Friday, October 14, 2011

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to publish details of ‘loose change’ client compensation as board & staff live it up on YOUR millions

SLCC montageThe SLCC’s staff & Board members have done well out of expenses & salaries while some ruined clients received £10 for their losses caused by rogue lawyers. AS the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) prepares carefully arranged coverage to promote its ‘impending’ Annual Report and announce its new intake of Board members to replace its original mix of lawyers, ex lawyers, ex Police Officers & quangocrats, many of whom have multiple jobs and who managed to claim between them more than HALF A MILLION POUNDS IN EXPENSES alone since being appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in 2008, it can be reported today the amounts of compensation awarded to clients who have lost money or had their financial & legal affairs ruined by their solicitors IS SO LOW, in some cases only amounting to A MEAGRE TEN POUNDS (£10), the SLCC is afraid to release the information via Freedom of Information legislation.

Insiders close to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who approached Diary of Injustice with details of the paltry amounts awarded in compensation to clients whose legal affairs have been totally ruined by Scottish law firms claim the money handed out to victims of ‘crooked lawyers’ amounts to “loose change” compared to the massive sums of money paid out annually to its Board members in expenses & salaries, lavish staff wages where some are paid up to £1300 per week, and over TEN MILLION POUNDS including TWO MILLION POUNDS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY which has flowed into the SLCC since 2008.

The SLCC can ‘direct’ a solicitor to to pay compensation, having the power to award up to £20,000 to clients who have been affected by their solicitors failures. The SLCC can also recommend compensation be paid to clients by the Law Society of Scotland if Society fails to correctly investigate complaints.

However, insiders have disclosed to Diary of Injustice that some of these awards made by the SLCC total no more than a measly £10 for significant Law Society failures, and to make matters worse, Law Society Committees have gone on to further reduce even their own reporter’s recommendations of compensation of a few hundred pounds to clients whose complaints against their solicitors have involved in some cases, life threatening legal issues and medical negligence cases, and in others the failure of complex legal dealings which have left some clients on benefits and others in jail.

The SLCC, responding to a Freedom of Information request made in early July for information on the total amounts of money awarded to clients and total numbers of awards, confirmed they held the information but refused to release it. The SLCC said it would not release the information to journalists as it was planning to release the figures as part of its latest annual report, which it claimed in August would be published within twelve weeks of the initial request although that date has now come & gone yet no annual report has been published.

SLCC refusal to release compensation awards infoCompensation so low it cannot be reported ? The SLCC refused to release the data, some claim because it needs to bury it among other statistics. The SLCC said in its response : “The SLCC has considered whether to withhold the information is reasonable and decided that it is because it will enable us to publish the information in context and in conjunction with other information about complaints. Also as the information relates to year-end data, it is in the process of being checked for accuracy and completeness as part of the preparation of annual report information.”

The SLCC went onto state : “The information requested is pertinent to the public in that it gives an indication of the effectiveness of the SLCC and information to both complainers and practitioners about outcomes of complaints. It could be argued that publishing this information as soon as possible is in the public interest fo this reason. However as a public authority, the SLCC has a responsibility to ensure that the information it makes public is accurate and complete. As with other data and information being collated for the SLCC’s annual report, the information you have requested is currently being checked. To release it now potentially could result in the release of incomplete information.”

“The SLCC has a wider duty to report on complaints about the legal profession. Putting information in an appropriate context and publishing it in conjunction with other information to add meaning and value to it is an essential part of that reporting. Releasing the information as requested would not enable that to happen. The SLCC has a statutory duty to lay its annual report before Parliament. It is in the public interest that this is complete and appropriately quality controlled. Release of discrete sets of data in advance of publication would not support that.”

An official from one of Scotland’s Consumer organisations commenting on the SLCC’s refusal to release the figures on compensation awarded to victims of crooked lawyers said : “In other words they are going to try and bury the information within their annual report so the effect of it will be watered down.”

She continued : “The reluctance to publish the data prior to the annual report appears to back up speculation the figures are on the low side and therefore cannot be released without significant explanation by the SLCC to justify their position. This state of affairs appears to back up claims in letters we have received from consumers they are losing out on the amount of money involved in their complaint compared with how much they get back in compensation and that is if the compensation is even paid. The SLCC are failing to offer a satisfactory level of protection for consumers of legal services in Scotland.”

