Friday, April 01, 2011

England & Wales : Legal Ombudsman criticised as ‘name & shame’ policy hit by lawyers protests over insurance costs, second consultation now underway

Legal OmbudsmanNot so rosy : Legal Ombudsman hit by accusations of failing consumers by delaying the naming of crooked lawyers. ENGLISH LAWYERS PROTESTING against being named & shamed have caused a spectacular delay to the much anticipated policy of publicly identifying serial crooked lawyers in England & Wales by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO), the ‘independent’ regulator of complaints against solicitors south of the border after it was revealed yesterday the LeO has been forced to put on hold any plans to publicly ‘out’ solicitors & law forms who continually fail their clients after ‘concerns’ expressed by lawyers who are worried their indemnity insurance fees might go up if consumers & insurers were made aware they were risky to deal with.

Douglas Mill 4Ex-Law Society of Scotland Chief Douglas Mill threatened legal action over complaints reforms in 2006. In a move reminiscent of the Scottish Parliament’s climb-down over some aspects of regulation changes in summer of 2006 contained in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill after the then Chief Executive of the Law Society Douglas Mill threatened MSPs & the Scottish Executive with legal action against plans to bring in ‘independent regulation’ of complaints against solicitors, the Legal Ombudsman has now ‘delayed’ the introduction of identifying crooked lawyers in England & Wales by launching a ‘second consultation’ on the naming & shaming policy after being hit by protests from solicitors and the Law Society of England & Wales who are against any moves to publish complaints outcomes or identify solicitors & law firms who fail their clients.

Reacting to the Legal Ombudsman’s announcement to delay a decision about whether to identify law firms subject to complaints in England & Wales, Dr Dianne Hayter, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, said: "This excessively cautious, and consumer-unfriendly, decision will be a huge let down for present and future clients. It completely flies in the face of government policy to empower citizens by opening up data on provider performance.

Ms Hayter continued : "In its first big policy test, the Legal Ombudsman has fallen for spurious objections from the legal profession for which they have provided no evidence. This decision puts second the needs of consumers who depend on legal advice at critical life moments, but struggle to tell a good lawyer from a bad one. The only winners from today's announcement are the small minority of firms that persistently fail consumers - their poor behaviour will now not be unmasked. This is vital information before a client engages a lawyer. The Legal Services Consumer Panel will continue to fight for consumers on this issue".

The Legal Ombudsman has today published a further discussion paper on the naming & shaming policy Publishing our decisions an evidence based approach (pdf) while also launching their ‘second consultation’. In the latest discussion paper, the LeO reveals the legal profession in England & Wales appear to be more concerned with potential rises in insurance premiums to their Professional Indemnity Insurance schemes, (the English equivalent of the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt Master Policy run by notorious insurance brokers Marsh UK) than raising their own standards of service to avoid complaints in the future.

The LeO’s report reveals : “The Law Society [of England & Wales] were concerned that if professional indemnity insurers had access to complaints data it might increase the costs of the insurance to certain types of lawyers and this could impact on diversity in the profession. Birmingham Law Society mentioned that lawyers working in areas funded by legal aid could be particularly affected; they were concerned that the wrong approach could “drive practitioners out of important areas of law upon which society as a whole is heavily dependent." An individual lawyer alerted us to a possible impact on larger firms who bid for public sector contracts; they felt that publishing complaints data might affect the business of such firms.”

“Some law firms were also concerned that there might be an impact on wider access to justice. They pointed out that firms might start to refuse cases from people they felt would be likely to complain in order to avoid having a complaint published. The types of consumers they felt who might be affected were those with mental health problems or social issues. Finally, barristers felt that they would be particularly affected by our publications scheme, with the Chancery Bar Association explaining that: “the barrister, as an individual practitioner with a relatively small client base, would suffer far more from being named... than would other service providers.”

“The high street solicitors that took part in the research said they were concerned that our approach to publication could impact on the reputation of local firms. Many raised the idea of what they described as the „problem client‟ – a consumer who might purposely complain in order to damage a firm‟s reputation. The majority also thought there would be a larger impact on sole traders because they tend to be known locally and rely on a smaller client base. Larger practices were thought to be better able to deal with complaints and so less likely to have a complaint presented to us. The solicitors we spoke to also raised the issue that damage to reputation could impact on whether solicitors were selected to be in lenders panels to conduct regular work relation to the home buying and selling process. They also argued that it might impact on professional indemnity fees and that firms might have to pay higher insurance premiums.”.

