Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission forced to publish compensation data in annual report, reveals only 7 cases ‘fully upheld’ against ‘dodgy lawyers’

SLCC DoorReport reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission only fully upheld SEVEN complaints against crooked lawyers in 2010-2011. CONSIDERABLE media scrutiny of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has forced Scotland’s notoriously anti-consumer law complaints regulator to finally publish client compensation data for the first time in its three year existence. The figures released by the SLCC in its latest annual report for 2011 show that up to £2,061 has been awarded to clients during the SLCC’s investigation of complaints and in one case, an award of up to £9,261 after the SLCC had upheld a complaint. The annual report also reveals the SLCC received 2,598 enquiries and 1,090 complaints made by members of the public against ‘crooked lawyers’ to add to the 274 in hand at the start of the year, yet the ‘independent’ SLCC admits it only managed to fully uphold a meagre SEVEN COMPLAINTS (out of 88) against ‘crooked lawyers’ in the past year – six more than the ONE single complaint it fully upheld last year.

The SLCC’s latest annual report for 2011 reports that of the 1,090 complaints received by the £1.8 MILLION POUND cash-in-the-bank-happy Scottish Legal Complaints Commission this year, 503 complaints were ruled ineligible for investigation despite protests from many clients over the handling of their apparently ‘ineligible’ cases while 81 conduct complaints were referred to the Law Society of Scotland and 4 complaints were referred to the Faculty of Advocates for investigation. Of the remaining, 210 complaints were dealt with and closed by the SLCC, and 566 were still in hand at the year end, including 290 awaiting a decision on eligibility.

The most common reasons for a complaint being declared ineligible were that it was frivolous, vexatious or totally without merit (160 cases), or because the complaint was out of time (146 cases), the limit normally being one year from when the professional relationship ended. Some cases also continued to be referred to the professional bodies under the transitional arrangements.

Fifty seven complaints were resolved by mediation, and one was withdrawn. A further 42 complaints were resolved by report or conciliation at the complaint investigation stage, and 22 more were withdrawn. In six of the cases, clients were awarded an abatement of fees ranging from £200-£2,000 with an average payout of £893, and in 13 cases a payment of compensation was awarded to the client, ranging from £40-£2,061 with an average payout of £517. Total amounts awarded to clients at the investigation stage of complaints were £5,356 for abatement of fees and £6,723 in compensation awards.

However, mediation has its own dangers, as it appears law firms who are involved in disputes with multiple clients have used the mediation service to escape any determinations in complaints, and with the SLCC apparently not collating data on whether the same ‘crooked lawyers’ keep appearing at mediation hearings, the mediation system may well be doing more harm than good for consumer protection.

SEVEN COMPLAINTS UPHELD slcc annualreport online 2011_Page25The SLCC only managed to fully uphold a total of 7 complaints in the last year despite significant numbers of complaints made by the public against lawyers. A further 88 complaints progressed to the formal determination stage (where the SLCC is forced to make a decision on the complaint), of which ONLY SEVEN COMPLAINTS were upheld in full during the entire year, while 20 complaints were partly upheld, with the remaining 61 complaints not upheld. A small number of 26 cases from the 88 complaints required the practitioner to refund or abate fees and/or pay the complainer compensation (some required both). Awards made to clients at the determination stage showed the same range of fee abatements, with an average payout of £650, and compensation payments between £75 and £9,261 with an average payout of £979.

The total amount awarded to clients at determination stage for the last year was £4,550 for abatement of fees and £25,446 in compensation awards. However, the statistics  come with a large caveat, as the compensation award figures now published by the SLCC do not document or reflect the actual quantum of exactly how much money clients believe they have actually lost as a result of their solicitor’s actions in the cases where compensation awards were made.

It should also be noted no compensation award figures have yet been published for 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 and the total amounts paid so far in 2010-2011 which appear on the low side of expectations, dwarf the staggering costs of running the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission along with its lavish Central Edinburgh offices & generous remuneration packages of up to £312 a day for board members who between them have claimed up to £160,000 a year for the three years the SLCC has existed.

