Thursday, November 10, 2011

Scots to be ‘kept in dark’ on details of crooked lawyers while Legal Ombudsman’s ‘naming & shaming’ policy ‘will protect’ consumers in England & Wales

Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales to name & shame crooked lawyers while Scots consumers left in the dark over Scots legal profession’s villains. NAMING & SHAMING CROOKED LAWYERS is to go ahead in England & Wales in 2012 after a decision stating It is right to publish the names of lawyers in specific circumstances was announced earlier this week by the Office for Legal Complaints which oversees the Legal Ombudsman (LeO). The widely welcomed move for consumers of legal services in England & Wales comes after several consultations held by the Legal Ombudsman over plans to identify law firms & lawyers who let down their clients, moves which were supported by consumer organisations such as Which?, the Legal Services Consumer Panel, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), academics & UK Government Ministers.

SLCCScotland’s legal regulator the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has no plans to name & shame crooked lawyers. However, here in Scotland, there are currently NO PLANS by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) to identify the serial crooked lawyers & law firms who do business in the Scottish legal system. The SLCC has previously claimed all complaints must be treated confidentially, however critics & consumer advocates feel the SLCC’s confidentiality policy exists simply to protect lawyers, ensuring that consumers are not able to find out just how crooked some lawyers & law firms in Scotland really are.

While Scots consumers are to be left in the dark over how crooked their lawyers really are, the Legal Ombudsman’s office has moved ahead on the matter, issuing a Press Release Naming Lawyers – Protecting Consumers (pdf), in which it stated : “It is right to publish the names of lawyers in specific circumstances. That’s the decision of the Office for Legal Complaints which oversees the Legal Ombudsman.The Ombudsman has dealt with some seventy-thousand calls about the legal profession in the last year. From 2012, information about complaints resolved by an Ombudsman decision will be available to the public.”

Firms and individual lawyers will be named where there is a pattern of complaints or when it is in the public interest to do so.  The move is in response to issues raised by lawyers, consumers, Ministers and others who took part in the year-long consultation on the subject.

Elizabeth FranceElizabeth France, Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints. Commenting on the decision to allow the Legal Ombudsman to name & shame failing lawyers & law firms, Elizabeth France Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints said : “We consider we have struck a balance between protecting consumers and encouraging an independent and strong legal profession. Every day we know most lawyers do a good job for their clients – but there are some who simply don’t. That’s why it’s in the profession’s interest to make sure all who provide services to consumers are doing so effectively.”

Every three months the Legal Ombudsman will also publish lawyers’ names and firms involved in all complaints that have been resolved by a formal Ombudsman decision. This means that examples of good practice as well as bad will be there for all to see.

Ed Davey Consumer MinisterConsumer Minister Ed Davey MP. Commenting on the move, Ed Davey MP, the Consumer Minister said : “I am pleased that the Legal Ombudsman has decided to publish this data. This will make the legal profession stronger, improve service standards and consumers will be better protected as a result. As the Government set out in our consumer empowerment strategy, Better Choices, Better Deals, we are keen to see more information such as this being made available by ombudsmen and regulators.This will enable consumers to be armed with the best possible information before purchasing goods or services.”

Legal Services Consumer PanelLegal Services Consumer Panel Chief hails naming & shaming as ‘great success’. The decision has also been welcomed by consumer groups including the Legal Services Consumer Panel. The Panel’s Chair, Elisabeth Davies said : “This is great news for consumers who tell us they feel in the dark when trying to find a good lawyer. Today’s announcement means there will no longer be a hiding place for the minority in the profession who provide a poor service and fail to put things right. People use legal services at critical moments in their lives and it is entirely appropriate that those who provide these services are held accountable if they get things wrong.”

Which logoWhich? also supported the decision to identify poorly performing solicitors. Asked for comment on the decision to name & shame rogue solicitors, Which? executive director, Richard Lloyd, said : "The Legal Ombudsman has made the right decision to publish the names of lawyers who give poor service. People will finally be able to make an informed choice about which lawyer they use, and can avoid those lawyers that fail consumers."

The Law Society of Scotland are firmly against naming & shaming crooked lawyers in Scotland. In stark comparison to the moves in England & Wales to allow consumers to find out more about their lawyers and especially the ones who continually let down their clients, Diary of Injustice can confirm that Scots consumers are for now, to be left out of sharing the benefits of increased information about members of the Scottish legal profession who fall foul of complaints. With the Law Society of Scotland FIRMLY AGAINST any move to publicly identify the corrupt element of its members, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and Scottish Government have so far REFUSED to back moves which would see Scots given the same information to be made available in England & Wales which would enable clients to better decide which law firm or lawyer in Scotland is honest enough to handle their legal interests.

Jane IrvineJane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who are reluctant to name & shame crooked lawyers. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has previously argued it cannot name & shame any crooked lawyers in Scotland because of the terms of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which direct that all complaints matters and information arising from complaints are to be confidential. The 2007 Act also criminalises any leaks of information from the SLCC with harsh penalties for those within the organisation who whistle-blow on the SLCC’s numerous & now famous anti-client policies. The SLCC were asked for comment however none was provided at time of publication.

MacAskill tight lippedJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has been asked to allow naming & shaming of Scotland’s crooked lawyers. Today, the Scottish Government & Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have been invited to allow naming & shaming of rogue law firms & lawyers in Scotland with a request to amend any parts of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 and any other relevant legislation which the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and Scotland’s legal profession at large have been using as an excuse to avoid the issue of naming & shaming the many serial crooked lawyers who crop up on a continual basis in complaint after complaint.

It is most certainly in the public interest Scots consumers of legal services have at the very lest the same rights & entitlements of their counterparts in England & Wales where such information as is to be published by the Legal Ombudsman in the rest of the UK should also be published relevant to all those solicitors & legal professionals operating in the Scottish legal services market.