The consultation paper released by the Legal Ombudsman also revealed consumer groups & even some media organisations expressed their wish to see all complaints information published and solicitors named & shamed over their poor service. The LeO’s report revealed :

“The Legal Services Consumer Panel (there is no equivalent organisation in Scotland) said that the benefits to consumers far outweighed the costs, and reminded us of the current drive in society to “harness consumer power enabled by the ability of the internet to spread word of mouth rapidly and on large scale”. Meanwhile, the National Consumer Federation said: "withholding information on firms complained about would deny consumers that access and restrict their ability to collectively play their necessary role in raising standards in the legal services market.”

“Which? said they were concerned that: “if there isn’t more openness, then websites such as „solicitors from hell‟ will just grow and grow; this is unregulated, unrepresentative and likely to be unfair and/or misleading to both lawyer and consumer". The Legal Service Commission argued that our complaints information would help them to do their job better so they have a full picture of the performance of the providers they use for publicly funded work. Guardian News and Media said that "any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be justified as necessary in the public interest, and our view is that the anonymising of complaints would be a disproportionate limitation on the right to information".

The Legal Ombudsman responded to the solicitors concerns, acknowledging much of what was said by the legal profession. The LeO said : “Having weighed up all the evidence, we can see that our approach to publication is likely to have an impact on the legal profession. There is a risk that it could have a disproportionate impact on certain types of firm or certain fields of law, and as a result it could reduce access to legal advice and assistance for some consumers. However, we also believe that the evidence in this area is limited – we cannot say from what we know, or what you have told us to date what the impact will be, as it is challenging to find robust evidence about the impact of an approach that has not been implemented yet.”

The Legal Ombudsman then went onto say it would take more time to gather evidence, launching today’s unprecedented ‘second consultation : “We are keen to ensure that our processes are always fair, and so we are taking the time to gather more evidence on the potential impact of the different approaches available, before making a final decision about some of the more sensitive aspects of publication, such as identifying individual firms.”

Today, the Legal Ombudsman has announced a second consultation, stating : Based on the evidence received, we have now decided what we think it is appropriate for us to do next. We would like to invite you to input your views on our preferred approach, which is outlined in the consultation document Publishing our decisions an evidence based approach (pdf). In this document, you can also find out more about the evidence we gathered as part of the first stage of the consultation.

As this blog has a wide readership throughout the UK, I would urge you all to participate in this consultation, which will run from 31 March to 30 June 2011. Even though the matters under discussion affect England & Wales and not Scotland, your input and decisions to name & shame ‘crooked lawyers’ in England & Wales will ultimately have an effect or an influence on complaints naming policy in Scotland, therefore the more consumers in Scotland who participate in the English survey, the better.

You can send comments on what kinds of details you think should be published about complaints in England & Wales to the Legal Ombudsman by email to or by post to : Janet Edwards, Legal Ombudsman, PO Box 15871, Birmingham, B30 9ED by 30 June 2011.

SLCC Marsh LSSScottish legal regulators the Law Society of Scotland, SLCC & Master Policy operators Marsh all stand to lose out if crooked lawyers are named & shamed across the UK say legal pundits. A legal insider speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon alleged there may be plans by the legal profession in England & Wales to raise a collective legal action against the LeO if the policy of naming & shaming goes ahead although he said any threat of such action would not go down well with the public when exposed in the media.

He also claimed the Law Society of Scotland are active in the discussion over complaints identification, alleging the Law Society of Scotland is seeking to prevent the policy of naming & shaming crooked lawyers in England & Wales taking hold, out of fears it may result in a similar trend in Scotland.


Anonymous said...

So the crooked lawyers are more worried about their insurance payments going up than being moved to clean up their act !

As for this Legal Ombudsman well it sounds another toothless wonder if he's buckled so quickly.

Anonymous said...

Is it proper the Law Society of Scotland intervenes in regulation policy in England & Wales ?

I think there's a lot more going on than the LeO is admitting to,perhaps a few legal threats have been thrown their way although as you say media attention will expose what is really going on.

Anonymous said...

Here we go with the "problem clients" again.What about "problem lawyers" of which there are many.
The LEO has to take a more robust approach to this otherwise solicitors are going to be seen to run his policies which is not what is expected of his office.

