Bully required, Urgent : Law Society of Scotland demand Justice Secretary intervene in SLCC ‘Guarantee Fund’ row. FIDDLING & MEDDLING by Law Society of Scotland officials in financial damages claims to the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund made by clients who have been financially ruined by their ‘crooked lawyers’ have prompted the Law Society of Scotland to issue a stern rejection of statements made in the latest annual report of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for 2011, published Friday, that the outcome of compensation claims made by clients to the Guarantee Fund are influenced “by factors other than the merits of the claims” such as corruption, intervention by Law Society officials to halt claims going ahead, and an institutional prejudice against consumers trying to recover money stolen by Scottish solicitors.
The Law Society is ‘so upset’ by the allegations, they have now called in Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to bully ‘clarify’ the SLCC into withdrawing the claims.
Claiming the obvious L Law Society Guarantee Fund is crooked, dishonest and claims are fiddled. The damaging claims made in the latest annual report of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which have prompted the row between the two legal complaints regulators, state : "There is a statistical relationship between the number and total value of the claims made on the fund in the same year as an individual claim, and the level of payment made in individual claims. This suggests that the outcome of claims is influenced by factors other than the merits of the claims". The claims are a result of research the SLCC commissioned into the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund which supposedly exists to protect clients who have lost money as a result of the dishonesty of a solicitor. However, according to key SLCC insiders who spoke to Diary of Injustice earlier in the year, the research commissioned by the SLCC into the Guarantee Fund suffered a significant degree of control freakery, constant interference & a lack of cooperation from the Law Society of Scotland who wanted to control the entire project, and would rather the research not be published.
The Law Society of Scotland, angry at the claims issued a Press Release, rejecting any notion its 'attempt’ at consumer protection is little more than consumer fraud states : The Society has today rejected this assertion as wholly misleading as the merit of the individual claim remains the only consideration when considering the outcome of that claim and any subsequent payment from the Guarantee Fund. This was clearly explained to the SLCC in meetings and in written correspondence from the President of the Society, all in advance of today's report publication.
With the SLCC annual report being laid before the Scottish Parliament, the Society has today written to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and opposition justice spokespeople to clarify the situation and give a more accurate picture.
Alistair Morris, convener of the Society's Guarantee Fund committee, said: "It is deeply frustrating that the SLCC suggests the outcome of Guarantee Fund claims are influenced by factors beyond the merits of the claim, especially when we have made it clear verbally and in writing that such a suggestion is wholly wrong. It is even more concerning that the SLCC do not even refer to those assurances from the Society in their report. The Society co-operated fully with the SLCC when it commissioned research into the Guarantee Fund earlier this year. However we raised significant concerns at the misleading and potentially damaging interpretation of raw statistical data relating to the Guarantee Fund which suggests that the amount paid out in any claim is dependent on the sums held in the fund at any one time. We have made it clear to the SLCC, both verbally and in writing, that all Guarantee Fund claims are considered entirely on a case by case basis and on their own merit, regardless of the funds held. It is extremely disappointing that the SLCC annual report now risks misleading people into thinking that the outcomes of Guarantee Fund claims go beyond their individual merits. “
Mr Morris continued : "There are significant reserves held in the Guarantee Fund currently. Additionally, it is backed by Stop Loss Insurance amounting to £6 million and the legislation covering the Fund allows the Society to levy members if we faced circumstances where there were insufficient funds in the Guarantee Fund and Stop Loss Cover to cover the cost of a claim. Following our discussions with the SLCC we were informed that it intended to commission further research as a result of some of these initial findings. I hope this goes ahead and there will be an opportunity to demonstrate that this statement contained within the annual report laid before the Scottish Parliament is inaccurate and misleading."