Diary of Injustice has previously reported on naming & shaming crooked lawyers here :  Naming & shaming crooked lawyers - The story so far

94 comments:

Anonymous said...

Who cares about what MacAskill things NAME THE CROOKED LAWYERS EVERY ONE OF THEM!

Anonymous said...

Stick Andrew Penman's name at the top will you please!

Anonymous said...

Great journalism Peter. right to the sharp point!

I was thinking to myself it was similar to the perceived difference between the Scottish 'pound' and English 'pound', where the Scottish currency is perceived to be inferior.

On reflection, this IS different. This is an example where a section of people in Society (Scots), within the European convention who are being denied the same rights as others in the same society.

This is a form of Apartheid to segregate an area of peoples and to deny them their basic common law or civil rights compared to others in the same society.

Apartheid is a crime.

This is nothing other than the rotten core of the Scottish Legal Establishment Hierarchy, perpetrating crimes against the Scottish People it is supposed to serve and protect.

Anonymous said...

It shows how deceitful an organisation the SLCC was designed to be when it criminalises any leaks by its own staff members about its own activities.

Mind you, if the public found out what really goes on behind those closed doors then those who plot to deceive may be happier behind bars as at least its safer in there. (crooks get on with other crooks)

Anonymous said...

Here we go again - The English are now allowed to name crooked scummy lawyers yet in Scotland the bloody SNP say no probably because their big white chief Alex Salmond is too buys sucking up to the Law Society in Dubai.


Rights for English consumers SOD ALL rights for Scottish consumers is what comes out of this!

Anonymous said...

and I am firmly against the Law Society of Scotland keeping their crooked lawyers a secret

Anonymous said...

Having kept the name & shame thing out of the mainstream press I can only assume the Law Society of Scotland will be very angry you brought it up Peter.

Good work!

Anonymous said...

Since you've been saying this yourself for all these years I'm sure you played your past in the decision.Now just to sort out those crooked Scottish lawyers so crooked they control the "Government" up here and then we will know which ones to avoid!

Keep up the good work Peter

Anonymous said...

If it is the case consumers are being protected by naming crooked lawyers in England & Wales so it should be the same in Scotland.I think you have them on this one Peter because they are going to look like dirty crooked scum all of them if they dont do it in Scotland too.

Anonymous said...

No comment from the Scottish Legal Corrupt Commission?

How disappointing!

They are a disappointment anyway!

Anonymous said...

“We consider we have struck a balance between protecting consumers and (I DO NOT) encouraging an independent and strong legal DICTATORSHIP. Every day we know most lawyers do a good job for their clients (DO WE WHERE FROM LAW SOCIETY OPINION) – but there are some who simply don’t. That’s why it’s in the profession’s interest to make sure all who provide services to consumers are doing so effectively.”

PUT EM ON SOLICITORS FROM HELL.

Anonymous said...

This is an example where a section of people in Society (Scots), within the European convention who are being denied the same rights as others in the same society.
==================================
Yes exactly, well put. We have a political issue here, civil and legal rights are being denied to people because they are a threat to lawyers reputations. To be denied rights is to have a slow withdrawal of citizenship, and taken to extremes as the Nazi's did Jews lost their jobs, homes, businesses, to be forced out of the political community.

Anonymous said...

On reflection, this IS different. This is an example where a section of people in Society (Scots), within the European convention who are being denied the same rights as others in the same society.
==============================
Yes and taken to extremes it results in genocide although I am not claiming this will happen here. Take the example in Hannah Arendt's book The Portable Hannah Arendt, when she wrote, "Who would solve the moral dilemma of the Greek mother, who was allowed by the Nazi's to choose which of her three children should be killed".

But victims of crooked lawyers in Scotland are denied their governments protection, repudiated by the state. This is why we need the websites to allow client feedback as Salmond and his SNP are kissing lawyers asses, and forming policy in the legal establishments favour.

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who are reluctant to name & shame crooked lawyers. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has previously argued it cannot name & shame any crooked lawyers in Scotland because of the terms of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which direct that all complaints matters and information arising from complaints are to be confidential.


Jane a word of advice, we are here to expose crooked lawyers for you. Asking anyone linked to lawyers to expose crooked lawyers is just not realistic, we know you long enough to know the the will to protect the public is just not there.

I met a man today in Hamilton who and we got talking about the Law Society. We agreed through our experiences that writing to this union is pointless, ends up in prolonged torture. My sister had no money for 5 months, and the Law Society would not investigate her lawyer. To summarise,

Lawyers have rights.

Victims of lawyers do not. I do not believe you would ever agree with this, so I posted my lawyer on Solicitors from Hell.

25,000 people know about him. As I have said websites set up by victims to help and warn others is the only way. The SLCC and Law Society are like venemous snakes, we clients stay well clear. Being ruined by an LLB rat, and the SLCC Law Society colony of rats is amplified because of the cover ups. I am not trying to get through to you because I believe profoundly it is not possible. We will regulate lawyers much more effectively and with much less suffering. The SLCC and Law Society are torture chambers for clients, we are learning not to contact them, we will use the websites and stop others going through Law Firm X, Y or Z's office doors. This is the only way forward to bypass this evil.

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who are reluctant to name & shame crooked lawyers. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has previously argued it cannot name & shame any crooked lawyers in Scotland because of the terms of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which direct that all complaints matters and information arising from complaints are to be confidential.


Jane a word of advice, we are here to expose crooked lawyers for you. Asking anyone linked to lawyers to expose crooked lawyers is just not realistic, we know you long enough to know the the will to protect the public is just not there.

I met a man today in Hamilton who and we got talking about the Law Society. We agreed through our experiences that writing to this union is pointless, ends up in prolonged torture. My sister had no money for 5 months, and the Law Society would not investigate her lawyer. To summarise,

Lawyers have rights.