Thanks for covering this even though you normally write about Scottish issues.

Anonymous said...

LSoS trying to prevent naming & shaming in Scotland by stopping it coming in down south doesn't surprise me one bit although now you've exposed what they are up to it should make life a little more difficult for them.

Notice also the issue is suspiciously not being debated in Scotland as it seems to have been in England & Wales.

A little too much censorship is beginning to show..

Anonymous said...

"The LeO has been forced to put on hold any plans to publicly ‘out’ solicitors & law forms who continually fail their clients after ‘concerns’ expressed by lawyers who are worried their indemnity insurance fees might go up if consumers & insurers were made aware they were risky to deal with."

Errm has Mr Sampson not heard of car insurance and how it works ?

If you are a terrible driver and have been involved in a few accidents or have penalty points on your license, normally your insurance goes up.

So,why should consumers not be able to find out the names of lawyers and law firms involved in complaints so they too can avoid them ?

Same for insurance companies who should be jacking up crooked lawyers premiums if they are that bad.


Hi Peter,

I must say that I am convinced that only clients can protect other clients.

These lawyers are all criminal scum, their insurers are criminal scum and we need to defeat them. Networks of dissent.

Lawyers actions all go back to protect the gods with an LLB. These people are fanatical about money which stems from power. Now power is group orientated it collapses when the group disintegrates.

Client power is the same, all websites need to unite building a common database. Lawyers cannot beat the public if we refuse to walk into their offices.

They are evil calculating scum purporting to represent members of the public when they really represent powerful business interests, and insurance companies.

Did you know people can get injured by prolonged standing. It damages the legs so that fluid leaks into surrounding tissues. At its worse the fluid breaks the skin resulting in ulcers. This happened to a member of my family, and it was all covered up because her employer, lawyer, doctor and consultants were all insured by Royal Sun Alliance. Her own family doctor for 30+ years covered it all up and the NHS manager
thought that was fine.
These people are evil incarnate, not only the ones we dealt with, all of them. Lawyers will never be beaten unless clients unite, and that is slowly happening.

I urge all members of the public not to trust these evil human rats.

Never believe any lawyer who tells you they can win a litigation case, their insurers would be paying your damages.

What we found was that the legal system, medical complaints system, all shut down they did not want to see the truth. The lawyers and doctors are bigger bastards than the employer who caused the injuries in the first place. They make money and sleep easy at night because they are evil, that is the only rational explanation I can arrive at.


With the legal battle at Ross Harpers we will see that Law Firms take legal action against lawyers they accuse of stealing valuable business files.

But the same Law Firms the world over will never represent a member of the public against a lawyer. This speaks volumes about the prejudiced mentality of this evil warped profession.

It beggars belief how this setup has been tolerated so long.

Anonymous said...

Ex-Law Society of Scotland Chief Douglas Mill threatened legal action over complaints reforms in 2006.

A liar you are Mill so we can all understand why you threatened legal action to protect all of the other professional liars that hold an LLB.

What you did Mill was shatter your own reputation (although we did not trust you before your discussion with John Swinney).

Such is your intense hatred of clients, you destroyed yourself to save your lawyers. Very Noble of you Mill. Perhaps you will get an Honour?

Using a legal system to threaten law reforms, when you solicitor barr clients from using the same system when it suits the profession is not about justice. It is about tyranny, and you fell Mill because those who speak the truth have right on their side.

Power comes from truth, liars trip themselves up, we saw through the facade that is Douglas Mill. We see through the facade that is meant to be a decent legal profession.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation and honesty are mutually exclusive especially where lawyers are concerned.

Anonymous said...

Bit of a reversal from your Wednesday posting isn't it ?

Well I think the Law Society read your blog and decided naming & shaming is a bad thing (for them) so where does this leave us in Scotland if the English are being bullied against doing it

Anonymous said...

Is the LeO looking for a different set of responses so they can say they don't need to name & shame?

We all know the only way anyone is going to be able to avoid a "crooked lawyer" is by knowing exactly who to avoid.The only way this will happen is when the names of crooked lawyers are published.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see how this tussle ends, no doubt the Law Society of Scotland, will follow this story's progress closely.


Ex-Law Society of Scotland Chief Douglas Mill threatened legal action over complaints reforms in 2006.