Rosemary AgnewSLCC Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew denied journalists access to compensation data amid false promises of early publication. Diary of Injustice had requested the compensation award figures for the last three years via Freedom of Information legislation in July 2011. However, the SLCC’s current Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew refused to release the data, branding the request as “vexatious”. Ms Agnew went onto claim the compensation data was to be published within 12 weeks of the July request, however no publication was made and the Scottish Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion found the SLCC had mishandled FOI requests for the data. A second FOI request after Mr Dunion’s investigation was also refused by the SLCC, who have now published only the compensation data for the last financial year available.

You can read more about the SLCC’s refusal to hand over the compensation data in response to FOI requests and the Scottish Information Commissioner's investigation, here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to publish details of ‘loose change’ client compensation as board & staff live it up on YOUR millions and here : SCROOGE’D : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission buries ‘bad news’ annual report at Christmas, again refuses to release ‘compensation to clients’ data

A legal insider speaking to Diary of Injustice today explained the reluctance of the SLCC to publish client compensation data He claimed : “I think the SLCC have avoided publicising compensation figures in previous annual reports due to worries that if the amounts were published it may encourage more clients to make complaints & compensation claims in the hope they could recover their losses via the SLCC instead of pursuing complicated compensation claims against their solicitors via the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy.” which as we all now know holds little chance of success for members of the public making claims made against negligent or crooked lawyers via the client hating Scottish courts.

There is also a suggestion a deliberate decision was taken not to collect or retain data on compensation awarded to clients in previous years, a claim now being investigated by Diary of Injustice.

COMPLAINTS slcc annualreport online 2011_Page15Breakdown of complaints by subject handled by the SLCC in 2010-2011. The Commission also reports that it dealt with 50% of complaints within 100 working days, 85% within 200, and 95% within 300. The most common categories of complaints for the year were residential conveyancing (22%), litigation and family law (15% each), and executries, wills and trusts (12%), among others. Other categories of complaints running at around 2% per subject of the total numbers of complaints received by the SLCC were Housing, Landlord and Tenant, Financial Services - Other,  Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Business Category, Commercial and Company Law Financial Services - Endowment Policies, Mental Health, Planning and Compulsory Purchase, Child Law, Consumer Law, Welfare Benefits, Agricultural Law, Negligence, & Taxation.

The annual report also reveals that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission managed to spend less money than budgeted, with actual expenditure of £2,408,000, against a budget of £2,839,000 and income of £2,232,000, giving a deficit on the year of £175,000. The Commission's reserves at the year end stood at £1,816,000 (down from £2,025,000 the year before), of which £1m has been earmarked to be gifted back to lawyers to underwrite the general levy in 2011-12.

Regarding the TWO MILLION POUNDS of taxpayer funds spent by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s Justice department on the SLCC’s start up costs & lavish perks handed out to board members, not one single penny has been returned by the SLCC to public coffers despite calls for the money to be repaid so it can be better used in other areas of public services.

Jane IrvineJane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Introducing the report, the chair, Jane Irvine, said it had been a year of "significant progress" for the Commission. She was keen that the SLCC should "start saying more" to encourage the profession to learn from complaints, but commented: "we have decided to be cautious about drawing conclusions from the limited information we hold; including statistics regarding numbers and types of complaints coming to us. It is not sensible to draw inferences from only two and a half years of limited information about a profession as complex as the Scottish legal profession".

Ms Irvine, who at one point also supported making the Law Society of Scotland compliant with Freedom of Information legislation, also claimed the SLCC was continuing to "lobby the Scottish Government for changes to the Act to allow our complaint handling to become more efficient and user friendly" while in opposing circles, the Law Society of Scotland continues to lobby the Scottish Government at every chance to tone down what few powers the SLCC has, along with ensuring the SLCC refrains from protecting consumers against ‘crooked lawyers’.

Yet with only SEVEN complaints fully upheld in a single year, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has a long way to go before it can begin to be trusted to regulate Scotland’s increasingly corrupt legal services market, where client funds are often seen as easy meat by solicitors out to make a quick kill and an easy get-away from any repercussions via lawyer biased regulators such as the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland.

64 comments:

Anonymous said...

How many 'dodgy lawyers' struck off?

Answer : ZERO!

How about a bonus Jane?

Anonymous said...

STAGGERING DUMFOUNDING INCREDULOUS

Over a 2 year period this works out at £650,000.000 for each Full Finding against a Scottish Lawyer!

I'm not being funny but I reckon I could set up a legit business that would be able to be totally transparent and be able to arrive at nearer the dodgy 50 Scottish lawyers mark for just £650,000.00 All-in.

