL OF THEM.

    ReplyDelete
  37. http://bentjudges.com/

    The Gay Unhappy Judges Affair
    A JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE?

    A Lothian & Borders Police investigation concluded that this conspiracy DID exist. Senior members of Scotland's Legal Establishment were outraged at such an accusation and duly instructed Eton-educated William Nimmo Smith (now a Scottish Law Lord) and James Friel (now a Sheriff) to 'investigate further'. They concluded that the police were bang out of order for arriving at the conclusions that they did - and also accused many of the police officers involved of being homophobic and lawyerphobic!

    ReplyDelete
  38. http://bentjudges.com/

    "We must be the only country in the world to spend a king's ransom on a palace and then fill it with half-wits" - John Dunn, Glasgow

    ReplyDelete
  39. http://bentjudges.com/

    "We must be the only country in the world to spend a king's ransom on a palace and then fill it with half-wits" - John Dunn, Glasgow

    ReplyDelete
  40. To be decent one has to have values but lawyers only values are self protection.

    Justice is killing the client, I have never seen so much scum in the one profession. They ruin and torture people for money, out and out evil scum.

    Our mission is to warn others, who could trust these criminals. The only way I would approach a lawyer is if someone put a revolver to my head. Lawyers are more dangerous than guns, the latter kill quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  41. JULIAN DANSKIN (THE PAEDOPHILE FAVOURED BY THE JUDICIARY)

    This paedophile lawyer served a paltry 9 MONTHS in prison for abusing young boys in his care. This was just HALF of the original 18 MONTHS dished out by a lenient sheriff.

    One of his victims committed suicide, meanwhile the others continue to serve life sentences. Two thiefs who blackmailed Danskin received 10 YEARS in jail. Scotland's courts routinely protect child abusers and crooked lawyers - but are merciless when dealing with petty offenders and legal profession whistleblowers.

    SCOTLAND'S JUDICIARY PROTECTING CHILDREN? WHAT IS MORE EVIL PAEDOPHILIA OR BLACKMAIL. THE JURY CONDEMNS THE JUDGES IN THIS CASE.

    ReplyDelete
  42. THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION HAS/IS


    NO POWER to investigate Professional Misconduct


    DOMINATED by former Law Society Crooks


    LACKEY MEMBERS are hand picked by the Lord President and his lapdog, Kenny MacAskill MSP(a lawyer politician)

    THE ABOVE ARE FACTS. WHY? BECAUSE SINCE OCTOBER 2008 (IT WOULD NOT INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS BEFORE THAT TIME) AND IT HAS NOT PROTECTED THE PUBLIC SINCE THAT TIME. LORD HAMILTON AND HIS POODLE MACASKILL ARE KILLING CLIENT COMPLAINTS BECAUSE THEY HATE THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT THEIR LAWYERS.

    THESE TWO MEN ARE ANTI JUSTICE, ONE SITS IN PARLIAMENT (IMAGINE HIM TAKING DOUGLAS MILL TO TASK OVER THE MASTER POLICY FOR ONE OF MACASKILL'S CONSTITUENTS) AND THE OTHER, WELL ANTI MACKENZIE FRIENDS (OOPS) LAY ASSISTANTS NOT TO BE PAID) SEE THE BLUE SALTIRE MACKENZIE FRIENDS FOR SCOTLAND.

    THESE PEOPLE ARE CONTROL FREAKS WHO USE THEIR POSITIONS TO PROTECT THE JUDICIARY. THEIR IDEA OF JUSTICE IS THAT THE SELF REGULATOR AVOIDS THE TRIAL BY JURY ALL OF THE REST OF US FACE IF CHARGED.

    NEVER TRUST A LAWYER OR LAWYER POLITICIAN.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Do this lot at the Judicial Appointments board/quango have any say on who gets to sit on the SLCC?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Kenny MacAsKILL is the politician with the remit to KILL all client complaints. He is a lawyer and a liar when he says "Scotland owes a great debt to the legal profession".