Secrecy is sinister Douglas, must have a lot to hide. But of course if clients regulated you lot many of you would be redundant. So lawyers wanted to sue MSP's so that the people who elect the MSP's have no power against crooked lawyers.

What made it worse is those MSP's agreed with you.

So Douglas, your lot and our so loyal politicians destroyed the LPLA Act, the public have no protection and your paper shredder works harder to destroy client complaints.

Yes Douglas you have a balanced view of what justice means. If this is what the Law Society top man wanted to do what does that say about this unions view of clients and their assets. Fodder so lawyers can have nice houses, cars, holidays, and you all would leave clients in mud huts.

An E Bay style system we need Douglas to bypass little rodents like you. Only clients can warn clients, we know what we are up against.

End of lecture.

Anonymous said...

I read enough in your opening paragraph to realise the Legal Ombudsman is rubbish.the rest just confirms it along with all that nonsense about a 2nd consultation pffft!

Anonymous said...

Good point about the car insurance in the last comment.
If you dont tell the insurers you've had an accident or got points on your license its fraud isn't it? and anyway they will end up finding out if you ever make a claim so it should be the same if a lawyer doesn't tell you they've had complaints against them or something like that its also a fraud so what is this Legal ombudsman waiting on? a change in the weather?

Anonymous said...

I watched Rip off Britain on the BBC this evening at 7.30pm. Not one report on crooked lawyers.

Will watch again next week.

Anonymous said...

Do not work for a Hamilton based Celebration Cake maker insured by Royal Sun Alliance who have injured many workers and got away with it through the Master Policy conflict of interest litigation lawyers have.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers, accountants, doctors, insurance companies, politicians all crooks. I have never known more corrupt ruthless people in my life.

What I was brought up to believe is night and day compared with the reality. How events change our perceptions about life.

Anonymous said...

I am not surprised the Law Society of Scotland are involved to stop complaints being published in England & Wales.I'm sure if anyone moved to do this no matter which country they were in,the Scottish operation would intervene or make a submission to insist it does not go ahead.

You could look at it this way - now you've exposed the Legal Ombudsman's cowardice I'm sure the Law Society of Scotland and their friends at the SLCC will be a little more worried as you have made the issue much higher profile than it seems to have been.

Anonymous said...

Dissident websites are on the rise because self regulation keeps criminals working who belong in prison.

Self regulation in any profession is state protection for criminals.

Anonymous said...

Not so rosy : Legal Ombudsman hit by accusations of failing consumers by delaying the naming of crooked lawyers.

In my opinion any party who wants to halt this process is as corrupt as the bastards lawyers are. A scourge, an evil of the greatest magnitude.

Anonymous said...

The only "chilling effect" is that clients dont get to find out if the lawyer they are using is a bloody crook!

Ombudsman warned over “chilling effect” on lawyers of publishing complaints records

Sampson: result of consultation may have to be the "least bad" solution

Lawyers have warned the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) that some clients will end up unrepresented if he adopts a complaints process that involves “naming and shaming”.

Fear of reputational damage would have a chilling effect on taking on clients perceived to be “risky” and adversely impact on lawyers whose social conscience led them to offer help, they said.

The ombudsman, Adam Sampson, responded that whether to use statutory powers to identify the lawyer or firm is a “very tricky” issue and that a lack of consensus means any future system is likely to be the “least bad” solution in the circumstances.

Speaking at a meeting in London, one of a series of national events set up after the LeO published a consultation on publishing its decisions in late September, Mr Sampson insisted that he was genuinely open-minded as to the outcome. But he admitted he was doubtful that any conclusion would be reached that would satisfy the pro- and anti-naming camps. “It is about getting the best solution we can,” he said.

He said the LeO was committed to putting statistical data into the public domain to show trends; for instance where certain client groups are badly served by providers. But the issue of whether to name the lawyers would involve “balancing different interests” and involve “a bit of a punt” in terms of the consequences. He added that he had to be mindful of the world after alternative business structures come in next year, an event that will change consumer behaviour.

In January the LeO will conduct focus groups with members of the public on whether to name and shame.

Towards the end of its tenure, the LeO’s predecessor, the Legal Complaints Service, was planning to start publishing its findings, but came up against strong opposition from solicitors. LCS research in 2008 found consumers in favour of openness but apparently did not indicate they thought it would help them choose a solicitor – a key advantages cited by those who advocate publishing full details.