A client who has been treated very roughly by the SLCC and its staff said : “The SLCC are a bunch of liars.They promise to investigate your complaint and then it ends up coming back with most of the issues dismissed, and if you are lucky, a sentence telling you they are giving you 10 for being ruined by your lawyer. What a waste of space they are. I knew it from the start when I began speaking to them by phone.You could tell they hated clients.”

He continued : “I’d like to ask Jane Irvine and her board members who getting £300 a day just what can a client do with £10 compensation after their solicitor as robbed them of everything? This SLCC is a scam by the legal profession to wipe their corrupt colleagues slates clean after they have committed fraud against clients.”

While the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are sticking to their claim their annual report is to be published “imminently” readers will by now be well aware the SLCC’s previous annual reports have been published in January, the last one which I reported on here : ‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report

A senior Scottish Government insider who is known to have little confidence in the SLCC spoke to Diary of Injustice last night on the matter of compensation awards.

He said : “Clients who complain about their solicitors to the SLCC might have a better idea of what to expect out of their complaint if the SLCC were to list the value of the client’s case, in terms of how much the solicitor charged for their services, the value of the client’s transaction, money which had been taken from clients by other means, including alleged theft and the client’s view of how much they had lost, and then put those figures next to the actual amount awarded by the SLCC.”

Clearly if the client’s view of how much they have lost through the actions of their solicitor were made known, the awards of compensation made by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would look nothing short of “a joke” as some clients who have approached Diary of Injustice on this issue have indicated.

For example, in cases such as where solicitors have dipped their hands into a deceased client’s estate to help themselves, there is little benefit of awarding a client £50 compensation while the solicitor gets to keep the half million pounds he’s stolen for himself and is allowed to continue working as a solicitor. In another case where a solicitor has embezzled tens of thousands of pounds from a client’s bank account, £100 compensation is of little recompense for the loss while again, the solicitor carries on working, able to rip off as many clients as possible.

Clearly therefore, the losses quantified by clients who are forced to complain to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission about their solicitor should be agreed and published against the level of compensation awarded by the SLCC if there is to be any credible statistics on how well the SLCC is protecting consumers funds against crooked lawyers and a corrupt legal profession in Scotland.

However, while the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuses to talk about compensation paid out to clients, there is no reluctance on the part of the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) for England & Wales to comment on compensation figures.

adam_sampsonLegal Ombudsman for England & Wales, Adam Sampson. Adam Sampson, Chief Legal Ombudsman, says: “The amount of compensation we order for a case depends on what went wrong and what kind of additional expense or inconvenience a person has had to put up with as a result. The top amount we can order is £30,000. There is no hard and fast rule but we think decisions at the top of the scale will be quite unusual, there’ve only been a handful of cases over £20,000 since we started operating just under a year ago. Sometimes compensation isn’t the best solution– we also have powers to require lawyers to do more work to put things right, return papers or documents and to offer an apology or explanation. Most compensation amounts are likely to be a lot lower than the maximum. But we can't say in advance what this figure will be. It will all depend on the circumstances of each complaint.”

Examples of how the Legal Ombudsman has tackled compensation awards to consumers is reported in an earlier article here : 3 Years & £10 Million later, ‘too close to lawyers’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission left standing by 'more determined' Legal Ombudsman, where a law firm was forced to pay out £2,650 compensation to a client as the Ombudsman had ordered, plus interest after the LeO took the case to Birmingham County Court under the Legal Services Act 2007. The judge also ordered the firm to pay the Ombudsman’s costs of bringing the case of £1,215.

A second case at the same court was adjourned to allow a different firm to comply with an Ombudsman’s decision.In that case the firm had mismanaged work for a property owner and the Ombudsman had ordered them to pay their client £5,704 compensation. When the firm failed to comply, the Ombudsman issued proceedings for the court’s permission to enforce the decision as if it were a court judgement. The firm initially tried to argue that the decision was defective but, when the Ombudsman produced the relevant legal materials, at the eleventh hour agreed to settle the matter and pay the Ombudsman’s costs of £1,000. The hearing was adjourned for 28 days for this to be done.