Commenting to Diary of Injustice today, an SLCC insider said the law complaints quango had only pursued the Guarantee Fund issue because of criticism from law reform campaigners & investigations carried out by Diary of Injustice into the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund, revealing in an earlier article published in 2009 the Law Society's 'Guarantee Fund' for clients of crooked lawyers revealed as multi million pound masterpiece of claims dodging corruption
Earlier in September 2011, Diary of Injustice reported on the SLCC’s slightly controversial report into the Guarantee Fund which has now caused the apparent fall out between the two regulators, here : DISASTER REPORT : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission study of Law Society “Guarantee Fund” suffers 13% turnout, finds clients ‘treated as criminals’
13% response disaster for SLCC report on Law Society’s crooked Guarantee Fund. A REPORT carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) into the notoriously corrupt “Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund”, a ‘client protection’ scheme operated by the Law Society of Scotland to compensate clients who have lost money because of theft by dishonest crooked lawyers & their staff has been hit by an ABYSMALLY low response of only NINETEEN replies from ONE HUNDRED & FORTY FIVE questionnaires (13%) after the Law Society refused to hand over client contact details to the SLCC & its selected research company who were investigating claims against crooked lawyers in Scotland. One client who did reply to the survey said claimants “were made to feel like a criminal” at Guarantee Fund hearings.
THE REPORT, carried out on behalf of the SLCC by Progressive, a research company based in Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, claimed the Law Society of Scotland had REFUSED to hand over a detailed contact list of members of the public who had contacted or submitted claims to the Guarantee Fund over the past 5 years. The company & SLCC were left with NO CHOICE other than to leave the Law Society of Scotland to distribute the forms to clients that it felt should be provided with a questionnaire.
Jane Irvine, SLCC Chair left out critical mentions in report announcement. In its announcement publicised online, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission DID NOT mention the low turnout of NINETEEN PARTICIPANTS in its Press Release, available HERE, nor did the SLCC publicise the fact the Law Society of Scotland distributed the forms themselves after REFUSING to hand over Guarantee Fund claimant details to the company preparing the report or the SLCC itself. Legal insiders have commented today the survey was badly handed by the SLCC who were branded by one official from a Scottish consumer organisation as “too close to the Law Society for comfort” and “unwilling at best to get to the truth”. I reported on just how badly this latest SLCC survey was being handled in an earlier article, here : CENSORED : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's secret new Master Policy & Guarantee Fund research 'shuts out' real victims of crooked lawyers
Progressive, the firm conducting the survey on behalf of the SLCC said in their now published report : “Progressive was not able to receive a database of contact details from the Law Society of Scotland. As such the questionnaire packs were sent to LSS for labelling and distribution.”
“There were two categories of respondents on the Law Society of Scotland’s database and therefore two methods of distribution. For the first category, LSS had contact details for the claimant themselves so packs were sent directly to them. For the second, LSS’s database only contained details for the names of the claimants’ solicitors. In order to account for this, the questionnaire packs included an additional letter asking the solicitor to forward on to their client named on the front of the envelope.”
“In total, 145 questionnaires were distributed; 85 that went directly to claimants and 60 that went to claimants via their solicitor. In order to optimise the response rates to the survey reminder letters were sent to respondents halfway through the fieldwork period. The fieldwork period was also extended to give maximise the opportunity for claimants to respond.”
“Questionnaires were returned directly to Progressive in freepost envelopes. In total 19 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis, denoting a 13% response rate.”
It had been hoped to send questionnaires out to 250 people although for unexplained reasons and doubtless due to the fact the Law Society of Scotland were controlling distribution, only 145 eventually went out.
The company were further critical of the Law Society’s methods of distribution, stating “A large proportion of questionnaires were not sent directly to claimants. Sending questionnaires first to solicitors to pass on to their clients would have affected the likelihood of the questionnaires reaching them and also their likelihood of completing them.” Progressive further warned : “This is likely to impact response rates.”
The report also claims : “Missing information on labels. A few solicitors fed back that there was no client contact on the packs they were sent so were unable to forward these on, again, affecting the final response rate (at least 4 reported this to be the case)” and that some clients who were sent questionnaires by the Law Society of Scotland could not be traced because they had moved address.