The meeting’s chair, Dr Dianne Hayter, chairwoman of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, agreed that a balance had to be struck over naming and that the complaints regime “has to have the confidence of legal services providers as well as consumers”. Dr Hayter made her panel’s views known at the end of September when she said it “strongly supports the identification of lawyers subject to ombudsman investigations”.

The case for solicitors was put by Russell Wallman, the Law Society’s head of government relations. He said the consequences of naming could be the “unfair tarnishing of reputations” and difficulties some clients would have in accessing any representation at all, from solicitors wary of being the subject of a complaint.

Some firms might cease to cover social areas of law altogether if they perceived the risk of complaints might threaten their commercial law work, Mr Wallman added. He argued that an alternative would be to adopt “carrot, not stick” solutions, such as a quality mark for firms with excellent complaints records.

Reinforcing Mr Wallman’s concerns, a partner with responsibility for complaints in a national law firm warned that one group who would suffer disproportionately under a naming and shaming policy was solicitors whose “social conscience” drove them to take on difficult clients. “For those people effectively to be punished for that would be extremely unfair,” she said.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I couldnt post the rest of that story here's part 2

In its September consultation, the LeO conceded that areas of law such as immigration, mental health, family and criminal law, through their “emotional and contentious nature, are likely to generate more complaints than other areas”.

There were calls at the meeting from representatives of both consumers and journalists for the LeO to start from a premise of openness and transparency. But they stopped short of advocating a blanket policy of naming for every complaint. A spokesman for one consumer organisation argued that the LeO should publish full information on complaints in a controlled way as a counterpoint to websites such as solicitorsfromhell, which, he warned, would release information in an uncontrolled way.


Anonymous said...

This is the second or third time complaints publishing has been delayed if you read this :

Online publishing of legal complaints delayed

Proposals to make complaints against solicitors publically available on the internet have been put on hold.

Proposals to make complaints against solicitors publically available on the internet have been put on hold. The Legal Complaints Service (LCS) has maintained its support for the scheme but postponed its implementation until 2010 when it will be more practicable.

Lack of resources, outmoded technology and time pressures created by the organisation's replacement by the Office for Legal Complaints are blamed for making the scheme unviable at the present time.

The plan had come under fire from solicitors who claimed it would encourage defensive action, leading to higher costs, and detract from a customer focus in favour of compensation considerations.

The LCS had stuck by the scheme though, insisting it would provide transparency and serve as an important resource for consumers, choosing a solicitor. The LCS board chair Professor Shamit Saggar said: "We are convinced publication would have brought benefits to consumers and solicitors through increased competition and more informed choice."



Errm has Mr Sampson not heard of car insurance and how it works ?

If you are a terrible driver and have been involved in a few accidents or have penalty points on your license, normally your insurance goes up. Who gives you the penalty points. Lawyers in the form of Sheriffs or judges. Their points put our insurance premiums up so help insurance companies make money.
Yes I agree but terrible lawyers refuse to represent clients their colleagues have ruined. Result insurance companies never pay compensation to lawyers victims so lawyers add to insurance company coffers.

They are the most ruthless evil Satanic of professions and yes they are licenced to ruin people. I would not be surprised if they get their car insurance for pennies bearing in mind the £Millions they save their insurers from compensating ruined clients, and the increased premiums from car drivers who are prosecuted in the courts.

Lawyers and insurance companies have a loving relationship if you get my meaning. Benefits flow both ways.



Please please never trust a lawyer. Your summary above is 100% accurate, protect yourselves by spreading the word. Tell everyone, saving others from lawyers is our goal. The fact the lawyers do not want the complaints published should ring alarm bells. They are bad news.

Anonymous said...

ENGLISH LAWYERS PROTESTING against being named & shamed have demonstrated all lawyers are the same.

Lawyers are going to have to change because they will be forced out of the industry by ex clients warning clients.

Screw the lawyer loving authorities. The people of the United Kingdom deserve better.


The Law Society Master Policy never pays damages to ruined clients. The reason, one needs a lawyer to sue another lawyer for damages. The Law Society membership are all Douglas Mill's who are in bed with the Royal Sun Alliance.

The case in America where two judges sent kids to a private jail. The judges were in business with the the private company operating the jail. So the judges gained financially every time a new inmate arrived, and they also extended sentences to increase their profits.

