Friday, September 16, 2011

DISASTER REPORT : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission study of Law Society “Guarantee Fund” suffers 13% turnout, finds clients ‘treated as criminals’

13% response disaster for SLCC report on Law Society’s crooked Guarantee Fund. A REPORT carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) into the notoriously corrupt “Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund”, a ‘client protection’ scheme operated by the Law Society of Scotland to compensate clients who have lost money because of theft by dishonest crooked lawyers & their staff has been hit by an ABYSMALLY low response of only NINETEEN replies from ONE HUNDRED & FORTY FIVE questionnaires (13%) after the Law Society refused to hand over client contact details to the SLCC & its selected research company who were investigating claims against crooked lawyers in Scotland. One client who did reply to the survey said claimants “were made to feel like a criminal” at Guarantee Fund hearings.

THE REPORT, carried out on behalf of the SLCC by Progressive, a research company based in Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, claimed the Law Society of Scotland had REFUSED to hand over a detailed contact list of members of the public who had contacted or submitted claims to the Guarantee Fund over the past 5 years. The company & SLCC were left with NO CHOICE other than to leave the Law Society of Scotland to distribute the forms to clients that it felt should be provided with a questionnaire.

Jane IrvineJane Irvine, SLCC Chair left out critical mentions in report announcement. In its announcement publicised online, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission DID NOT mention the low turnout of NINETEEN PARTICIPANTS in its Press Release, available HERE, nor did the SLCC publicise the fact the Law Society of Scotland distributed the forms themselves after REFUSING to hand over Guarantee Fund claimant details to the company preparing the report or the SLCC itself. Legal insiders have commented today the survey was badly handed by the SLCC who were branded by one official from a Scottish consumer organisation as “too close to the Law Society for comfort” and “unwilling at best to get to the truth”. I reported on just how badly this latest SLCC survey was being handled in an earlier article, here : CENSORED : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's secret new Master Policy & Guarantee Fund research 'shuts out' real victims of crooked lawyers

Progressive, the firm conducting the survey on behalf of the SLCC said in their now published report : “Progressive was not able to receive a database of contact details from the Law Society of Scotland. As such the questionnaire packs were sent to LSS for labelling and distribution.”

“There were two categories of respondents on the Law Society of Scotland’s database and therefore two methods of distribution. For the first category, LSS had contact details for the claimant themselves so packs were sent directly to them. For the second, LSS’s database only contained details for the names of the claimants’ solicitors. In order to account for this, the questionnaire packs included an additional letter asking the solicitor to forward on to their client named on the front of the envelope.”

“In total, 145 questionnaires were distributed; 85 that went directly to claimants and 60 that went to claimants via their solicitor. In order to optimise the response rates to the survey reminder letters were sent to respondents halfway through the fieldwork period. The fieldwork period was also extended to give maximise the opportunity for claimants to respond.”

“Questionnaires were returned directly to Progressive in freepost envelopes. In total 19 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis, denoting a 13% response rate.”

It had been hoped to send questionnaires out to 250 people although for unexplained reasons and doubtless due to the fact the Law Society of Scotland were controlling distribution, only 145 eventually went out.

The company were further critical of the Law Society’s methods of distribution, stating “A large proportion of questionnaires were not sent directly to claimants. Sending questionnaires first to solicitors to pass on to their clients would have affected the likelihood of the questionnaires reaching them and also their likelihood of completing them.” Progressive further warned : “This is likely to impact response rates.”

The report also claims : “Missing information on labels. A few solicitors fed back that there was no client contact on the packs they were sent so were unable to forward these on, again, affecting the final response rate (at least 4 reported this to be the case)” and that some clients who were sent questionnaires by the Law Society of Scotland could not be traced because they had moved address.

The report went onto state all of those who eventually responded to the survey (NINETEEN PEOPLE IN FIVE YEARS) were suspiciously successful in their claim “to some extent” but even among those, there was still evidence of some dissatisfaction with the outcome and the decisions behind it. Clearly the Law Society of Scotland had chosen clients it thought would give the Guarantee Fund a better write up than others with more horrific experiences.

The report states : “Ten of our respondents were successful in their claim, all of whom were satisfied with the outcome. Six were partially successful and of these, four were dissatisfied.”