Victims of lawyers do not. I do not believe you would ever agree with this, so I posted my lawyer on Solicitors from Hell.

25,000 people know about him. As I have said websites set up by victims to help and warn others is the only way. The SLCC and Law Society are like venemous snakes, we clients stay well clear. Being ruined by an LLB rat, and the SLCC Law Society colony of rats is amplified because of the cover ups. I am not trying to get through to you because I believe profoundly it is not possible. We will regulate lawyers much more effectively and with much less suffering. The SLCC and Law Society are torture chambers for clients, we are learning not to contact them, we will use the websites and stop others going through Law Firm X, Y or Z's office doors. This is the only way forward to bypass this evil.

Anonymous said...

Law Society of Scotland’s weak touch self-regulation allows ‘crooked lawyers’ to continue working for unsuspecting clients.

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND’S self serving, self protecting system of lawyers regulating each other has once again demonstrated the Scottish legal profession is thoroughly unfit to regulate its 10,000 solicitors and protect the client’s best interests at the same time, as the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed this weekend yet another ‘disgraced lawyer’ solicitor Steven Anderson, has returned to work after the Scottish Legal Aid Board found him guilt of making ‘unjustified claims’, while the Law Society has taken NO ACTION to protect the public.

The Sunday Mail’s investigation into Steven Anderson came after Scottish Legal Aid Board issued an earlier Press Release stating an investigation had found non-compliance with SLAB’s Code of Practice for Criminal Legal Assistance.

The SLAB Press Release identified solicitor Steven Anderson, stating “this non‐compliance included: holding unnecessary meetings with clients, and making inappropriate, multiple and repetitive grants of advice and assistance”.

Curiously however, the Press Release from the Scottish Legal Aid Board contained no figures of how much money in terms of claims to the Legal Aid Board Mr Anderson had received, now revealed by the Sunday Mail to stand at a staggering £560,330.

Post your complaints on Solicitors from Hell. Law Society is a waste of time for clients.

THE ABOVE LAWYER IS STILL WORKING BUT CANNOT DO LEGAL AID WORK.

WHY HAVE THE LAW SOCIETY TAKEN NO ACTION, BEWARE.

Anonymous said...

This is a form of Apartheid to segregate an area of peoples and to deny them their basic common law or civil rights compared to others in the same society.

Yes and Lawyers call campaigners criminals, Beggars belief.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who fights this must be a crook because its our right to know and all of them should be named whatever the complaint is about and the subject of it.

Anonymous said...

I want feedback from victims of lawyers before I choose a law firm. No other feedback will inspire confidence.

Anonymous said...

Scotland’s legal regulator the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has no plans to name & shame crooked lawyers.

Who would trust the SLCC anyway?

Anonymous said...

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has been asked to allow naming & shaming of Scotland’s crooked lawyers. Will he be on the list?

He would order client executions before that if he could.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the Legal Ombudsman.

We have formal powers to resolve complaints about lawyers. It is a free service. Our job is to look at legal complaints in a fair and independent way – we will not take sides.

As with any kind of dispute, it is always best to complain to your lawyer first to give them a chance to resolve the issue. If you are still not satisfied or are not sure about what to do, then please get in touch with us.
==================================
Hello Adam, no offence intended but I will post on Solicitors from Hell, I can only trust victims of crooked lawyers. Bitter experience has taught me that.

Anonymous said...

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/decisions/decisions_civil_litigation.html

Area of law: Civil litigation
Complaint reason(s):Failure to follow instructions;, failure to progress; costs information deficient
Remedy: Reduce fees by 50% to £200 plus VAT, and pay £200 compensation
Outcome: Ombudsman's decision accepted by the complainant

Mr B tried on numerous occasions to get his builders in to put right a long list of snagging problems with his new-build house. On paper, at least, the design was perfect – everything he and his family had hoped for. In practice, it was turning into a bit of a nightmare, with leaking pipes, doors that didn't close properly and kitchen tiles that just wouldn't stay put. In the end, Mr B gave up chasing the builder and decided to take him to court.

He assumed all was well, as his solicitor appeared to be getting on with the work, or so the legal fees Mr B was paying would suggest. But 14 months into the case, with no hearings fixed and almost no progress reported, Mr B decided he'd had enough and complained to his lawyer. This got him nowhere, as he received absolutely no response.

Our Investigator had the same experience as she tried to get the firm to respond to a string of complaints from Mr B about poor service. Mr B said the firm had failed to follow instructions, delayed progressing the case, and failed to provide adequate costs information. Repeated attempts by us to get the firm to provide the information we asked for failed as well. The firm did at one point say they'd sent Mr B's file to an 'after the event' (ATE) insurer to see if they could get the costs of the case covered. But they'd not told Mr B about this and we saw no evidence that they had actually done so.

In the end, and in the absence of information and documentary evidence from the firm, we concluded there had been poor service on every count. The Ombudsman ordered the firm to halve their fees and pay Mr B £200 compensation.
================================
Half fees and £200.00 compensation.
Why should some lawyer get have their fees is they have provided "poor service on every count".

Anonymous said...

Honestly I'm surprised no one from the Law Society has tried to murder you yet like they did with Cumming because of all your work and investigations into these crooked lawyers..

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Who cares about what MacAskill things NAME THE CROOKED LAWYERS EVERY ONE OF THEM!

10 November 2011 16:36

YES !

Anonymous said...

“It is right to publish the names of lawyers in specific circumstances. That’s the decision of the Office for Legal Complaints which oversees the Legal Ombudsman.The Ombudsman has dealt with some seventy-thousand calls about the legal profession in the last year. From 2012, information about complaints resolved by an Ombudsman decision will be available to the public.”

And the reason this cant happen in Scotland is because ..?

Anonymous said...