Same Law Society arrangement where clients cannot get lawyers to sue for damages because Scottish Lawyers have business links with the insurers of the Master Policy, Royal Sun Alliance. The Master Policy is sham, no member of the public has any consumer protection against the lawyers they are FORCED to trust.

What would the Law Society do to any lawyer who tried to secure damages for a ruined client. They would revoke their practicing certificate.

These reasons mean that only clients can protect other clients. When law firms have to close their doors because no member of the public will deal with them perhaps the reality will sink in at the Law Society, a union which is a massive abuser of human rights, approved of by MSP's. When the politicians want to stab voters in the back it is time to set up E Bay systems so clients can leave feedback for future clients. Clients regulating lawyers through websites is the only way forward.

Anonymous said...

ENGLISH LAWYERS PROTESTING against being named & shamed. Who needs to name and shame them, their protests means they are all crooks.

If the lawyers were honest they would have nothing to fear so all of you clients out there beware.

Lawyers are human rights abusers with the approval of the state. I would never trust any lawyer in any country.

Anonymous said...

On the subject of Naming and Shaming,

SFH Editorial - April 2011

Rick Kordowski, the owner of Solicitors From HELL, is quite obviously a man in the spotlight. Nationwide publicity has put him on a collision course with the legal establishment. The Law Society have already tried, unsuccessfully, to involve the police on the grounds that Kordowski’s administration charges to allow a listing to be removed from his website are akin to ‘extortion’. Even now the powers that be are trying to get Scotland Yard in on the act for Kordowski’s alleged ‘blackmail’ in asking for the said administration charge. Kordowski is a one man band and a lot of his time is taken up running Solicitors From HELL for which he should be entitled to earn a crust. Critics say he should charge nothing to allow a solicitor to come off his website. But even charities rely on donations to survive and solicitors who want their entry removed can regard themselves as making a small donation to the maintenance of Solicitors From HELL.
Please let your readers know about this Peter. More info see the link.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, Please keep up the good work, you are doing a great public service and we thank you for giving us a voice in the maelstrom of self regulation.

Brilliant Blogging exposing societies privilidged criminals like Mr Mill, who is a fanatical protector of lawyers. If he was not he would still be the Law Society President.


Lawyers ruin many members of the public, then they do not want to be named and shamed.

What they are telling us is that no lawyer is honest. Self regulation is a gross abuse of human rights, a criminal ideology that rewards by exonerating those unfit to practice. Do they expect clients to accept being robbed, ruined? I think they do.

Reminds me of the infamous Dr Harold Shipman when he said "how dare you question me. I am a medical practitioner". These professions believe they are gods, yes lawyers we are as dedicated to stopping you as you are at protecting each other. Where none are guilty all are guilty.

Anti lawyer websites tell the true story so we must never trust you people.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers in many instances do not win cases because that was the lawyers goal from the first meeting with the client. That old conflict of interest thing again.

Anonymous said...

I can well imagine the LSoS will want to stop this naming & shaming happening in England before it gets to Scotland!

Anonymous said...

I would like to see the same naming & shaming procedure for complaints across the board - Police,Government any public service.Its our right to know what these people are up to and its about time we started protesting for this kind of information whether these ombudsmen want to provide it or not!

Anonymous said...

Thursday 24 February 2011 by Rachel Rothwell

Consumers are generally in favour of ‘naming and shaming’ law firms that are subject to complaints, but would only expect information to be published when a firm has had three complaints upheld against it in 12 months, according to research released today.

The findings of a series of focus groups involving 58 consumers, commissioned jointly by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) and the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP), also indicated that consumers are in ‘awe’ of solicitors, and reluctant to complain about them.

LeO is currently gathering evidence to decide whether it should publish its findings against law firms, and will set out its preferred approach in a consultation in April.

The focus group report said: ‘Solicitors are held in a degree of respect bordering on awe, that is awarded to few professionals other than perhaps doctors.’

It found ‘a strong degree of reluctance to complain’ about solicitors, due to a ‘fear [by consumers] that the solicitor will be able to outsmart them’.

Consumers felt that a system whereby findings against a firm were only published if three complaints had been upheld within a year would ‘avoid penalising the occasional lapse and be relatively less onerous on small firms’.

A separate focus group of 15 high-street solicitors found that they were ‘generally hostile’ towards publication of complaints, with concerns that this could affect their position on lender panels and expose them to purposeful damage to their reputation by ‘problem clients’.