A much larger 'award' of £180,000 was ordered by the Legal Ombudsman when a law firm was ordered to repay money it owed a club, as reported in an earlier article here : Annual report of Legal Ombudsman of England & Wales is ‘streets ahead’ of anti-consumer Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The case involved a social club where a law firm had used various excuses to delay a repayment after the club was sold and a substantial surplus totalling the £180,000 was be distributed towards the club’s members. The case is reprinted below from the LeO’s 2010 annual report to illustrate to readers the level of detail available to consumers of legal services in England & Wales on regulation issues.

Mr P is a trustee of a social club. He and his fellow trustees employed a firm of lawyers to sell the club's premises and to distribute the payment of the proceeds of sale to all the members of the club – about 180 people. The club found buyers, the sale went through and the proceeds were paid to the law firm, as is normal practice. Part of the money was used to pay off the club's final bills and some loans, which the firm handled, leaving a substantial amount of around £180,000 to go to members. The firm also advised that there would be a delay in distributing the money to members for various administrative reasons. Not being an expert in conveyancing, Mr P was satisfied with this. After six months the firm got in contact to begin to sort out the payment to members... and then went silent.

Mr P tried to raise his concerns with the firm. He then came to the Ombudsman, as the firm had not explained what had happened to the money from the sale and the members had not yet received any cash. He also asked that the firm refund the fees the trustees had already paid them, as the work had not been carried out properly.

We found that the firm had been a sole practice – but that the lawyer was no longer practising. This seemed to be why Mr P hadn't heard about the money from the sale of the club, though it was confusing as the solicitor occasionally got in touch. Mr P didn't know what to do, so had sought advice from a second firm of solicitors. They also tried to contact the first firm but had no reply. Mr P heard again briefly from his first lawyer to say that members would get their money soon... and then heard nothing again.

When we looked into this case, there was very little written down about what had happened. There was no client care letter, no written details about how the cash from the sale had been handled, or even about what money had been paid to clear debts and loans. What was clear was that there was some sort of problem in the law firm, and that the lawyer had tried to delay this matter. It was also clear that most of the money from the club was still in the solicitor's client account, even though the firm's records were very poor.

There had been no attempt to pay this money to the club members – but the money was the club's and should not have been kept for so long by the solicitor. It had been three years since Mr P and the other trustees put the club up for sale.

Our Ombudsman decided that there was around £180,000 outstanding and required the firm to re-pay this, with interest, to the club and its members. A formal Ombudsman's decision was required as the solicitor did not cooperate throughout our investigation. We also referred this and the outcome of this case to the regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, for their help in getting the club's cash out of the solicitor's client account and returned to Mr P and the other members.

An insider close to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission indicated : “There is little chance of this level of detail in connection with compensation awards being made public by the SLCC unless there is significant external pressure on them to do so”.


Anonymous said...

No wonder they want to hide it.
The chances are it'll cost the SLCC more than £10 to write a letter awarding someone £10.

Anonymous said...

One carefully planted story in a sympathetic newspaper about to be ruined?

Good work.Also good idea about the ACTUAL values of losses stacked up against what they pay as compensation although you will never get it because they cant admit they've given someone a tenner after being done out of their house etc

Anonymous said...

or in other words "Little piggies making big work for little result"

You better be careful Peter.Jane Irvine will be crying to Kevin Dunion again about your coverage being hostile to their modus operandi etc

Doesn't matter the SLCC slouches are giving out a few quid for some old biddy losing her life savings.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

There should be protesters camped outside these creeps offices until this is all put right


Anonymous said...

Can I hear the SLCC paper shredders working in the background?

Clearly they have a lot to hide.

Anonymous said...


Jane Irvine runs crying to Dunion about the SLCC getting a bad press from Peter?Christ that must be very embarrassing for Dunion.

Hey Jane if you are reading this get a life and help these people out who are getting stuffed by their lawyers instead of attacking people like Peter for doing the public a service warning about these sharks you are supposed to be watching!

Anonymous said...