From the comments provided as to the reasons why, one respondent’s dissatisfaction stemmed from the perception that they were not provided with direct answers for the decision. Three comments related to respondents not receiving full compensation and feeling that the decision made and the reasons for it were not clearly explained to them.

One respondent to the survey stated : “It seemed as if the Scottish Solicitor’s Guarantee Fund were trying to pay as little as possible and were looking after their own interests. Again you were made to feel like a criminal at the hearing.” Another respondent said : “I was not fully compensated for a fraud that was not my fault but my solicitor's, who was now in jail and yet I had to suffer financially and with stress.”

Comments from the five people who provided reasons for their satisfaction expressed relief that the process had come to an end and they perceived that the Fund had worked well for them.

One respondent said : “Achieved desired outcome although would have preferred not to have gone through the process at all.”Another respondent said : “[Because] I felt that I could move forward and bring closure to the whole affair [as] I had felt very let down by the solicitor involved in my particular case.”

The full report by Progressive on the Guarantee Fund can be read here : Progressive Guarantee Fund Report 2011 (pdf) or online here : Progressive Guarantee Fund Report 2011

Bearing in mind the turnout for the report is so small, its findings & recommendations are very limited, due mostly to the notably poor advertising of the survey by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (who apparently wanted as small a number of participants as possible) and the fact the Law Society of Scotland were allowed to distribute the forms on their own, rather than identification & distribution be handed over to the report’s authors or an independent body.

Margaret Scanlan - Called to the Bars - Sunday Mail  15 March 2009 emailChancers Calling - SLCC Board Member Margaret Scanlan branded Guarantee Fund claimants as “chancers”. It should also be borne in mind SLCC Board Members have already expressed anti-client sentiment against claimants to the Guarantee Fund, where in one publicised incident, SLCC Board Member Margaret Scanlan raged against claimants to the Guarantee Fund, branding them “chancers” in a series of bitter emails revealed to the public by Freedom of Information legislation, revealed here : Officials pull FOI disclosures as Guarantee Fund "chancer" emails show Law Society anti-client bias has migrated to Legal Complaints Commission & here : MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members 'booze culture conduct' reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers

THE second piece of research carried out by University of Manchester was a statistical analysis of data from claims. The research analysed the statistical data to establish if there were any relationships between different aspects of claims made. What the research did not do was explore or look into the detail of individual claims or seek to establish if there were underlying reasons for any findings.

The statistical analysis identified a relationship between the number and total value of claims received in the same year as an individual claim and the level of payment made on an individual claim. The University's conclusion was that the outcomes of individual claims on the Guarantee Fund are statistically related to factors beyond the 'merits of the individual claim'. The SLCC said it “noted this conclusion but has not drawn any conclusions about underlying reasons, as they could be subject to many different factors, not all of which would be within the control of the LSS.”

The University of Manchester ‘statistical analysis’ of claims data, can be read here : University of Manchester Guarantee Fund Report 2011 (pdf)

SLCCSLCC statement is short on detail or accuracy of how Guarantee Fund survey actually turned out. The SLCC concluded in its announcement : “The SLCC is keen to take this work forward. Following on from the two pieces of research we are using the results from the Progressive research as a baseline for ongoing monitoring. The questionnaire used in the research will be issued by the LSS to all claimants at the end of the claims process. These questionnaires will be returned to and monitored by the SLCC. We will share information with the LSS and publish findings periodically will carry out an audit of a sample of the actual claims from which the University of Manchester took the statistical data. During the first half of 2012 we will examine the actual cases, the processes followed and the records of decisions to explore whether there are identifiable reasons for the statistical relationship.”

Two earlier articles featured the initial findings of the University of Manchester 2009 report into the Guarantee Fund & Master Policy, here : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers and here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Page 8 - Consumer Focus Scotland refused cooperation from Law SocietySuicides, illness, family breakdown, loss of homes, loss of livelihood were all identified by interviewees as being directly associated with members of the public’s dealings with the Law Society & Master Policy. During the research team's investigation of claims against the Master Policy, team members were told of suicides which had occurred due to the way in which clients of crooked lawyers had been treated by the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers who operate the Master Policy protection scheme for solicitors against negligence claims. Quoting the report : "Several claimants said that they had been diagnosed with depression; that they had high blood pressure; and several had their marriages fail due to their claim. Some had lost a lot of money, their homes, and we were told that one party litigant had committed suicide."