LSCP chair Dianne Hayler called on LeO to adopt the approach of publishing complaints when three had been upheld in 12 months, which it said would be a ‘fair publication scheme’.

Do not ruin me please said said...

This name and shame strategy I agree with. But it is not ironic that the people who want to kill off naming and shaming are the very people who ruin clients daily but now realise they will be ruined.

Well scumbag lawyers I call this the boomerang effect. Lawyers and their Law Society create the problem by all the filthy strategies under the sun to rob, coverup, destroy innocent peoples lives and then they are terrified by the prospect of naming and shaming. When you lost control, you will reap the harvest you have sown, what can I say, poetic justice.

Anonymous said...

Why are consumers are in ‘awe’ of solicitors, and reluctant to complain about them. Lawyers are nothing special, in my view the greater the power of any profession the greater the dissent must be. Without dissent an unhealthy situation arises as we have now.

If consumers are in awe of solicitors it tells us a great deal about consumers self image.

Whether you buy a car or legal services their is a contract. You expect your car to cover thousands of miles in all weathers and road conditions. Most people do not know a camshaft from a bearing shell. Do we trust a salesman to service cars? No professionals called mechanics look after those problems.

Who looks after consumer problems with solicitors? The latter of course under current arrangements.
No separation of service and regulator.
No lawyer is worthy of respect, only dissent is worthy of respect.

Consumers are reluctant to complain about lawyers. Good spin, let us face facts, complaints are buried by lawyers. Respect lawyers, never, no self regulating group have a duty of care to anyone but themselves.

Anonymous said...

Watch video on Law Society Corruption.


Anonymous said...

Good idea about naming & shaming all these crooked lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Douglas Mill said it would be a violation of a lawyers human rights if this profession could not self regulate.

Your memo Douglas clearly stated that Mr Swinney's constituent had valid claims against the Master Policy and you wanted a meeting to destroy that claim. So you state the person had a valid claim, therefore entitled to compensation and you reject the claimants human rights.

What you did Mr Mill is the way the Law Society has operated for decades. You were condoning legal abuse by your colleagues who you regard as important, and ruining a client you regard as a thorn in your flesh (you said it). Your conduct and resignation prove one fact.

The Law Society of Scotland is an abuser of human rights, so that people like you can do what you want and escape the consequences of your actions. You really are a nasty crooked little man. If I did what you did in court I would be jailed. But of course fairness in contemporary Scotland is selective, depending on which club you belong to. Shame on you.


Scottish legal regulators the Law Society of Scotland, SLCC & Master Policy operators Marsh all stand to lose out if crooked lawyers are named & shamed across the UK say legal pundits. A legal insider speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon alleged there may be plans by the legal profession in England & Wales to raise a collective legal action against the LeO if the policy of naming & shaming goes ahead although he said any threat of such action would not go down well with the public when exposed in the media.
You know Peter if these people looked after clients the way they fanatically look after themselves the client lawyer relationship would work.

My view is that naming these criminals is critically in the public interest, and no stone should be left unturned in setting up client based websites to expose them. People are saying enough is enough, lawyers are all Douglas Mill's with that fanatical mentality of protecting each other no matter what torment they cause. They are enemies of all clients.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers have ruined so many decent members of society they have built a human wall of resistance to their corrupt ways.

We humans are the new regulators, I understand it costs £30,000.00 for a lawyer to take legal action against dissidents. Well lawyers it has cost us a lot more in human suffering, and we detest you as a group and will never give in in the fight to name and shame as many as possible.

Let us be realistic, if you lawyers are balanced, in our shoes you would be doing the same.

Down with the criminal corrupt Law Societies who maintain clients misery by protecting the criminals who ruin lives.

Anonymous said...

While our jails keep filling with young men and women whose property offences amount to nothing like the extent of something such as this, when our schools and hospitals on their impoverished budgets have to account for every single penny spent in their desperate attempt to hold together the fabric of a decent society, those in high offices of government act with impunity.

Scott Veitch, Reader in Law at the University of Glasgow



Anonymous said...

The Law Societies masters of legal apartheid.

Anonymous said...

If lawyers have got nothing to hide they have nothing to be afraid of............

Anonymous said...

The Law Society must be kicking themselves for not prosecuting Andrew Penman now.

Give em hell Peter.