Of course if someone has 14 jobs already they wont give a toss about people complaining about their lawyers will they now

Anonymous said...

And don't forget it all happened under Kenny MacAskill''s watch at Justice just like all the other justice screw ups.

Clearly this SLCC is not fit for purpose.

Anonymous said...

Does the SLCC want to spin the announcement a little?

Doubtless the figures will be buried in the small print on page xxxx of their annual report.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

No wonder they want to hide it.
The chances are it'll cost the SLCC more than £10 to write a letter awarding someone £10.

14 October 2011 14:09


Anonymous said...

If there was a shred of honesty in the Scottish Executive they would shut this SLCC monster down and go the full way for independent regulation of lawyers instead of cops & lawyers and their own stooges

Anonymous said...

Why should anyone stand for this?
What law is there to say we have to sit back and take this shit from crooked lawyers who are basically paying this lot to let them off the hook?
Its unbelievable this is happening just disgusting and then anyone who talks about it gets fitted up for making it public DISGUSTING

Anonymous said...

These lawyers and ex cops must be doing a great job of getting their corrupt lawyer pals off the hook at £10 a time.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the courts were fining drug dealers and murders £10 a crime? because this is exactly what is happening here.

Anonymous said...

Make these £300 a day wasters pay it all back they have done bugger all for any of us and NO ONE can trust a lawyer before or after the slcc!

Anonymous said...

MacBuckfast looks like he's having a great time in the piccie was it all smiles because he knew all his buddies in the legal profession would be able to steal to order and suffer only a tenner for it?


Anonymous said...

This is certainly not fair when someone's life is ruined by one of these bent lawyers and all they get in return is a cheque for £10 in the post.I can understand why people feel very angry about stuff like this its despicable to say the least.

pinchy said...

You were right all along - this bunch of sleaze merchants are just that and more to the point will that east coast rag be throwing a tin of red paint over you again in an effort to flower up the slcc as a fine upstanding organisation we now know it not to be?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

No wonder they want to hide it.
The chances are it'll cost the SLCC more than £10 to write a letter awarding someone £10.

14 October 2011 14:09

Probably true..

Anonymous said...

Simply shocking this is allowed to go on.What can anyone do with £10 after they have been robbed by their own lawyer

Anonymous said...

So they are either going to fabricate some info and stick it in along with their annual report or just playing for time.

I happen to know someone who complained to the SLCC and was treated pretty badly even after sending in all the evidence about his lawyer being a crook.He didn't even get a tenner and they told him not to write to them again.

Not much of a regulator is it.

Anonymous said...

I cant see the SLCC ever forcing some bent lawyer to pay back 180K to their clients am I right?

Anonymous said...

“The SLCC has considered whether to withhold the information is reasonable and decided that it is because it will enable us to publish the information in context and in conjunction with other information about complaints. Also as the information relates to year-end data, it is in the process of being checked for accuracy and completeness as part of the preparation of annual report information.”

A fiddle in the making by the sounds of it!

Anonymous said...

How come 2 million was spent by taxpayers on this stupid slcc if the lawyers claim they pay for it themselves?

Anonymous said...

What a rip off they knew what they were doing forming this quango to deal with the rest of us.
Sharks covering up for sharks is all I have to say on it.

Anonymous said...

Considering the kinds of letters I hear they send out to people its little wonder the comp is on the low side.

Crooked lawyers must be laughing all the way to the bank on this news because they can steal what they like and only have to pay back £10.

Anonymous said...

£40 here and not been paid yet.Our lawyer charged us £2,000 for a house sale which never went through.

// said...

Great news to start the week off.

I'll make off with a few of the client accounts for a test and see if your friends at the slcc slap me with a £10 fine on my return from sunnier shores!

Anonymous said...

The first comment is correct.I cant see a letter costing the SLCC less than £10 to write and mail off to a complainant.

If the figures were decent I'm sure they would have been forced to release them so I think we can take it from the overly long letter of refusal there are a lot of clients not getting back what they have lost.

Good work Peter and good for you for sticking with all this when the legal profession tried everything to knock you out.

Anonymous said...