Further excerpts from the Manchester University report into the Law Society's Master Policy & Guarantee Fund show the intolerable strain clients who attempt to claim against their 'crooked' solicitor have to endure : Claimants "described being intimidated, being forced to settle rather than try to run a hearing without legal support, and all felt that their claims’ outcomes were not fair. Some claimants felt that they should have received more support, and that this lack was further evidence of actors within the legal system being “against” Master Policy claimants. Judges were described as being “former solicitors”, members of the Law Society – and thus, against claimants. Some described judges and other judicial officers as being very hostile to party litigants."

Law Society & Scottish GovernmentScottish Government have been promoting use of Law Society Guarantee Fund for new entrants to legal services market. Attempts by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to avoid portraying the Guarantee Fund too badly may be linked to the reliance of the SNP Scottish Government in using the Guarantee Fund as a compensation vehicle for clients of new entrants to Scotland’s supposedly expanded legal services market. I reported on this ludicrous idea in an earlier article here : Legal Services Bill vote by MSPs will force all victims of 'crooked lawyers' to use Law Society's corrupt ‘claims dodging’ Guarantee Fund

As far back as March 2009, I revealed in an article : Law Society's 'Guarantee Fund' for clients of crooked lawyers revealed as multi million pound masterpiece of claims dodging corruption

Yet after THREE YEARS, this latest attempt by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to investigate the Law Society of Scotland’s Guarantee Fund has resulted in yet another failure. There is noticeably no mention in the announcement of how the latest survey into the Master Policy is progressing, if at all.

Clearly as long as the Law Society of Scotland control both the Guarantee Fund and the Master Policy, there will be no “ultimate client protection” for consumers of legal services in Scotland and clearly as long as the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission remains as cowardly and ineffective as it is, there will be no such thing as independent effective regulation of the legal profession in Scotland and therefore no protection for clients from ‘crooked lawyers’.


Anonymous said...

It must be bad when a study gets a lower turnout than current voting intentions for the LibDems!

Why the heck did they allow the Law Society to send out the forms?

Anonymous said...

Another SLCC F*CK UP??
They are getting good at this!

Anonymous said...

The real criminals are at the Law Society of Scotland something we've all known for a long time now courtesy of Peter's fine investigative journalism!

Anonymous said...

One respondent to the survey stated : “It seemed as if the Scottish Solicitor’s Guarantee Fund were trying to pay as little as possible and were looking after their own interests. Again you were made to feel like a criminal at the hearing.” Another respondent said : “I was not fully compensated for a fraud that was not my fault but my solicitor's, who was now in jail and yet I had to suffer financially and with stress.”

The usual nothing doing from the SLCC no matter how crooked the lawyers & Law Society are.

I'd say this proves you right all along Peter the SLCC is a useless entity needing to be replaced by an independent regulator with genuinely independent people in it but the SNP's definition of independence when it comes to matters legal seems to take a turn for the worst and they put lawyer lovers on these quangos instead of people with a genuine motive to improve it.

Keep up the good work mate

Anonymous said...

Good posting,I'll read it more when I get home!

Anonymous said...

You are correct as usual.The release put out by the SLCC has no mention of the 19% response.
Something they clearly wanted to keep quiet about.

Anonymous said...

In other words it turned out the way the Law Society wanted it to turn out - revealing nothing.

The Law Society can afford to be made to look like a bunch of crooks because no one will do anything about them.The Scottish Govt need them to keep the legal profession in line so forget MacAskill doing anything about it as long as he is Justice Secretary.

Anonymous said...

I think you hit the nail on the head with your reference to the Scottish Govt not wanting criticism of the Guarantee Fund because of its position in abs.

Clever you.

Anonymous said...

A fit up from start to finish.

Its easy to see the SCLC dont want to do anything that gets them in trouble and this Guarantee fund is one of those things.

Maybe the company doing it would have been better walking away after they were told they wouldnt be able to hand out the question papers

Anonymous said...