What's the problem? If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to be afraid of.

Oh now I remember, vested interests and a monopoly control over every solicitor in Scotland by the disgraced insurer Marsh.

Anyone heard when Lord Lang will become the new President of that notorious insurer?

Anonymous said...

So what in fact has happened here is the English have been reading Cherbi's blog all this time,learned from the Scottish mistakes of the LPLA and actually did what needed to be done rather than the stupid SLCC we have along with Irvine & mob covering up for bent lawyers and worried they are going to miss out on an obe for their years of service to cover it all up.
So how do we go about implementing this naming & shaming in Scotland? and I'm not talking about allowing the SLCC to do it because its clear from reading your blog they cannot be trusted nor can the Law Society or Scottish government.
Any ideas Peter?

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth France Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints said : “We consider we have struck a balance between protecting consumers and encouraging an independent and strong legal profession. Every day we know most lawyers do a good job for their clients – but there are some who simply don’t. That’s why it’s in the profession’s interest to make sure all who provide services to consumers are doing so effectively.”

Fine words however please remember it has taken a lot of victims experiences and ruined lives to come to this.

DO NOT LET US DOWN ANY MORE PLEASE.

Anonymous said...

I've spent most of this evening reading your blog Mr Cherbi and learned a lot about avoiding lawyers,by far its the best resource on the web

Anonymous said...

Have you ever thought of writing for a newspaper Peter?
You are a very good writer!

Anonymous said...

I dont trust the SLCC to name anyone they would rather cover it up because they are all lawyers or related to lawyers or ex cops or others with quango jobs too wrapped up in self interest and money...
You be in charge of the naming & shaming in Scotland please - at least you are up front about it all.

Anonymous said...

Funny that you ended up helping the English more than the Scottish!
Anyway I'm sure it will eventually come in Scotland as you are relentless in what you do and its good for us you are!

Reading the comments about the Solicitors from Hell website makes me wonder how we can have a non commercial list of lawyers and law firms to avoid so you might want to think about how you can do this.

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Quotes from SOLICITORS about the planned action by
The Law Society to close Solicitors from Hell website down:

“The more I think about it the more idiotic it seems to me. Here we have the Law Society which is supposed to protect us all against bad lawyers, now trying to protect the interest of bad lawyers”.

“I think this is incredible. Imagine Trading Standards bringing a representative action on behalf of traders who are most seriously at risk from the "Rogue Traders" program. The mind boggles”.

“There is no way of knowing how good a particular lawyer is until they have sent their bill and you have asked about them. That is when you find out you have been overcharged. It is just big firms wanting to keep things as they are”.

“I had a legal aid practice under the Legal Aid Contracting regime and at the end of every case we were obliged to send out a client questionnaire which asked our clients to comment on us and we had to keep these for review by the Legal Aid Board. Why shouldn't private practices be under the same scrutiny”.

“What you are up against is that there are a lot of complaints about big firms because they actually charge huge amounts and a lot of the lawyers in them are just in it for the money and have little concern for their clients”.

“It seems to me that this claim could be subject to all sorts of challenges in law. I have never seen anything like it and it does smack of suppression of freedom of speech. If someone wrote in a newspaper that they had a bad experience with a lawyer or any other professional, it is a matter of libel laws which say that you have to prove that it is not true to succeed”.

“This action seems to be trying to circumvent libel laws because it just tries to do a complete body swerve around the issue of whether the posts are true or not. If they are true then they are publishable”.

“I think it is extraordinary that the Law Society would bring an action on behalf of solicitors who are at risk of being named on the site, ie., the bad lawyers. In other words, they are representing precisely the sort of solicitors who need to be criticized”.

“It is ridiculous. I would be hugely surprised it they succeeded and a good Barrister with a sense of justice would have a field day with it in court”.

“We were asked to become involved in the group claim but declined”.

"I am an English solicitor but I don't consider myself at serious risk of being named on your site because I have a good reputation. So, do the Law Society represent me in this action? "

Does Jane Irvine think self regulation works?

Anonymous said...

If Building Control protected cowboy builders the way the Law Society protect lawyers, buildings would collapse.

Bypass the Law Society, the internet will take away their capacity to protect the Penman's.

Anonymous said...

I hope you extend your campaign to include naming & shaming of snotty civil serpents & local gov officials and remember their pictures too.

Anonymous said...

Yes I agree its about time these lawyers were identified to the world so we can all steer clear.

Anonymous said...

Yet more delay from the Legal Ombudsman on naming & shaming.

Why does it have to be 2012 before he starts?Why not now?

It doesn't even say in the Press Release when in 2012 they are going to start naming & shaming and what are these unspecified "certain circumstances"?

Just another let down if you ask me.If its going to be done it should be done unconditionally and not all these excuses and delays.

If they mess up I hope you and all these consumer groups will be on top of them like a ton of bricks.

Anonymous said...

Scots DONT need to know how crooked their lawyers are because in an independent Scotland under the nutters it will be legal for lawyers to murder their clients if they start to complain!
The Law Society & SLCC will come along and plastic bag up anyone who tries complaining just like they do already!

Anonymous said...

I'll be interested to hear how MacAskill justifies not doing this in Scotland.You can expect one of those bullshit civil servants of his to reply to you saying fugg off Scotland is better we dont need to name our crooked lawyers etc..

Anonymous said...

I think some of you people have more regard for MacAskill doing something than he has for you.

If you think back every major bill which has a justice theme on it he has been excluded from other than occasionally turning up to give evidence at Holyrood.

Legal Services Bill was fronted by Fergus Ewing and the Sectarian idiots & lets censor everyone and make thoughts a crime Bill is being fronted by Roseanna Cunningham.

Kenny MacAskill basically doesnt give a toss about any of you any of these "crooked lawyers" or anything Kenny MacAskill believes to be otherwise than what the rest of the population believe.