Yes they pay out £10 to people with solicitor complaints, but if your lawyer & advocate have done something really bad you will get nothing not even an interview for fear of exposure and unavoidable prison sentence.

Anonymous said...

£1300 a week and £300 a day and these ....... are handing out £10 compensation to people whose lives have been utterly ruined by the scum of the legal profession?

Well I would not stand for this and neither should anyone.Its about time the sharp end was applied to these criminals who are getting away with committing justice crimes against humanity.

Anonymous said...

By any chance does "carefully arranged coverage" include bribing someone to write something decent about this mob?

I wouldn't trust these slippery slimebags if my life depended on it - they are no more than lawyers looking after lawyers at our expense.

Anonymous said...

"The SLCC are failing to offer a satisfactory level of protection for consumers of legal services in Scotland"

No kidding!

It must be a little demoralising a law which you all seem to have worked so hard to get passed was turned against everyone by the Scottish Gov and the Law Society.

Do you think there is any real hope for change in this constant habit of lawyers covering up for each other?

Anonymous said...

If Jane Irvine wants to stop the SLCC receiving a bad Press the answer is simple - Do Your Job Properly.

Anonymous said...

What would you think of the SLCC & Law Society if a lawyer & advocate had stolen money in unnecessary fees over a period of five years from their client who has a mental illness for a case they had deliberately ruined five years prior to the client signing their contract and done nothing even although the client ticked the disabled box in the slcc form? Because the slcc took no action the person was then hounded through the local sheriff court for the rest of their fictitious fees. Unfortunately if nothing is done about this this boil will eventually burst and I hope I'm abroad when it happens.

Anonymous said...

The word is that the SLCC don't do anything without first being told to do so by the Law society of Scotland. Ask Mary MacGowan Law Society of Scotland Head of Regulation Liason (Exactly who does she need to liase with and for what purpose? answers on a postcard, preferably to the police)

So you know where the £10 compensation idea came from?

It is no secret (certainly not to those members of the public unfortunate enough to have had to use the 'services' of the SLCC) that the SLCC is the Law Society of Scotland in disguise.

It is such a cruel trick perpetrated on the Scottish Public and shows the true and utter contempt the Law Society shows towards the Scottish Public.

This also reminds me of a statement made by the then depute Justice Minister Hugh Henry when giving evidence before the Justice 2 Committee when he said, that the changes to the legislation they were trying to bring in 'with the help of the Law Society was not to necessarily make changes but to make the public perceive that changes were been made' (A script straight from the Law Society of Scotland)

Agenda? SLCC

What has changed? Nothing

If anything the situation regarding 'self regulation' i.e Law Society still effecting control but this time covertly and insidiously under the auspices as the SLCC (supposedly an independent impartial and transparent body!)

This is Institutionalised Fraud.

This is defeating the ends of Justice.

What are the Police doing? They are supposed to be protecting the public OR is this a BIG BROTHER SOCIETY we are living in?

The £10 Compensation and the SLCC's repeated quashing of cast-iron, bona fide, cases where prima facie evidence of criminal activity is provided by the client is a mirror of the old CRO 'sifting panel'. A magical cabal of un-named persons who apparently convened to completely re-write the Law Society of Scotland's own Rules and Regulations in order that the most damaging and implicatory charges against their member solicitors were wiped clean from the charge sheet. How very convenient and no way for the Client to appeal such an unlawful design.

They are taking the mickey out of the Scottish Public?


Because they can. Plain and simple.

Becasue they are a law unto themselves.

Because they write the rule book, amend the rule book, disregard the rule book, ignore the rule book and invent the rule book at their whim, as-they-see-fit and with impunity.

We are being owned by them!

They are toasting each other over every single £10 compensation award and laughing at us plebians!

Anonymous said...

Once again, Fantastic journalism Peter in the interests of the Scottish Public.

Alex Salmond should be hailing you as a Champion of the people of Scotland for exposing the endemic corruption in the legal system/Law Society of Scotland.

I wonder how many people are going to second guess whether or not Alex Salmond REALLY has got Scots BEST INTERESTS at heart if he is going to continue to ignore this subject?

Salman Rushdi

Anonymous said...