Yes Irvine leaves out the details of what really happened haha who will believe a survey with 19 people out of hundreds!

Anonymous said...

Another expensive report commissioned by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to make everyone liars.Ms Irvine and her client hating board will have been praying for a miracle report claiming the Law Society and its Master Policy or Guarantee Fund are the perfect little engines of client protection Douglas Mill and his cohorts always maintained.
Instead all that happens is Peter Cherbi is proved to be accurate once again at the entire Scottish legal profession's expense.

Does the SLCC not tire of being proved to be a band of charlatans and liars?

Anonymous said...

Progressive, the firm conducting the survey on behalf of the SLCC said in their now published report : “Progressive was not able to receive a database of contact details from the Law Society of Scotland. As such the questionnaire packs were sent to LSS for labelling and distribution."

Destined to fail from the start then.

Anonymous said...

Chancers Scanlan and the rest of them will be dancing on bar tables tonight celebrating another effort to protect the precious LSS

Anonymous said...

One respondent to the survey stated : “It seemed as if the Scottish Solicitor’s Guarantee Fund were trying to pay as little as possible and were looking after their own interests. Again you were made to feel like a criminal at the hearing.” Another respondent said : “I was not fully compensated for a fraud that was not my fault but my solicitor's, who was now in jail and yet I had to suffer financially and with stress.”

I'm beginning to understand why Scottish lawyers should be hated the world over.Vermin to allow this to continue and ordinary people be made to suffer for money into the pockets of this scum.

Anonymous said...

What a laughing stock the Scottish legal system is with thugs like the Law Society of Scotland dictating to everyone what can/cant be done against their hoodlum lawyers.

Lets all avoid using crooked Scottish law firms and their backers!

Anonymous said...

Good article,factually correct although a bit technical.Are you sure anyone in Scotland can understand all this stuff about lawyers?
It strikes me most people even in England are so dumb these days they just go into a lawyers office and let them get on with it not realising they are probably making the biggest mistake of their life and when it all goes tits up they expect the Legal Ombudsman to do the impossible.

Anonymous said...

Even Currys have better guarantees than the Law Society!
On the subject of Currys if their customer satisfaction were as rubbish as this Watchdog and Which? would be all over them.
So why the deafening silence from our so-called consumer protectors and our license fee wasters?

Anonymous said...

The SLCC's website is the worst I've ever seen for a regulator.Is it purposely designed to be as unhelpful as possible?

Their press release (if you can call it that) on this report you are quoting is the biggest load of bullshit I've read for years.

They say the following :

The overall findings were:

more people were satisfied with the Guarantee Fund process than were not
for those that were dissatisfied, comments largely fell into two key areas:
the length of time the process took to complete and the lack of, or inaccurate, information

more people than not felt that the process was easy to understand, fair and objective, and easy to complete
the majority of people who responded believed the Guarantee Fund is designed to protect the public, that the decision making process is fair and objective, and that the outcomes reached through it are usually fair"

Yet the actual report is (as you point out) compiled from the results of 19 people out of 145 and those 19 were sent the papers by the Law Society (no doubt in some kind of stitch up we'll never get to know the details of)

I'm betting Monday's law section of the hootie will run it with a "More people like it than not" headline and then forget about mentioning the rest of this spin city disaster.

Maybe they should change their name to the Scottish Legal Bullshit Commission and others should think long & hard about how they deal with this bunch of client haters.

Anonymous said...

Neither the SLCC or the Law Society are to be trusted,they've been saying the same for years and did nothing about these claims just look at that Swinney Mill video you posted from years ago its still the same nothing happens against these crooks just more talk

Anonymous said...

Thanks for putting up my comment!

While I'm on again I'd like to ask everyone how many msps do you think are getting paid by lawyers or the Law Society to look the other way in all this?
Surely it has to be silence money keeping all this under wraps?

Anonymous said...

19 people out of 145 replied and most of them say they were satisfied?
Its got to be rigged.

Anonymous said...

Still going?
Here's one for you and you can leave the comment up if you like.
A solicitor you may have heard of wrote in his reply to the LSS about a complaint he hoped his "annoying client will catch cancer and save the Law Society dealing with it"

Nice to know how quickly solicitors turn when their dishonesty is the subject of a complaint.