Get used to it people Ian Hamilton was right this justice sec is a waste of space for everyone and he will do nothing on naming his corrupt pals in the legal system.

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine as Scotland's Legal Ombudsman should be the legal definition around the world of an oxymoron

Anonymous said...

Great work as usual Peter.

I wonder if it would be appropriate to submit a Petition to the Scottish Parliament for a name change for the SLCC:

(a) given that the SLCC has so spectacularly failed to protect the Scottish public (according to it's own instituting legislation) from Crooked Scottish Lawyers

(b) by citing the fact that the majority of the Law Society of Scotland CRO department staff(the old evil status quo arrangment of self regulation) were parachuted straight into the SLCC

(c) by citing the massive negative discrepancy in successful cases where crooked lawyers are found guilty, between the status quo (which was rotten and biased) and the SLCC

(d) by citing the derisory compensation payments handed out by the SLCC

(e) by citing the the irregularity and questionable legality of having a secretive complaints commission, who keep their activities from the public they are supposed to be serving.

The Petition would seek to list all of these examples (plus many more i'm sure) and to ask the Scottish Parliament to grant the Petition with a view to changing 'SLCC' to 'THE LAW SOCIETY IN DISGUISE'

Do you think this Petition would get many votes?

I think it would overload their website!

Anonymous said...

It is a catch 22 situation.

The Law Society of Scotland cannot (even if they had a change of heart/the will) to prosecute many of these crooked lawyers.

Quite simply because many of the so called crooked lawyers have 'too much on' the Law Society's office bearers, to the effect that they are hamstrung and impotent to act.

Mr Cumming must be having a squeeky bum time whilst giving evidence against the Australian Tapinyaki chef, as he imagines the tables being turned on him and himself having to answer awkward questions due to his impropriety whilst in office...Imagine the scandal....

Anonymous said...

Such a simple and common sense idea to name crooked lawyers.After all we now know who Penman is and to avoid him after what he did to your family so it should be with all his crooked colleagues named & shamed everywhere to protect consumers just as the Legal Ombudsman says!

Anonymous said...

Let's just cut to the chase here.

The SLCC know they are letting crooked lawyers off. That means all staff are tarred with the same brush unless one of them or some of them blow the whistle and out their colleagues (there simply must be one honest staff member there surely?)

Why do we no this for certain?

Because the statistics prove this beyond all reasonable doubt.

Jane Irvine knows this is happening, yet she stays silent.

The Law Society know this is happening and remain silent.

Kenny McAskill knows it is happening. He remains silent in public

Now, these are instances where individuals and organisations are complicit in defeating justice (a criminal offence)

Why aren't the police investigating.

Why is Jane Irvine and the Chief Executive of the SLCC not suspended whilst an investigation is carried out (or sacked on the spot for gross misconduct)

Why has Kenny McAskill allowed this slow-motion car crash to drift on for so long that now the exercise in deceiving the scottish public that was the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 is just that.

A trick to make the public think that real effective change was being made to the regulation of Scottish Lawyers, meanwhile the Law Society continue unabated.

The mistake they made though was to be too greedy. To kick the arse oot it. To let too many crooked lawyers off Scot-free.

So-much-so that it is glaringly obvious statistically and now we all know the collusion between the Law Society of Scotland and Scottish polititions.

Anonymous said...

Since we have been so cruelly deceived by the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Government, is it not long overdue that the very existence of the Law Society of Scotland as a lawful entity be called into question?

The Law Society of Scotland has shown us that it has repeatedly and perniciously acted outwith the law of the land and is not a fit and proper institution worthy of the name.

The Scottish Lawyers (and most probably the members of the Glasgow Bar Association) should be allowed to cite the Law Society of Scotland as an unlawful entity and use known recorded instances of illegality against office bearers as examples of impeachment under the articles of incorporation.

Thereafter, a moritorium should be allowed to review back over past Law Society of Scotland injustices and through the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (or the Edinburgh Lunch Club as we lawyers call it). Thereafter a new Independent Body can be formed, rightly and fairly representing the proper interests of Scottish Lawyers, that has the trust of the Profession AND the trust of the public in equal measure.

JM

Anonymous said...

The SNP obviously don't want to protect consumers in Scotland probably because the legal profession donate (bung) them too much.Not an issue they can ever wriggle out of either.

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059970/Vincent-Buffoni-jumped-tube-train-longer-afford-send-children-private-school.html

It wouldnt have happened up here in Scotland because the Law Society would make sure a few clients were bumped off to pay for it all like has been done before..

Anonymous said...

This will inevitably come to Scotland although as already said no one will trust the SLCC or Law Society to do it because they are all just as corrupt.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland will be firmly against it because virtually their entire membership is corrupt

Anonymous said...

Good luck on trying to get it through that horrible parliament of ours - they are more interested in shouting sectarian abuse at each other and covering up racist/sectarian murders all across Scotland and letter bombs which rank anywhere else as terrorist incidents.

Yep come to Scotland and use our legal system according to that fat git of a fm who fails to mention they will get ripped off just like everyone else.

I sincerely hope this legal scum which pollutes our country rip off the wrong people one of these days.

Anonymous said...

Names on their own are not much good we need their pictures too.

Anonymous said...

I think that Scottish Lawyers should be named and shamed to stop the well known practice of treating their clients money as their own, as they know they will not be prosecuted for doing so.

Anonymous said...

The only way the Law Society of Scotland will make changes for the better is if they are forced into it.

The only thing that motivates Scottish lawyers is being hit in their pocket.

Publishing the names of the crooked Scottish lawyers, will have the effect of warning the public of the dangers and at the same time raising up the standard of Scottish lawyers and promoting the good Scottish solicitors (if there are any of you left - if so you are conspicuous by your absence on Scotlands only truly impartial legal blog)at the same time.