Any takers?

Anonymous said...

Ha! What a joke!

Just imagine the outcry if the cops were only able to charge 7 people last year for crime!

These people really know how to protect crooked lawyers dont they!

Anonymous said...

Only Jane Irvine could call 7 Full Cases found against Scottish lawyers progress.

Technically, it is progress from 1

These statistics are shameful and to release them at Christmas time is some sort of vindictive sick-joke against the poor victims of crooked Scottish lawyers

Anonymous said...

Anyone know who the Landlord is going to put into those buildings in early January 2012, after the SLCC have vacated the building?

Anonymous said...

These compensation figures are nothing short of a disgrace.

The ststistics prove only one thing.

That there is absolutely no point in having the SLCC!

The reason the SLCC have refused to release their performance statistics is the same reason that's going to SHUT THEM.

Who's going to trust them in 2012?

Christmas 2012...Statistics...Number of new cases received by the SLCC...4 (All Scottish Lawyers taking action against members of the LSS for telling porkie pies)


This lot should be caricatured in a comic. Endless material...

Anonymous said...

Dear Jane

Are you never going to learn?

If you bury all these details about complaints on the back pages Peter is always going to highlight it to the rest of us.

Why dont you be honest for a change and admit the SLCC is unfit for purpose?

Anonymous said...

7 complaints out of over a thousand?

What are the odds!

I think this SLCC is a busted flush!

Anonymous said...

The examples of cases in their annual report are less convincing than Silvio Berlusconi's hair line.

Maybe Irvine & the gang should try a new approach like TELLING THE BLOODY TRUTH FOR A CHANGE

Anonymous said...

No wonder the lawyers are happy to be paying for the SLCC - because its letting them all off the hook!

Oh you are also spot on about "mediation" - its a very nasty dirty business Peter,something you should take a look into and expose all the way to the blog!

Anonymous said...

Any ideas who the 4 bent advocates are?

Anonymous said...

Oh well,burying the complaints stats on page 25 of the annual report does not seem to have helped the SLCC very much!

7 complaints upheld in an entire year.Its a good thing none of these people are working for the FSA otherwise the banking collapse would have been even worse (oh sorry it is!) so I must conclude all regulators including the SLCC are useless at protecting the public!

Anonymous said...

Is it my imagination or are the SLCC even WORSE than the Law Society at catching crooked lawyers?

Anonymous said...

I suppose what surprises me the most is the 1000 or so people who are dumb enough to be pinning their hopes on the slcc to fix their legal probs.

Have the Scots lost their courage as well as their common sense in traipsing round duff ombudsmen?

Anonymous said...

Those examples of complaints in their annual report and how the slcc dealt with them sound very tame considering some of the newspaper stories in the past year.Yet another failure and another wasted year for anyone with a dispute against a Scottish lawyer.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear from some of those who ended up having their complaints thrown out.

Also some of our useless politicians at the Scottish Parliament should be hauling this lot in for a chat because 7 complaints in a year is ridiculous for the amount of money being thrown at this slcc!

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 20 December 2011 23:22

Yes ... I am looking into the subject of "mediation" as information provided by some complainants appears to show law firms who serially abuse their clients are slipping through the net via mediation ...

To be honest I am not the greatest fan of mediation because I have often found it deprives the regulation system from rulings & information on law firms and clients which could help protect other consumers ...

# Anonymous @ 20 December 2011 23:45

Not yet ... however I have my suspicions ...

# Anonymous @ 21 December 2011 10:37

Well its certainly not an improvement ...

# Anonymous @ 21 December 2011 11:11

The problem for consumers of legal services in Scotland is that there is no other route of making complaints about their solicitors ...

# Anonymous @ 21 December 2011 12:03

Try writing to your msp .. as everyone should ... and see how far you all get in motivating your £65K plus infinite perks a year Holyrood politician to investigate the SLCC or clean up regulation of the legal profession ...

However .. it is worth a try if only to see how many refusals come in which can be published online in all their gory details ...

Anonymous said...

I doubt Irvine will be sending you a Christmas card!

Well done Peter for yet another year of brilliant writing and exposes of the legal world's mafia shenanigans.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter reading through the comments I'd like to ask do you know if any lawyers have actually been prosecuted as a result of the SLCC investigating a complaint?

Anonymous said...