Is Kenny MacAskill going to be Justice Minister for life? said...

Yes Peter is clever.This is one of the reasons I read his blog and with reference to the comment about Scots not understanding "stuff about lawyers" I'd like to inform whoever wrote it I understand what Peter has exposed.I also understand the great efforts and expense put in by the Law Society against Mr Cherbi's reporting on the legal system.A true fighter for justice unlike some I could mention.

For those of you wondering why the slcc are pouring money into these hollow reports,as Peter has written in the post the Guarantee Fund ties up with the Scottish Government,the slcc feet dragging is due to the need for the GF in the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2007.

The GF is mentioned by name in the act.See here:

Anonymous said...

The SLCC is one big disaster anyway so this is not a surprise.What is a surprise is they botehred to publish it although if the ydidnt I'm sure you would have somehow managed to get a copy anyway.

Thanks for your honest reporting!

Anonymous said...

You wont get very far with the Scottish Racist Party in charge and as your name isnt Scottish I guess you can expect a rough ride or you are probably getting that already right?
After all Scotland is now well known for being the land of anti catholic murders,letter bombs and racism right?

Anonymous said...

Another respondent said : “I was not fully compensated for a fraud that was not my fault but my solicitor's, who was now in jail and yet I had to suffer financially and with stress.”

You are all reading this I hope.

If your lawyer rips you off you never get any or all of the money back.This is what the Guarantee Fund is really about.Guaranteeing you are f*cked by your lawyer.

Have sense people avoid using lawyers.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC statement about monitoring claims to the Guarantee Fund is a lie.

I have a registered claim against the Guarantee Fund and I asked them to look at it.They refused and told me they would not reply to any further correspondence about my claim.

I can send you copies of their letters to prove what I have said.

Anonymous said...


What you really mean is racism & domestic terrorism.

The problem is if anyone debates it or points it out they are lunged on by nationalist fanatics hence the lack of debate and idiotic staged pr attempts such as sending the Justice Committee to the Old Firm match.

Anonymous said...

Oh well look at it this way Peter.

Of the 19 people WHO WERE ALLOWED to reply to the survey some of them gave critical comments!

Anonymous said...

13% reply rate?
Well if Scanlan has been calling everyone "chancers" no wonder no one bothered replying to it.

Anonymous said...

Yes I must agree its good to see Peter proved correct once again by the legal profession's attempts at discrediting criticism!

I dont think the Law Society have ever went after a journalist as much as they have against Peter in recorded history!

Anonymous said...

The part about the lack of addresses for claimants is a bit of a laugh considering the office responsible for the Guarantee Fund has records dating back decades.

Clearly some people were never meant to reply.

Anonymous said...

In the list of "Verbatim Comments" in Progressive's report I had a bit of a laugh at some of the clients.
Really makes you wonder why these people were ever allowed near a lawyer in the first place although I dont think there's any doubt the gf is probably as crooked as Peter says.

Anonymous said...

“Progressive was not able to receive a database of contact details from the Law Society of Scotland. As such the questionnaire packs were sent to LSS for labelling and distribution.”

A bit like asking Hitler to pick his jury?
The company might have been better walking away but hats off to them for at least telling the unpalatable truth about the Law Society refusing to give out the details.

Anonymous said...

Jane will be pleased with how you reported it.
Someone who used to be there told me they are fixated with you.
All those lawyers should be so happy how their money is being spent!

Anonymous said...

Something going on here - thousands of complaints a year to the Law Society/SLCC (one year it was about 5000) according to one of yours and in the past 5 years only 19 people have been able to claim against this "Guarantee" Fund?

The Law Society and the SLCC must be taking the p*ss!

Anonymous said...

Nice one Peter you cracked it wide open!

Anonymous said...

I recall the authors of the 2009 report also complained about obstruction by the Law Society of Sotland by denying them access to important information. Having been allowed to get away with it then the Scottish legal profession have again betrayed the merit of cosistancy by doing the exactly the same in 2011.

And still the spineless SLCC do not dare ask for, far less demand, a copy of the Mastr Policy it is responsible for overseeing.