What motivates Jane Irvine? Discuss

Does she have a superiority complex?

Does she despise the Scottish Public?

Has she a deep-seated love for all Scottish Lawyers and can see them doing no wrong whatsoever?

Is she easily swayed, flattered and influenced by Law Society of Scotland Lobbyists?

Is she acutely naive?

Is she just a dunderheed?

Why oh why is it...does she love soft rock...Status Quo?

As Toya Wilcox may have said Jane Irvine, 'You're a Mystereee...'

Anonymous said...

If it is true that the SLCC have been compensating people with insulting amounts then there is clear evidence that the organisation is not functioning as it is supposed to be functioning and as it says it is functioning.

Therefore the police should intervene to examine these incidents and if found unfit for purpose the SLCC should be shut down and there should be a fully independent regulator put in place forthwith.

It would seem that the SLCC has been an expensive tax payer paid exercise in the Law Society of Scotland telling the Scottish Government, 'I told you so. Let us have self regulation back.'

Anonymous said...

As I understand it Jane Irvine still acts as the Ombudsman, a go between between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Law Society of Scotland.

In her overseer capacity, would she not have the power to prevent the SLCC from humiliating clients with a nominal compensation award?

Anonymous said...

If the SLCC is to be a credible regulatory body, then it must have the confidence of the public.

For this to be the case:

i) There must be statistically more cases being proven against Scottish lawyers (You cannot go from having eg year on year say 1000 guilty lawyer cases to having 2 guilty lawyer cases, without being accused of being controlled by outside influences with an agenda i.e Law Society of Scotland)

ii) The punishment must fit the crime. i.e the reason the Scottish Public are being failed and continue to be failed by poor Scottish lawyers is that the Law Society of Scotland have been soft on their Lawyer members criminality for decades, which has meant there has built up an indifference to standards and the rule of law and the Scottish lawyers perceive little or no consequences should they be caught, meaning there is no disincentive for them not to act dishonestly.

Anyone looking for evidence of this can pick any case at random from the SSDT website and read the total devastation, wreckage and carnage caused by Scottish Lawyers and then see how they are disciplined.

It Beggars Belief!

This has become a Scottish-Lawyers-insiders-joke, where they meet and have a chuckle over their boozy buisiness luncheons, talking about the latest case where, 'even he got off Scot-Free...chink...'

iii) If a Scottish Lawyer steals (remember he/she as a Scottish lawyer is supposed to have a character above reproach, is often an Officer of the Court and does not have the excuse that he/she does not know the law.) or commits a criminal offence then a double indemnity/penalty should apply.

If £50,000 is stolen. £100,000 should be repaid to the wronged Client plus damages.

If a crime is committed equating to a minimum term of imprisonment of say 2yrs, then this should automatically be doubled to 4yrs minuimum... and so on

In the application of a regulatory body such as the SLCC - (the way it is set up was never meant to work as the Law Society of Scotland is to all intents and purpose a criminal organisation, solely operating for the interests of its lawyer members often in contravention to the rule of law. It has a complete disregard for the rights of the Scottish public, in contravention of Section 2(1) of the Solicitor (Scotland) Act 1980 )- the SLCC should have the power to enforce all Scottish lawyers firms to undertake professional indemnity insurance cover to cover them for all insurable risk for each Client's business.

In the event of negligence, or bad advice on behalf of the Scottsh Lawyer, there should be a quick effective remedy for the client to be recompensed forthwith, with any penalty falling on the Scottish lawyer and thereby his regulatory performance will be more easily kept in check by rising/lower insurance premiums as the case may be, where it hurts a Scottish Lawyer most, in his wallet(s).

Anonymous said...

What actually is the point of Jane Irvine?

Anonymous said...

The Chief Executive of the SLCC Rosemary Agnew should be ashamed of herself and should resign out of embarrassment.

To think that she is trying to justify to herself and her staff that she is serving the public is a sick joke.

People like her are holding Scotland back.

Please... go least you will be able to sleep at night....

Anonymous said...