Good points in the 2nd comment and yes it is STAGGERING this bunch of people are getting away with a 7 complaints in a year swindle!

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 21 December 2011 14:02

As far as I am aware there have been no reconsiderations of prosecutions of solicitors by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ... at least none they want to admit to ...

Anonymous said...

Interesting one Peter.I dont think even the Law Society has managed to go a whole three years without recommending a prosecution before the SSDT.

I think its safe to say this SLCC is a waste of money time & energy although we only know this because of your dogged determination to get to the truth.

Anonymous said...

Probably the 2,598 enquiries is more accurate for the number of real complaints which should be looked into if you think about how much lawyers continually brag they do for the economy.

Their figures dont add up if you think about it because 7 upheld complaints is just a silly number stacked up against 2,598.

Anonymous said...

I know someone who was told to get stuffed by the SLCC about their lawyer who was sending them bills for work he never did I've told her to contact you Mr Cherbi asap

Anonymous said...

"Regarding the TWO MILLION POUNDS of taxpayer funds spent by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s Justice department on the SLCC’s start up costs & lavish perks handed out to board members, not one single penny has been returned by the SLCC to public coffers despite calls for the money to be repaid so it can be better used in other areas of public services."

ITS DISGUSTING ANY PUBLIC MONEY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO LAWYERS FOR THIS FIT UP SLCC

Anonymous said...

How about the bullying of clients into mediation?You better look into this too Peter because I was asked this before they even accepted my complaint!What a racket!

Anonymous said...

It would be a teriific Civic Service if a kind hearted Brickie squad were to rock-up at the SLCC Offices and brick-up their door-way, so the blighters can't get back in come January 2012.

This lot of are going through money like it's Monoploy Money!

If you look at their Systems, Policies & Procedures then look at their budget and look at their through-put and results.

We are simply being LIED TO!

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine - 'Made Progress'

Rosemary Agnew - wanted to keep the SLCC statistics a secret, claiming that, it was not in the public interest, for the public to see the figures (Surely, this must win some sort of award? Ian Hislop any ideas?)

Now,read this and let it sink-in just for a moment or two.

See if your brain can comprehend this? (from their own figures)

TYPICALLY, HALF OF THE CASES THE SLCC DEAL WITH TAKES THEM...wait for it.......wait.....wait......

800 WORKING-MAN-HOURS PER CASE!

(That seems to be them working flat-out because)

THE REMAINING HALF OF THE CASES THE SLCC DEAL WITH, TAKES THEM
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN

1600 - 2400 WORKING-MAN-HOURS PER CASE BEFORE THEY REACH A RESULT!

___________________________________
! ! ! U N B E L I E V A B L E ! ! !
======================================================================



with a cherry on top

Anonymous said...

AMAZING!

I've always wanted a really really good job, in swanky offices, fringe benefits, nice sannies laid on by the boss for free, free java on tap and the best thing is.......
you get appraised on your gazing out of the window technique.

Hey, hey hey...do they do heads down thumbs up, after bags are packed-up with half an hour to go before home-time?

Anonymous said...

So..you were right all along - the SLCC is at best useless at worst anti-client.

I hear Jane Irvine hates you calling the SLCC "anti-client" yet all the evidence seems to prove the point!

Keep up the good work Peter and hope you have a good Christmas.

Anonymous said...

Tugendhat said of Rick Kordowski "His conduct is a gross interference with the rights of the individuals he names".

Funny Tudenghat you never talk about the rights of the victims of the lawyer crooks on Rick's site. Like Hudson you see only what you want to see.

Anonymous said...

http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2011/12/news-of-world-papers-reveal-jedburgh.html

Jedburgh lawyer ‘Major’ David Sturrock threatened News International with legal action if they featured a crooked lawyer colleague. PAPERS RELEASED by journalists who worked for the former NEWS OF THE WORLD newspaper for an ongoing investigation into how the Scottish legal profession muscle newspapers away from reporting on scandals involving “crooked lawyers” have uncovered surprising results, where in one example released to Scottish Law Reporter, a JEDBURGH solicitor identified as ‘MAJOR’ DAVID PERCIVAL STURROCK (68) who holds SEVENTEEN DIRECTORSHIPS including one on a PRIVATE SCHOOL, threatened NEWS INTERNATIONAL & the NEWS OF THE WORLD newspaper with legal action if its journalists followed the Scotsman newspaper & reported on a well known scandal involving a £300K SWINDLE of a will involving Kelso solicitor Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors and an accountant who was the will’s Executor, Norman Howitt currently of JRW Group also based in the Scottish Borders.
=================================
Yes Peter how these rats sleep at night is beyond me. They want to control the press and now the web, never I say.