No wonder the Scottish Legal System has longsince been held in contempt worldwide, and deemed by Dr Hans Koechler (UN Advisor on Human Rights) as fit only for a 'Banana Republic'.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't it be the lawyers who are made to feel like criminals because its them who are stealing their clients money?

The system is back to front!

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are crooked and good at it just like bent cops

Anonymous said...

People Wake-up!

This is the greatest gift yet from the untouchables!

The Law Society would not provide names and addresses of the public to allow an 'impartial & fair' analysis of claims against the Guarantee Fund. This is an organisation, according to statute, that is 'supposed' to be carrying out duties and responsibilities to 'protect' the interests of the 'PUBLIC'(Not to protect self interest as they have clearly done here). eg The Law Society get to 'cherry-pick' those members of the public, who they think, according to their own secretly held papers (not subject to FOI) would be more sympathetic towards the Law Society & Guarantee Fund Process (Probably as a result of a payout). So they send out the questionaires to an insignificantly statistical sample of 125. Then, given that only 13% of these 'cherry-picked' members of the public responded and that some were even critical shows how even in such a small and biased sample how much contempt and distrust the Scottish Public have in the Law Society and the Guarantee Fund!

Moreover, for the SLCC to twist the findings of the analysis to represent a favourable finding for the Law Society and the Guarantee Fund proves once and for all, what many of the Scottish Public have come to realize is that the SLCC is the Law Society in disguise.

If this is not the case, then Rosemary Agnew should remove the SLCC press release forthwith, commission a new and fair analysis by demanding the details for all of the people who have had the misfortune to have to use the Guarantee Fund process, from the Law Society, under threat of Court action as they would be failing in their Statutory duty under Section 2 (1) of the Solicitor (Scotland) Act 1980, in order that the truth comes out.

Peace out.

Judy x

Anonymous said...

Another one here the slcc refused to talk about us trying to put a claim in to this guarantee fund refused to give us info refused to write more to us about it


Professor John Flood, Professor of Law an Sociology at the University of Westminster. Speaking to Diary of Injustice today, Professor Flood commented on the Law Society of England & Wales battle against Solicitors From Hell. He said : “What I can say is that the Law Society should be thinking about the clients who feel so aggrieved that they are compelled to write to SfH. That to pursue Rick Kordowski is to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the substantive issues in the complaints.”



Although the same applies if you go up against many other professionals - who are insured by the same insurers, Marsh, Royal Sun Alliance, let us say you want to sue your lawyer.

If you try and sue a lawyer, you will find your lawyers are insured by Marsh & RSA, your crooked lawyer and their lawyers will be insured both by Marsh & RSA, the Sheriff or Judge in your case is a subscribing member of the Law Society of Scotland and this is also be insured by Marsh & RSA, and several of the Scottish Courts Service staff, as well as the Auditor of the Court, have similar insurance arrangements.

I think anyone would agree there is a problem in that - a client is fighting a system where everyone except the client, pays into the same insurance arrangement the client is trying to claim against.

There is certainly a conflict of interest, which time & again, prevents negligence claims against crooked lawyers from ever getting a fair hearing.

How can a member of the public go into court when everyone except themselves is insured by the same insurers and ALL except themselves will benefit if their claim & case are dismissed !!

Most people would call that a fit-up.

Lawyers will take cases on because they make money from Legal Aid but you will NEVER GET TO COURT.

Try complaining to the Law Society, a waste of time.

I know I have been there.

Post you complaint here on Solicitors from Hell (It will make you feel better - Guaranteed!)


Anonymous said...

This latest SLCC fit up on behalf of the Law Society fails to impress.

What cost this time?Another 10K+ to prove Peter correct all along about the Master Policy& Guarantee Fund being corrupt?

You must be happy!

Anonymous said...

Something going on here - thousands of complaints a year to the Law Society/SLCC (one year it was about 5000) according to one of yours and in the past 5 years only 19 people have been able to claim against this "Guarantee" Fund?.



Do not become a victim, learn from us said...

Lawyers are blind to reality, they hate web sites so they hate clients and use the legal system to block victims of lawyers from justice. They are honest al right.

Anonymous said...

This is great to see the legal profession hung by their own rope once again!