The report went onto state all of those who eventually responded to the survey (NINETEEN PEOPLE IN FIVE YEARS) were suspiciously successful in their claim “to some extent” but even among those, there was still evidence of some dissatisfaction with the outcome and the decisions behind it. Clearly the Law Society of Scotland had chosen clients it thought would give the Guarantee Fund a better write up than others with more horrific experiences.
The report states : “Ten of our respondents were successful in their claim, all of whom were satisfied with the outcome. Six were partially successful and of these, four were dissatisfied.”
From the comments provided as to the reasons why, one respondent’s dissatisfaction stemmed from the perception that they were not provided with direct answers for the decision. Three comments related to respondents not receiving full compensation and feeling that the decision made and the reasons for it were not clearly explained to them.
One respondent to the survey stated : “It seemed as if the Scottish Solicitor’s Guarantee Fund were trying to pay as little as possible and were looking after their own interests. Again you were made to feel like a criminal at the hearing.” Another respondent said : “I was not fully compensated for a fraud that was not my fault but my solicitor's, who was now in jail and yet I had to suffer financially and with stress.”
Comments from the five people who provided reasons for their satisfaction expressed relief that the process had come to an end and they perceived that the Fund had worked well for them.
One respondent said : “Achieved desired outcome although would have preferred not to have gone through the process at all.”Another respondent said : “[Because] I felt that I could move forward and bring closure to the whole affair [as] I had felt very let down by the solicitor involved in my particular case.”
Bearing in mind the turnout for the report is so small, its findings & recommendations are very limited, due mostly to the notably poor advertising of the survey by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (who apparently wanted as small a number of participants as possible) and the fact the Law Society of Scotland were allowed to distribute the forms on their own, rather than identification & distribution be handed over to the report’s authors or an independent body.
Chancers Calling - SLCC Board Member Margaret Scanlan branded Guarantee Fund claimants as “chancers”. It should also be borne in mind SLCC Board Members have already expressed anti-client sentiment against claimants to the Guarantee Fund, where in one publicised incident, SLCC Board Member Margaret Scanlan raged against claimants to the Guarantee Fund, branding them “chancers” in a series of bitter emails revealed to the public by Freedom of Information legislation, revealed here : Officials pull FOI disclosures as Guarantee Fund "chancer" emails show Law Society anti-client bias has migrated to Legal Complaints Commission & here : MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members 'booze culture conduct' reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers
Speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon, a client who has been waiting FIVE YEARS for his claim to the Scottish solicitors Guarantee Fund to be paid after his solicitor stole nearly SEVENTY THOUSAND POUNDS from his client’s bank account, felt the argument between the SLCC & Law Society “is somewhat staged”. He went onto say it was his experience neither the Law Society or the SLCC can be trusted to properly regulate the legal profession in Scotland.
In spite of the Law Society’s condemnation of the claims contained in the SLCC’s annual report, it is now an established fact that claims against the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund have been the subject of delaying tactics & corrupt attempts to prevent any payouts in most damages claims made by members of the public who have been left in financial ruin after growing numbers of Scottish lawyers have embezzled their clients funds.
More analysis of the latest annual report of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for 2011 will be published during the week.
14 comments:
Oh dear, how embarassing for the mafia at the Law Society of Scotland - it and its disgraced insurance provider Marsh follow the same tactics of obstruction they used when the Manchester researchers asked for information and again it comes back to bite them.
It would be nice, if totally niave, to think that the SLCC was finally developing some teeth to replace the set of 'falsies' it has been wearing since its inception.
However I suspect they know as well as we do that nothing will ever be allowed to come of this criticism - courtesy of the Law Society's Friend, Justice Secretary for life and solicitor MacAskill.