All the best.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC is the best thing that could have happened to Scottish Unionists!

Those clever clever Scottish Tory MSP's, Scottish Liberal MSP's and of course the Unelectables the Scottish Labour MSP's, knew their parties were going down the toilet but how to beat the Bold Alex....?

Turns out it was as simple as...

Four letters S L C C


EG. Approx 1000 disaffected and victimised solicitor clients who have trusted the Govt and then been shafted up the bahookie.

Lets assume each victim belongs to a modest nuclear family of 4, and they each have 4 really good friends who would reasonably be expected to share this disaffection and be so peeved that they tell two other friends and it influences their voting decision too?

Hmmm, not unreasonable assumptions!


That's 56,000 SNP Votes gone as a result of these figures and counting.....makes you think!

Anonymous said...

"Mediation" I remember reading on a website that the writer offered to pay all costs for everone (Lawyers, LSS,SLCC,LSO,Chief Constable, mp's & msp's) involved to sit round the table to discuss the problems that were highlighted on the site .This included forgery, deception, court documents altered ,ect ect, This offer included the statement "If a reasonable answer to some very simple straight forward questions can be given the whole matter would be dropped" as of yet this offer of "MEDIATION" as far as I am aware has been totally ignored by all concerned.

Anonymous said...

Nothing short of the usual Scottish regulation disaster backed up by corrupt politicians

Anonymous said...

This just underlines the urgent need for the naming and shaming of all lawyers who have had complaints lodged and upheld against them, together with a history of 'serial offenders'.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society seems to lurch from one crisis to another. They have paid huge amounts of money to shut down the Solicitors From Hell website. Initially the actions were confined to its members suing for libel. O.K some solicitors were unfairly listed.

However, in the latest action the Law Society include harrassment claims for good measure. But what a mistake that was and the judge gave the game away in his judgement. If you cannot sue a journalist or blogger because the publication is true – it’s fine to sue for harrassment instead. So the message seems to be to solicitors and everyone in fact - if the publication is untrue and you are defamed – sue for libel. Or if you are correctly exposed for wrongdoing, sue for harrassment as an alternative.

That part of the judgement will go down as a grave error. The Law Society could have confined this to libel and probably still succeeded. However, by introducing harrassment into this they have got a whole bunch of folks steamed up. When journalists and the Libel Reform Campaign sit down and digest the implications for free speech there will be hell to pay.

And now the floodgates are open which one of the Law Society’s members is going to be the first to bring a harrassment claim. Keep a close eye on the court listings – that might be sooner than you think.

And in the meantime just see how busy the three websites which have replaced Mr Kordowski’s site get. According to Mr Hudson of The Law Society these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’. Glad to hear that Mr Hudson. We thank you for confirming that and the research which must have been carried out by the Law Society to qualify you to make such a statement on the public’s behalf.
=================================
It is touching Mr Hudson has all this compassion for the public he is monitoring the new websites.

The only concern he has for the public is making sure people do not know which lawyer is honest and which are corrupt. Think about it, they pay the Law socity for their practicing certificates so the society would lose money.

My advice Hudson has resevoirs of compassion for lawyers, ONLY LAWYERS. Treat lawyers like the outcasts they are. Hudson is cheesed off because the self regulators are under the microscope now, and it is not a pretty picture. It is like a car manufacturer selling cars that have not been tested, how do drivers know if they are safe?

Anonymous said...

The Law Societies are from Hell,
so all solicitors are from hell.

We clients must assume all lawyers are corrupt until they gain sufficient positive ratings to prove otherwise. No profession handling clients assets should be hidden behind corrupt unions.

Public Feedback Frightens them said...

anonymous said...

Ha! What a joke!

Just imagine the outcry if the cops were only able to charge 7 people last year for crime!
=================================
Good point, we are back to that line again, lawyers are important to the SLCC so little action is taken against them.

If those breaking into houses, murderers, paedophiles, were important to the police they would not be prosecuted either.

It is all about WHO IS IMPORTANT, I know a man who detests the police because they will not let him steal other people's property.