Anonymous said...

As our country seemingly operates a pejorative Scottish Justice system. I wonder what they have got lined up for us next?

What about mass murderers getting let off scot-free?

Nope - done that.

What about protecting pedophiles?

Nope - doing that.

What about lying to MSP's at the Scottish Parliament?

Nope - Do that at almost every opportunity.

What can it be?

What we are not being told is that Scottish Lawyers and Sheriff and Judges and Prosecuters at the Crown Office are all special members of society in that they are all above the law and immune from prosecution.

They are told, 'it's fill your boots time boys and girls' and 'do unto them as you see fit, as ye are untouchable'.

Anonymous said...

"Scots to be ‘kept in dark’ on details of crooked lawyers while Legal Ombudsman’s ‘naming & shaming’ policy ‘will protect’ consumers in England & Wales"

Is it to be the case too that Scots will have 'special' designated seated areas on public transport, at public venues and in restaurants?

Anonymous said...

As a consequence of the Law Society of Scotland's tyrannical quest for power, and the Scottish Government's acquiescence with regard to basic standards of natural justice, there will be an inevitable backlash coming for both the Law Society of Scotland and the SNP.

Serious criminal offences have been committed and are being committed and are going unpunished, all in the name of 'public interest'.

Over time 'public interest' has grown to mean 'self interest or self protection or to protect our own', whereby they determine that it would be more damaging (to them) if they were to reveal truth of what they have done/not done to the public, therefore on that basis they use this 'excuse' to let themselves/colleagues off after having committed criminal offences.

Easy when you make the rules to suit yourself!

Anonymous said...

I think that Scottish Lawyers should be rated or scored on a set of criteria by their client.

I propose 5 simple categories to be adopted essential to the provision of a good service.

Each category scored out of a 100, thereby arriving at a percentage evaluation against each scottish lawyer to allow a prospective client to make an informed choice between candidates.

At the moment there is no way of knowing anything at all about a prospective Scottish lawyer, when you enquire about hiring their services, other than 'trusting their word of mouth', which is akin to playing blackjack, placing a £10,000 bet for another card when you have already got blackjack! (No sane person would do it)

The 5 simple categories would be:

1) Value for money

2) Truthfullness

3) Politeness

4) Efficacy

5) Speed

It would be scored and updated in real time, so would be a current resource and could be called the Chumpers 500?

Let's get online proforma's made up for immediate start.

The sooner the better.

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to seeing how many lawyers are actually left out of this naming & shaming since most of them appear to be crooked or are involved in some kind of complaint/bad service issue!

Anonymous said...

macAskill wont be able to stand naming crooked lawyers so he will refuse to do it - remember we live in a one party dictatorship now so no chance of any of this coming to Scotland

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Who cares about what MacAskill things NAME THE CROOKED LAWYERS EVERY ONE OF THEM!

10 November 2011 16:36

Says it all really we dont need this idiot to allow us to name these crooks

Anonymous said...

Yes Lord Gill is correct our justice system is victorian and years behind even England.

All these nonsense excuses from the SLCC about confidentiality their complaints investigations are a complete mess we need to take our legal system back from these money grabbing lawyers and those in politics who support them.

Anonymous said...

I have followed your blog since you started it in 2006 and it has probably saved me more times than I can remember not just about the law and lawyers also with other things like dealing with my idiot Council and Housing Assoc.

You must have done a lot of damage to lawyers finances over the years (well done!) I wondered do you have any idea how much your work is worth or how much you have lost the legal profession since you took them on?

Anonymous said...

By what right do the Scottish Government prevent this from becoming the same law in Scotland like the rest of the country?
And they tell us we can be better independent?What rubbish!

Anonymous said...

"It is right to publish the names of lawyers in specific circumstances"

No NO no exceptions it should be ALL circumstances otherwise we all know they will wriggle out of doing it

Anonymous said...

I see no reason why the border between England & Scotland has to block us finding out which are the good or bad lawyers and if MacAskill wants to keep everything secret about his colleagues in the legal profession then maybe Scots should chose to do their legal business in England where it will be more safer!

Anonymous said...

The following should also apply to Scotland except the one thing missing,Jane Irvine is nowhere to be seen holding consultations and campaigning to name and shame crooked lawyers..

Too busy working on her MBE I wonder?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/10/ombudsman-lawyers-name-and-shame

Should the legal ombudsman name and shame lawyers?

The legal ombudsman announced this week that he plans to name and shame lawyers who let down their clients if they are repeat offenders or where it is in the public interest to do so. Surely it's hard to resist such a development in this age of consumer empowerment and in a newly deregulated and increasingly competitive legal services market? Well, not entirely. The Law Society isn't thrilled at the prospect of its members being hauled over the coals.

I spoke to the ombudsman, Adam Sampson, last week. So what kind of firm (or lawyer) will be outed? Sampson explained that it would be those firms where there is "either an individual action or a pattern of activity" which made him consider that it was in the public interest that they should be identified.

"So if somebody does something really, really dodgy, or there is a general pattern of lower-level dodginess, to the extent that we think that there is a danger that consumers are going to be badly served, we will name," said the former chief executive of the homeless charity Shelter.

The ombudsman took the following example from some 72,000 calls, emails and letters from disgruntled clients to his office. It involves a couple (Mr and Mrs M). They bought a new home and instructed a self-described specialist conveyancing law firm.

Alarm bells rang early on. The Ms were told that they would have to pay stamp duty (their new home was exempt) and they were charged £60 for indemnity insurance that they didn't want. On completion, the couple wanted to use proceeds from the sale of their old house for moving costs. However it took the firm eight weeks to pay up.

The couple complained to the firm, didn't get a response and went to the ombudsman. By then, they had also found out that the firm had failed to carry out searches, charged them for things that they either didn't need or didn't agree to, told them to pay the land tax when they didn't need to, and held on to their surplus cash from the sale of their old house.