    Apart from your tenacious loyalty to lawyers Kenny how much does Royal Sun Alliance pay you for your loyalty to the Master Policy. It is not a justice system it is a lawyer conrtolled money laundering mafia backed up by crooked insurers.

    If you are a justice minister for the Scottish people, stand up in Parliament and tell everyone about Douglas Mill, Phillip Yelland, Pritchard, Smart and all of the other reprobates who believe it is their God given right to ruin lives because they will not face a public court like the unimportant people you disregard. I have heard you say the public need protection from criminals. What about your criminal lot?

    I watched your offenders cleaning ditches and burns as part of their rehabilitation. Your Law Society and SLCC are suppurtating with people like you who should not be cleaning burns, they should be locked up and the steel doors welded shut.

    A legal system that covers up the criminality by it's own actors is tyranny. Wake up MacAskill, Google "crooked lawyers" there you will see that only lawyers and crooked politicians owe a great debt to the legal profession.

    To use a legal term I do not think there can ever be a "meeting of the minds" between us. You are blinded by prejudice, dissident websites mention lawyers who can be trusted although they are in the minority. You are not fit to hold your current position.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Nice way to end it - their own research said jobs for judges were controlled by an old boys network which is probably the same lot who give these people their jobs on the quango

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sudden Resignation

    WHY DID DOUGLAS MILL RESIGN FROM A WONDERFUL JOB? READ ON.

    JUST a fortnight after the online publication of the Internal Memo, parliamentary transcripts, and videos of his evidence to the Justice Committee, Mill, out of the blue, announced that he was 'stepping down' as Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland.

    He claimed he was leaving one of the best paid and most prestigious jobs in all of Scotland to go away and start his own 'consultancy'!

    This was a post in which he raked in at the very least 150k-a-year + fantastic benefits + expenses. Mill was in the prime of his career and he revelled in it. Little jaunts here, a couple of speeches there. The lying tongue that is Douglas Mill was comfortable with every aspect of the job. With the exception of just one part: elements within the legal profession and parliament who knew he lied to the Justice Committee.

    SO DOUGLAS FELL ON HIS SWORD BUT NO DOUBT HE WILL STILL BE PUSHING LEVERS AT THE LSOS AND SLCC. BAD BOY DOUGLAS, YOU SHOULD NEVER TELL LIES, THEY CATCH UP WITH YOU. POOR OLD GRANNY SPINNING IN HER GRAVE.

    THE MASTER POLICY IS A MASTER DISASTER FOR CLIENTS.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You are right - this is MacAskill and the SNP ensuring another term in office.All that nonsense about these appointments not being political is just that.Nonsense.The SNP will be expecting support and will get it,upfront or covertly.

    ReplyDelete
  48. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/the-pounds-2000-question-for-cameron-fyfe-family-billed-for-pathologist-who-waived-fee-1.96533

    9 Jan 2004

    CAMERON Fyfe, one of Scotland's leading civil lawyers, has been reported to the Crown Office after he overcharged a client more than (pounds) 2000. Mr Fyfe has been accused of billing the McLeod family, who claim their son Kevin was murdered in Wick harbour in 1997, for the fees of a forensic pathologist who was never paid. The Crown Office said it was unsure if there was sufficient evidence to instruct a police inquiry, but admitted ''further action ought to be taken'' and has passed the complaint to the Law Society of Scotland. The Law Society said there was an ''ongoing inquiry'' into the matter to establish if the error was by accident or design. Mr Fyfe, of the legal firm Ross Harper, claims it was an accident, that there was an accountancy error with the bill, and yesterday sent a full refund to the family. The McLeods received an itemised bill of (pounds) 15,296.29 from Mr Fyfe in October 1998 for the handling of Kevin's fatal accident inquiry, explaining that the law firm had paid Dr Jeanette McFarlane, a consultant forensic pathologist, her expenses of (pounds) 1290.10 plus an additional (pounds) 2030.20 for ''opinion and attendance at three days of the inquiry''. However, Dr McFarlane had written to Mr Fyfe in June of that year explaining that she did not wish to charge for her services because the family had not received legal aid.