Guarantee Fund should be renamed Corruption Protection Fund!

Anonymous said...

Clearly this is a very in your face type fraud and has been going on for years.There's so much money involved in it some of it is probably being used to pay off people not to expose it.

Anonymous said...

If the Law Societies shut down Solicitors from Hell it proves that even in a democracy powerful groups can serve their own vested interest.

The mistake they make is that shutting websites will not change lawyers attitudes to clients. So more sites will spring up.

Funny how lawyers support freedom of speech but become intolerant of anyone critisizing them.

Anonymous said...

One respondent to the survey stated : “It seemed as if the Scottish Solicitor’s Guarantee Fund were trying to pay as little as possible and were looking after their own interests. Again you were made to feel like a criminal at the hearing.”

The same can be said of the SLCC.Make a complaint to them and you will all see just like myself how they treat you as a criminal while as Peter already pointed out your rotten lawyer gets the Legal Defence Union in on his side to wipe the slate clean.

Scandalous.Living in Hell cannot be any worse than dealing with a Scottish lawyer and the SLCC.

Anonymous said...

Take it from one who has already tried and failed against the Guarantee Fund,its easier to get a new kidney than claim against these bunch of bastards.I was treated like an animal and the lawyer I hired to help me put the claim forward was part of the set up from the start.

Anonymous said...

Yes this SLCC must be a crooked lawyer's dream.All it does is shut down complaints by telling people there's nothing in their complaint worth investigating or some other poor excuse.What a dream for the client robbers of the Scottish legal world!

Anonymous said...

Comment at 22:32

Probably the reason lawyers are so happy to pay for its upkeep and the Law Society's media allies are used to rubbish unwanted criticism of it.

Anonymous said...

British Lawyers, a network of evil.

Anonymous said...

You seem to have a bit of an exclusive on this one Peter,I dont see it published anywhere else at the moment.

Perhaps they might have done better if they had rigged the survey as the Law Society usually does and then use one of their own 'journalists' to write it up praising the legal profession for its efforts as the Law Society usually does with a great deal of success.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Take it from one who has already tried and failed against the Guarantee Fund,its easier to get a new kidney than claim against these bunch of bastards.I was treated like an animal and the lawyer I hired to help me put the claim forward was part of the set up from the start.
Yes that is why Royal Sun Alliance insure doctors, lawyers, accountants, surveyors because a lawyer taking legal action against these groups is actually taking legal action against the underwriters of the Master policy, Royal Sun Alliance.

Lawyers kill off legal aid too, it is not a justice system but a protection racket for the professions. The professions and big business are a unit to thwart off any threats to them in terms of reputation or fanancial risks.

Trust a lawyer, I urge all people NEVER TRUST THEM. They created this system to protect their interests, no lawyer is ever on his clients side.

Anonymous said...

As I have said many times before it is their law so let them keep it. After being ripped off three time in the past by local crooked lawyers I decided to do everything myself without going near them I have even sold four houses without going near an estate agent or a lawyer and also drew up my own will. It is much less bother and costs nothing but your own time.

It is simple don't go near the bastards because "YOU DO NOT NEED THEM" it will amaze you how easy it is to do, not to mention the money you will save.

Anonymous said...

Why don't we all dispense with the overly familiar acronyms and replace them with these more accurate alternatives?

Law Society of Scotland (LSS): MEANS - Corrupt Lawyers Union

Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT): MEANS - The Edinburgh Lunch Club

The Guarantee Fund (GF): MEANS -Corrupt Lawyer Protection Fund

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC): MEANS - Lawyers are safe business as usual

Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB): MEANS - Commit fraud allow fraud

Crown Office (CO): MEANS - Lets protect our Lawyer brethren from all criminal acts

Anonymous said...

I've been trading letters with the SLCC for over 6 months and still no further forward on my complaint.Its as if they dont want to do anything for me and so far no one has brothered to offer me my £1700 back from my thieving solicitor and they never told me about this Guarantee fund I'm reading about here.

Anonymous said...

I knew someone who tried to make a claim against this Guarantee Fund,it took him seven years and he ended up paying more to his lawyer to help him than what he got out of it.Its a complete fraud and everyone should be told about it.
Good work Mr Cherbi.