"It's a totally inadequate level of service that failed those clients," Sampson says. "But – and this is the important bit – this is a firm that we know has 50 complaints against them. Something is going badly wrong and the public need to be warned." The ombudsman ruled that the firm should return £2,577 plus £200 as a goodwill gesture.

So far and, frankly, so uncontroversial: why shouldn't a firm like that be named and shamed? It is worth reflecting that it wasn't just a belief in the transformative powers of competition that led to last month's so-called big bang deregulation of legal services. It was the "scandal" (Sampson's word) of the inability of the profession to get a grip on complaints handling that provided the political impetus to kick-start the reforms proposed by Sir David Clementi in 2004.

Anonymous said...

Naming & shaming is going to come whether the profession likes it or not so the sooner the better and as long as it is done with credibility there will be no problems.However one slip up by the LeO and all credibility will be lost.

Anonymous said...

If ANYONE gets a gong out of their work for the SLCC it will be an official approval of corruption.Mind you there are plenty at the Law Society who get these same honours and we already know how crooked they are.

Anonymous said...

methinks you should be working for the Legal Ombudsman! You obviously enjoy all this so why not give it a try?

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for your comments & emails on this article ... and I am pleased to see the overwhelming opinion is in favour of naming & shaming of 'crooked lawyers' coming to Scotland ...

To answer some of your comments :

# Anonymous @ 10 November 2011 17:00

I agree ...

# Anonymous @ 10 November 2011 17:10

What has been published about the SLCC so far is only the tip of the iceberg ... and much of the information & material I have received can never be published in its current form due to its origins ...

# Anonymous @ 10 November 2011 16:45

With pleasure ...

# Anonymous @ 10 November 2011 17:14

A border of discrimination for consumers of legal services in the UK ...

# Anonymous @ 10 November 2011 17:46

It seems to be easy for them to do so ... however there is always the internet and sites such as this to set the records straight.

# Anonymous @ 10 November 2011 17:14

Actually since Mr Salmond was in Dubai I've had several companies contact me for my views on the Scottish legal system and whether I think its suitable for them to litigate here or bring their legal business ...

# Anonymous @ 10 November 2011 21:35

Because Mr MacAskill says not ...


# Anonymous @ 12 November 2011 00:10

... so I've heard ...

# Anonymous @ 12 November 2011 22:30

I agree .. a slip up will do lots of damage hence naming & shaming will have to be done correctly ...

# Anonymous @ 12 November 2011 17:48

Its difficult to quantify it ... however since 2009 there have been increasing numbers of existing clients of Scottish law firms and companies from within & outside the UK contacting me on whether it is safe to do legal business in Scotland ... and if the figures I have been told are anything to go by, in relation to contracts & business I have advised to be taken elsewhere ... I am pleased to say law firms in Scotland have lost out on lots of business due to warnings heeded by those intelligent enough to ask for advice ...

# Anonymous @ 12 November 2011 21:28

Thanks ... a good article in the Guardian ...

# Anonymous @ 13 November 2011 19:04

I have Scotland to clean up first .. and a few people to help whose lives have been totally ruined by the legal profession ...

Anonymous said...

"Its difficult to quantify it ... however since 2009 there have been increasing numbers of existing clients of Scottish law firms and companies from within & outside the UK contacting me on whether it is safe to do legal business in Scotland ... and if the figures I have been told are anything to go by, in relation to contracts & business I have advised to be taken elsewhere ... I am pleased to say law firms in Scotland have lost out on lots of business due to warnings heeded by those intelligent enough to ask for advice ..."

Brilliant work Peter that's the spirit make these thugs pay for what they have done to people!

Your blog and campaign against the legal mafia is a shining beacon of wisdom against a sea of corruption.I am so glad people are taking your advice and moving their legal work out of these horrid Scottish lawyers companies and denying them business!

Anonymous said...

Nothing to prevent a private register of crooked lawyers for Scotland developing in the same way as Solicitors from Hell however it will face the same hurdles attacks and hostility from the Law Society and their cronies.

Good blog I saw it quoted in a comment in the Law Gazette.Its about time the profession were exposed as the crooks they are.

Anonymous said...

I have Scotland to clean up first .. and a few people to help whose lives have been totally ruined by the legal profession ...

13 November 2011 20:37

Well spoken words Peter and thanks for standing up to the Law Society,SLCC and all these crooked lawyers you have exposed.I hope the legal profession is hurting badly because of what they did to you and all their victims.

Keep up the good work laddie!

Anonymous said...

Yes it is a good article in the Guardian which is noticeably NOT a Scottish newspaper who slavishly cuddles up to the legal profession to keep its subs alive.

I like your writing Peter always have done.Its a mark of what these evil tossers from the Law Society did to you.Real conviction not like some of those who will change their tune for a few bucks and a beer.

Anonymous said...

Actually since Mr Salmond was in Dubai I've had several companies contact me for my views on the Scottish legal system and whether I think its suitable for them to litigate here or bring their legal business

HAHA! I CAN GUESS WHAT YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE!

A RESOUNDING NO!

Anonymous said...

We are in a recession,right?
So anyone who goes around wasting money on lawyers needs their head looking or better still THEY SHOULD BE LOCKED UP!

Anonymous said...

You keep coming up in searches on just about everything to do with lawyers so people will be well warned.I wouldnt worry about the stupid or the rich getting ripped off because neither will ever listen to advice such as this!

Anonymous said...

There is a long interview with David Dunsire from Tods Murray in the law section of the Scotsman today going on about how well Tods Murray are doing.

You can just tell the situation is anything but!

Anonymous said...

Interesting.

re your advice to steer clear of Scottish law firms would you say the figures are in the thousands or millions?