    She received a cheque for her expenses only and denies receiving a second cheque. The problem only came to light last year when Leslie Brown, a former detective chief inspector with Strathclyde Police who was acting on behalf of the family, reinvestigated Kevin's death.
    ------------------------------
    See the link above for the rest of this article.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rival lawyers’ £500,000 Ross Harper battle

    By KENNY McALPINE

    Published: Today
    TWO of Scotland's top criminal lawyers are being sued for more than £500,000 after allegedly swiping hundreds of Legal Aid case files from their former employers.

    Harvie Diamond, 55, and Richard Freeman, 45, are being taken to court by leading law firm Ross Harper.

    It is claimed the two men took more than 300 files from the firm, when quitting as partners last October.

    They have set up separate offices in Glasgow just 20 yards from their former base, but are barred from going into business together.

    Last night a source said: "These files are worth a lot of money. "It could have put a smaller company out of the game.

    "It is lucky Ross Harper are on a good financial footing. Half-a-million pounds worth of work disappearing overnight is a lot of business. "It could have cost people their jobs - not rich lawyers but admin staff. This dispute is the talk of legal circles at the moment."

    It is also alleged that Mr Diamond and Mr Freeman, both of posh Newton Mearns, near Glasgow, owe Ross Harper up to £50,000 in Legal Aid cash.

    An interim interdict has been issued against both men at the Court of Session. They have been ordered not to work together or to deal with any Ross Harper clients.

    Mr Diamond and Solicitor-Advocate Mr Freeman used to head the firm's criminal department and high-profile clients included killer Peter Tobin.

    Last night Mr Freeman refused to discuss the dispute. Mr Diamond did not return our calls.

    A spokesman for Ross Harper said: "We do not wish to comment at this time."

    Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3496643/Two-lawyers-sued-for-allegedly-swiping-Legal-Aid-files-from-former-employers.html#ixzz1I1Q3DdMR

    ReplyDelete
  50. NEVER TRUST THE LAW SOCIETY OR MSP's30 March 2011 at 12:26

    The Law Society of Scotland’s most recent media release on their latest ‘proposals’ to amend the Legal Services Bill stated : “The Society has had constructive discussions with the Government and MSPs during the summer recess about the planned reforms to legal services provision in Scotland, which would allow non-solicitors to have a stake in law firms.”.

    Non solicitors in law firms. already there, you cannot sue lawyers because they protect each other and Royal Sun Alliance have a stake in law firms, so YOU CANNOT SUE FOR DAMAGES WHEN A LAWYER STEALS ALL OF YOUR ASSETS.

    ReplyDelete
  51. LONNIES TRUST LAWYERS30 March 2011 at 12:46

    A Protected Crook


    The Galloway Gazette - A Credit to Scottish Journalism

    The following excerpt is taken from the Galloway Gazette's article on the Forster Scandal....

    The Gazette reveals how the Law Society of Scotland ignored complaints about disgraced former solicitor John Kennedy Forster for NINE YEARS and only acted after our exclusive coverage of clients' misgivings.

    Forster was finally jailed for six and a half years for embezzling over £667,000 from client accounts even though The Law Society had told the Gazette as late as April 2000 that there were no aspects of the Forster case which required their intervention.

    But just two weeks later, after further revelations by The Gazette, The Law Society finally handed over the Forster case to the Crown Office for possible criminal proceedings.
    One former client told the Gazette this week that he felt betrayed by The Law Society and felt that no action would have been taken had The Galloway Gazette not brought extensive publicity to the case.

    Positive Spin

    Yet despite this, the Law Society last week sought to put a positive spin on its eventual handling of the Forster case after the former solicitor was finally jailed in the High Court.
    Its President, Joe Platt insisted that the Society always worked in the best interests of the public.