Another here with a small fine compared to what my rotten b*****d of a lawyer took from us,the slcc alsotold me they would not read any more of my letters.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Peter Cherbi I have been released from my solicitor who has met me 11 times all on legal aid about a claim against a hospital and until last Wednesday I thought he was asking to see me another 11 times no all changed on Friday he told me the hospital has sent me a cheque for my fall and no fault or blame all because I told him I felt like I was treated like the people featured on Peter Cherbi who were nowhere with their legal aid lawyers I was paid this morning to my account and my solicitor said there is no fees I am thinking he is frightened because he has manyclients in legal aid probably does same with them how do I report it all can you write about it or a newspaper

Anonymous said...

The explanation they gave you for not releasing the information is far too long and indicative of fraud in my opinion.
I dont really think anyone (and possibly even yourself) expected much from this SLCC given it was full of lawyers and Police to begin with.You have proved many people correct with your work Mr Cherbi.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to say you are one of the few believable journalists with any credibility especially because of your chosen field of reporting the true nature of what justice is really all about.The people at the SLCC must hate your guts for telling the truth about them and their scandals.

Keep up the good work Peter.

Anonymous said...

Is it no wonder the SERIOUS FRAUD SQUAD/OFFICE no longer has jurisdiction in Scotland?

Is this deliberate, so that the Law Society of Scotland and their nefarious Lawyer members can bleed our country dry of our money?

Anonymous said...

It is long overdue for some SLCC staff whitleblowers to disclose the truth about this puppet organisation

Anonymous said...

If the Law Society of Scotland run the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, does that mean Lawyers are to blame for the mess its in?

So logic would dictate then that theere is a definite link between the Government and the Law Society of Scotland?

Even the most senior Scottish Lawyer in the land (Lord Advocate)is a member of the Scottish Cabinet/Government.

So wait a minute...The wrongful prosecution of Megrahi (Scottish Lawyers).

The Fraudulent Scottish Parliament building overspend (Scottish Lawyers)

The £1Billion and counting Edinburgh trams fraud (Scottish Lawyers dodgy contracts advice)

Does anyone see a trend here?

Who keeps benefiting? Scottish Lawyers

Who keeps losing out? Scottish tax payer!

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the Scottish Government remove Jane Irvine from post immediately, then get some hard-liner but fair arbiter in to take over from her.

If the complaints proven statistics then shoot up then PC plod makes a visit to Cruela de Irvine and its hand up the back time?

Anonymous said...

Fining any bent lawyer £10 for stealing from their clients should be made a criminal act in itself.

Anonymous said...

How many £10 awards did this bunch of LOSERS hand out this week?
More like their victims will never see it not even 5p!

Anonymous said...

Fining any bent lawyer £10 for stealing from their clients should be made a criminal act in itself.

19 October 2011 22:14

It probably is already, if it was done perniciously...

It is going to be interesting to hear Jane Irvine's justification for trivial and humiliating compensation awards.

Is she really going to argue that she has to keep the claims and compensation awards against Scottish Lawyers low in order to keep their SLCC levy premium low in a challenging economic climate?

OR were these cruel and damaging compensation awards only made by SLCC in the knowledge that they would be kept a secret?

Anonymous said...

It is only a matter of time before someone who has suffered through the SLCC complaints process, sues Jane Irvine and the SLCC Chief Executive for Misconduct in Public Office, due to the way that the SLCC operates.

It does not remotely protect the public from the Law Society of Scotland and it's Lawyer members.

There must be hundreds if not thousands of Lawyers Client's who have been abused in the past year or so who have been diswaided from making their justifiable complaint to the SLCC, in the knowledge that the only realistic outcome for them is, more heartache, misery, depression and damage never mind acheiving parity and no hope whatever of honest, realistic and fair compensation that is both commensurate with the act perpetrated by the Scottish Lawyer and a deterrent so that the Lawyer and any other Lawyer is priced-out of doing it again.

It is so blatently run by the Law Society of Scotland, that it is a wonder that any sane person would trust them to handle the complaint, especially considering the criminal way the Law Society have been allowed to act over regulating their members in the past.

Anonymous said...

Just to let you know one of the slcc nut jobs called in howling about your latest on their fines.I think its safe to say they are worried over the £10 fine episode.

Give 'em hell Peter as always!