What can do you do for people needing a solicitor in Scotland?

Anonymous said...

I look forward to seeing if my own solicitor is named & shamed because he is one of the biggest crooks in Dundee yet the Law Society always back him to the hilt

Anonymous said...

Quite funny to know Salmond's visit to the Gulf ended up bringing you some enquiries about crooked Scottish lawyers.I bet you put a few of them right over our rip off merchants from the legal world?

Anonymous said...

My partner and I have two businesses in Dubia and have first hand experience of scottish law firms and the law society of scotland. We travel regularly between scotland and Dubia and are highly respected in the ex-pat community and will make every effort possible to advise other businesses to stay well clear of these migrating scum who are seeking out new mugs to Robb as the scottish public no longer trust them .

God this feels good.

Anonymous said...

Clearly you are doing a lot of damage financially to law firms in Scotland so can I ask just how long is this costly campaign of yours against lawyers going to last and what do you hope to achieve?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 13 November 2011 23:13

There isn't much point in corporates litigating in Scotland when the London courts can do more for them, probably cheaper and at a more competent level than in Edinburgh ...

# Anonymous @ 14 November 2011 09:30

Tods Murray were the law firm representing Andrew Penman before Simpson & Marwick took over the case ... I wouldn't recommend dealing with either of these law firms ...

# Anonymous @ 14 November 2011 13:49

Millions.

I can pass people onto a law firm if they are in need of one, carefully selected of course ...

# Anonymous @ 14 November 2011 18:44

Good to hear it!

I've had a fairly positive response from the corporates in Dubai who contacted me ... I have left them in no doubt how unsafe legal representation from Scots law firms or litigation in Scotland is for their own finances ...

# Anonymous @ 14 November 2011 21:14

Until they stop ruining clients and repair the damage they have done to so many innocent people over the years ...

My aim ... competent, trustworthy and dependable legal services for Scots and a resolution for all those who suffered at the hands of the legal profession in the past .. surely not rocket science and easily achievable if we all put our minds to it ...

Anonymous said...

Until they stop ruining clients and repair the damage they have done to so many innocent people over the years ...

My aim ... competent, trustworthy and dependable legal services for Scots and a resolution for all those who suffered at the hands of the legal profession in the past .. surely not rocket science and easily achievable if we all put our minds to it ...

MAKE THE CRIMINALS PAY FOR EVERYONE THEY HAVE ROBBED

Anonymous said...

In light of your apparent financial clout against law firms I think your readers may be interested and have a right to know exactly how much do you charge these "corporates" or individuals for your advice or recommendations of law firms "with no Scottish connections"?

Anonymous said...

Nice to know Andrew Penman has cost all Scottish lawyers millions in lost business and I hope the thieving crooked lawyers are made to pay for it all

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 15 November 2011 10:30

Nothing, no fee is charged to corporates or individuals.It is a free service offered to advise or assist others so they do not to fall victim to the many corrupt elements of the Scottish legal profession ...

# Anonymous @ 15 November 2011 13:59

Yes, he did and others like him ...

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter
I believe some of these comments insinuating you charge for advice have been an attempt to undermine your work in some way.I just want to say Peter gave me the name of a solicitor who has been helping me through a mess left by my former solicitor and he did not charge me anything for the name and all the help he has given me over 2 years so to those who have money fixated in their heads probably other solicitors and the Law Society you can all go and jump off a cliff if you like.
I think you crooked solicitors are all jealous of Peter because he stood up to you and wrote about what happened to him and other people and exposes all the Law Society corruption against us.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 16 November 2011 10:48

Don't worry, I'm use to attempts to undermine my reporting on legal issues ...

If I was popular with the legal community I wouldn't be doing my job as this website reports aspects of injustice from and for the consumer's point of view rather than the vested interests of the legal profession and big business ...

Anonymous said...

In the end, and in the absence of information and documentary evidence from the firm, we concluded there had been poor service on every count. The Ombudsman ordered the firm to halve their fees and pay Mr B £200 compensation.
================================
Half fees and £200.00 compensation.
Why should some lawyer get have their fees is they have provided "poor service on every count".

10 November 2011 20:54

-----------------------------------

I agree wholeheartedly but you miss the point entirely.

The purpose of the Legal Ombudsman is NOT intended to be impartial or fair (albeit that is what they pretend)

The Agenda is to 'sicken' the Client (they call the client the 'Complainer' rather than 'Complainant') into never complaining about a lawyer again and to serve as an example to others for them not to 'waste time and effort' complaining because at the end of the process is INJUSTICE.

PLEASE NOTE READER the cruel joke they describe the Client in this case as?

He is called Mr B.

Why Mr B in the Absence of no Mr A?

Quite simply because this is their sniggering way of referring to Mr B for Bastard as the ultimate disrespect to the Client!

Unfortunately, The ombudsman has pulled this link so that the comparison cannot be made but look carefully and you will see that this is a common form of underhand insult and is so obvious when used in the absence of ANY Mr A.

Quite disgusting!

Here is just one example:


http://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/findings/1465A_Murray_TH.pdf

This just so happens to be a landmark SSDT case, involving corruption and double dealing between the Law Society of Scotland and their Disciplinary arm the SSDT, which will probably result in the termination of the SSDT as a result.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC is funded by the solicitors, it is not an indipendent body who cares about the public. Solicitors are exploiting their clients to line their own pockets. Solicitors should be named and shamed but it would be much easier to name the Genuinely good solicitors whos aim is to give the best service to their clients. I have personally had 6 solicitors as all of them were bargaining behind my back with the other side, they made my situation far worse becasue they are all friends, not just friends in the court. They are heard in pubs talking about their cases. I live in Dundee Scotland where the solicitors exploit our children daily. It needs to be recognised and stopped. All these complaints procedures do not work because they are all funded by the same source!