    He said: “This is an example of the Law Society doing its job well and taking every effort to ensure that the public are protected from any rogue solicitor.”


    But Gazette Editor Peter Jeal said: “Far from demonstrating that The Law Society has ‘done it’s job well’ the Forster case has only served to highlight the need for an independent complaints authority to be set up.

    What is clear from this sorry tale is that The Law Society cannot possibly serve the interests of its members, solicitors, and the interests of the public at the same time."

    “On their own admission, they only started to take this case seriously in April 2000 after The Gazette highlighted client concerns which date as far back as 1991.

    “We will be calling on the Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson, to put in place an independent complaints authority to deal with complaints against solicitors.”

    WHAT DID WE GET, THE SLCC, GOD HELP CLIENTS.

    ReplyDelete
  52. DEALING WITH ANY CIVIL LAWYER IS LIKE GIVING YOUR BANK CARDS TO ANYONE IN THE STREET, AND THE RELEVANT PIN NUMBERS.

    DEALING WITH THE LAW SOCIETY AND SLCC MEANS LAWYER INVESTIGATES LAWYER, SO BYE BYE TO ALL OF YOUR ASSETS.

    WHEN BANK CASHIERS STEAL MONEY IT KEPT HUSH, HUSH, BECAUSE THE BANK DOES NOT WANT YOU ALL PULLING YOUR MONEY OUT. THE LAW SOCIETY AND SLCC ARE THE SAME, IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF COMPLAINTS NO ONE WOULD GO TO A LAW FIRM.

    IT IS NOT ABOUT JUSTICE, THINK ABOUT IT, NO ONE USES LAWYERS, LAW FIRMS NO INCOME, NO PAYMENTS FOR PRACTICING CERTIFICATES, LAW SOCIETY IS NO MORE. PERHAPS AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION BUT YOU GET THE IDEA.

    ReplyDelete
  53. TWO of Scotland's top criminal lawyers are being sued for more than £500,000 after allegedly swiping hundreds of Legal Aid case files from their former employers.

    Harvie Diamond, 55, and Richard Freeman, 45, are being taken to court by leading law firm Ross Harper.

    It is claimed the two men took more than 300 files from the firm, when quitting as partners last October.

    They have set up separate offices in Glasgow just 20 yards from their former base, but are barred from going into business together.

    Last night a source said: "These files are worth a lot of money.

    "It could have put a smaller company out of the game.

    "It is lucky Ross Harper are on a good financial footing. Half-a-million pounds worth of work disappearing overnight is a lot of business.

    "It could have cost people their jobs - not rich lawyers but admin staff. This dispute is the talk of legal circles at the moment."

    It is also alleged that Mr Diamond and Mr Freeman, both of posh Newton Mearns, near Glasgow, owe Ross Harper up to £50,000 in Legal Aid cash.

    An interim interdict has been issued against both men at the Court of Session. They have been ordered not to work together or to deal with any Ross Harper clients. THAT IS RIGHT IT IS CALLED PASSING OFF.

    Mr Diamond and Solicitor-Advocate Mr Freeman used to head the firm's criminal department and high-profile clients included killer Peter Tobin.

    Last night Mr Freeman refused to discuss the dispute. Mr Diamond did not return our calls.

    A spokesman for Ross Harper said: "We do not wish to comment at this time."


    IF THIS IS TRUE WHAT CHANCE DO CLIENTS HAVE, I MEAN LAWYERS CAN SUE LAWYERS, BUT CLIENTS CANNOT SUE LAWYERS BECAUSE LAWYERS WILL NOT REPRESENT THEM.

    ReplyDelete
  54. dont believe all you read in the newspaper - harvie diamond, richard freeman, alan susskind and cameron fyfe had no option but to resign from Ross Harper - they were pushed out by the other partners, because they (quite rightly) wouldnt agree to share the high profits that they earned for their hard work with the remaining partners of Ross Harper who do very little work

    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.