Glaucon one of Plato's subjects once said, "we can form clubs so as to look honest and avoid the consequences of our dishonesty". The Law Societies and SLCC are based on Glaucons idea here, hide all behind closed doors, avoid the consequences of public courts. Even Douglas Mill who lied to the Justice 2 Committee tried to look convincing but his memo to collude with Marsh UK made him fall on his sword.

The Law Societies (note I say societies because I am more focused on Hudson's from the Tugendhat ruling) deal with lawyer corruption in the professional private realm, and do not want public feedback in the public realm of cyberspace. This tells us a lot about the integrity of the Law Societies, they do not want client feedback in public about how lawyers and the societies have treated us. Very revealing.

Anonymous said...

Can all of the people who have reported their lawyers to the SLCC since its inception in October 2008 post their complaints details on the new web sites.

Use your legitimate freedom of expression because they think they have the right to deal with this issue in the private SLCC.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the SLCC and Law Societies is that they are incapable of taking a panoramic view.

All they care about is lawyer rights because they believe clients are unimportant. Self regulation must end.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the Edinburgh Supper Club (SLCC) ordered in the Champagne to congratulate themselves over these Christmas Performance Statistics on a job well done?

Anonymous said...

Clearly there needs to be an independent investigation into how poorly the SLCC coped with complaints but who is independent enough to do it?

Anonymous said...

It would seem that there are still 4 new SLCC board members to replace 4 outgoing board members (no doubt who'll be leaving with a lovely staff Christmas gift?)

Some contenders for the positions are:

Silvio Berlusconi - A man of high character and repute, who could bring a wealth of sound decision making experience and personal experience dealing with lawyers and an expert in personal mediation. Also can display a formidable record of finincial probity and would be keen to take charge of the SLCC's cooperation with the Schools' work-experience programme.

Robert Mugabe - A well known and well loved dictator, by his supporters and family. He has shown a remarkable propensity to pay not one blind bit of notice in the face of outside pressure, so he should fit in quite quickly?

Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria - known torturer of the people he claims to represent. Claims that everything in the garden is rosy, whilst the macabre plotting goes on behind the scenes.

Frankie Escariot - Apparently a long distant relative of Judas. Just the calibre they seek?

Anonymous said...

I was talking to a person today who had problems with the SLCC because their complaint was thrown out and even after trying to point out to the SLCC the evidence they handed in backed them up over the what the solicitor did the SCLC still refused to do anything about it.How can the public reason with these people when they don't want to investigate complaints?Its terrible and way to reverse it.Very sad and corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
How many 'dodgy lawyers' struck off?

Answer : ZERO!

How about a bonus Jane?

20 December 2011 21:07

Says it all really.NO regulator is worth a penny with this kind of reputation!

YOUR CHILDREN ARE THEIR FUTURE VICTIMS said...

A political theorist. Mosca if my memory is correct stated that "an organised minority can control an unorganised majority" and this we see with the Law Societies and their victims.

The Tudendhat ruling and the Law Societies want to break up networks of dissent so their organised minority can leave their victims rightless, therefore powerless, suplicant to their entrenched ideological views. It must not happen because what this profession taught me was I could not get a lawyer to sue a lawyer.

I was blocked from action, a leper outside the political community where paedophiles, rapists and murderers get a defence the rightless subhuman victim of a crooked lawyer does not.

The foundation of their power is keeping us rightless, unable to act against them, unable to unite.

I had no money for five months because a doctor lied in my medical records and stopped my money to starve me into submission in a litigation case. My lawyer sharing the same insurer as my doctor protected him. Had I a mortgage instead on living in my mothers house I would have lost my house, car. I felt like suicide and ten years on I cannot get a job and the Law Society would not investigate the lawyer. He moved from Ross Harper to Drummond LLP recently.

Please believe me lawyers and doctors are extremely dangerous, evil, they are the state.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Professor Noam Chomsky on Government states that... “if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.

In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow”.

Any legal code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow”.


So Tugendhat rejects the principle of universality, “even if all postings on Solicitors from Hell are true” the public cannot ever criticise lawyers but lawyers can deal with complaints from the public in the private realm of The Law Societies of the United Kingdom.

Where is the balance of power Tugendhat? Your ruling is illegitimate on the grounds of universality. It cannot stand the test of time.