Presumably Jane Irvine & the board will appear on the news tied up and flanked by Law Society bosses dressed in black hoodies pointing pens at their heads demanding a retraction and all standing in front of a picture of MacAskill swigging a bottle of buckfast.
Are the SLCC trying to get on your good side Peter?
Or is this all a well timed fake argument to pretend the SLCC is irritating the Law Society and take some of the heat out of another year wasted on doing bugger all for clients.
By the way their annual report stinks I trust you will rip it apart during the week!
"Bully required, Urgent" - couldnt have put it better myself!
It sums up MacAskill perfectly!
Fairly low level thing to pick a fight over and drag MacAskill into it.There must be something else going on in the background surely?
Peter you must be a formidable opponent for the lawyers in Scotland because this latest posting of yours leaves the Law Society with not a leg to stand on.
Good work and good to see the clients have someone (you not the slcc) on their side.
all sounds like a bit of a smokescreen to deflect attention away from the slcc's annual report
did the SLCC & Law Society arrange this criticism before publication?
Are we witnessing the LAST-GASP- UTTERRINGS from a failed SLCC before they are SHUT-DOWN in DISGRACE?
I am sorry but the SLCC IS the Law Society of Scotland.
FACT.
Therefore, you're attempted RUSE, fools nobody but yourself.
Here is the real truth:
"This suggests that the outcome of claims is influenced by factors other than the merits of the claims". (We know this already but what are YOU going to DO about it?)
'the Law Society refused to hand over client contact details to the SLCC & its selected research company who were investigating claims against crooked lawyers in Scotland' (Again, clear evidence of FRAUD. So, WHY DONT YOU CALL IN THE POLICE?)
'NINETEEN PEOPLE IN FIVE YEARS' (Again, the Law Society of Scotland willfully obstructing investigations that would diclose their FRAUD and the SLCC aiding & abetting them in sabotaging this research because they are the Law Society of Scotland!)
Mr POLICEMAN arrest that mob....
For every one person (victimised client) who has had to resort to the Law Society of Scotland's Guarantee Fund.
There must be ONE THOUSAND who have been put off from bothering because they know it is a closed shop, in-house, protection racket, fraud, whereby the objective is to arrive at a 'deliberately obtuse' Finding, which they can call official, where they can say that the Scottish lawyer did as little as possible wrong, in order to trivialise what has happened to you and to humiliate you into the bargain and to pay you the minimum possible.
The mindset being - Well you may manage to get some money out of US but by God we will make sure we will cause you as much pain, grief, damage and distress in the process!
19th Dec 16.59
Very well explained ,exactly what happens, and intended.It happened to me.
Has a date been released yet to announce the closure of the SLCC? (The Edinburgh Supper Club)
Nicholas Nairn
Ping pong ting pling clik plik pik tap taptap tap pin tap tic pik clik tik plock pong ting tap tap
...Goes the sound from the LSS Guarantee Fund Department, as they try to erase all the evidence before the police come in to remove their computers!
The Guarantee Fund was build up by annual levys on all practising Solicitors. It is now millions, and certain members of the Law Society use it as their personal slush fund.
A certain firm was closed down by the Law Society and all the clients were given forms to claim on the Guarantee Fund. Unusually all of them got their money in full from the Fund within months (almost unheard of). BUT the Law Society then pocketed all the funds in the client account (because the clients had been paid in full from the Fund), and paid it (as well as the firms own money) to a certain employee as "fees" for closing down the firm- and then it turned out the firm hadn't actually done anything against the rules in the first place, though it had totally coincidentally challenged the Scottish Legal Aid Board on behalf of certain clients.
Oops, what a shame, Solicitors fighting the Legal Aid Board for clients are shut down with insinuations of dishonesty and all their assets seized to stop them restarting their business, their clients sent elsewhere to firms who only care about those who can pay cash up front, and a nice bonus taken from the Guarantee Fund for individuals at the Law Society.
Post a Comment