Clearly Mr MacAskill a supporter of legal tyranny is of the same opinion because he stated "Scotland owes a great debt to the Legal Profession". What do you do for victims of lawyers Kenny except set up corrupt lawyer loving quangos.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC, radical evil.

Anonymous said...

Yet with only SEVEN complaints fully upheld in a single year, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has a long way to go before it can begin to be trusted to regulate Scotland’s increasingly corrupt legal services market, where client funds are often seen as easy meat by solicitors out to make a quick kill and an easy get-away from any repercussions via lawyer biased regulators such as the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland.
================================
Exactly Peter, a nice set of offices filled with like minded individuals who feel sorry for poor lawyers.

A system of offices where no one is accountable for what is being done and loyalty ensures it is near impossible to identify culprits.

The above paragraph is self regulation spelled out. An outdated system where the self regulators want to have power over their clients but want no public scrutiny of their own activities. This is the reason for the corruption, a sound business model for repeated embezzlement practices.

Anonymous said...

To you people in the legal profession. I was ruined by xxxxxxx xxxx and Dr xxxxxxxx. I think self regulation leaves people in powerful jobs who should be in jail.

God bless those people like Mr Cherbi who fight and we must crush these legal and medical dictators. It is time you reaped the consequences of your actions.

Anonymous said...

Havent seen much in the papers about the SLCC's annual report.Have the rags given up on spinning it off as a consumer champ c/o Law Society brown envelopes?

Anonymous said...

How can it justify being a complaints regulator when no lawyers have been struck off?

This is a huge scandal for all the public money wasted on it and why has John Swinney not demanded some kind of repayment from these lawyer protectors?

Anonymous said...

In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow”.
=================================
Self regulation repudiaties the principle of universality. It is a form of legalising criminal activity so that those who work in the professions are exempt from the consequences of their actions. It is a method of avoiding public scrutiny of actions, and it has manifested itself as gross abuses of power for decades.

In any system political, legal, power must always be balanced and in any country we have politics (which attempts to create some harmony between human differences) or Tyranny, (a system without politics). Our legal system is tyranny.

Self regulation places power in the hands of the professions. The Law Societies must lose this power and the only people that can do this are clients. It is not possible in my opinion to reason with people who move the legal goalposts to kill off web sites, or reason with the Hudson's of the legal world.

Self regulation creates massive difference between those who have total power, and those who are left rightless. Join us to protect future generations from people who believe they have the right to abuse the public to the point of suicides to save crooked lawyers reputations.

Anonymous said...

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience-well that comes from poor judgement". But we did not have poor judgement (Anon). We put our trust in a lawyer, and the catastrophic experience we suffered allows us to advise all of you.

Good judgement is to TRUST NO LAWYER. Do not make the mistake of trusting them, mention the web sites and you will be asked to leave their offices. They are all bound to the Law Societies and SLCC. They do not need to do a good job for you, it is not about performance related pay. They get money for nothing because they know their Societies and SLCC will protect them. If you fail to heed this warning some of you will become victims of these criminals. I am not patronising you, only trying to warn you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

According to Mr Hudson of The Law Society these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’.
-------------------------------

This man has been eating too many fruit loops...

Yes what happens to a child who is not disciplined? They become yobs, just like this idiot. Self regulation where these people do what they want without sanctions creates this mental attitude.

I have no doubt that he 100% believes "these sites are being monitored but currently ‘pose no danger to the public’.

He believes the Law Societies protect the public, delusions of grandure. Just like Hitler (I am not accusing Hudson of being a Nazi) when the Russian artillary fire was hitting the bunker he wanted to move german armies to stop the Russians, when the German armies were smashed. He is living in fruit loop land, convinced only clients are wrong and that is wonderful because he is a liability to the profession as a whole.

Anonymous said...

Mr Hudson

Can you explain to us how web sites exposing lawyer corruption are a "danger to the public"? You are a man in a powerful job so when you make statements you should look at how you would interpret your statements if I sent them to you.

Personally where the debate between lawyer and clients is concerned I think you have lost the plot. This is a preposterous statement for a man in your position to make and it is a foolish statement to make.

Anonymous said...

No one will report to the SLCC after this.

They will go to the Police instead.

Or failing that, in the absence of a realistic trustworthy Public Authority it is inevitable that they will revert to:

'The BIG MAN'

Anonymous said...

And now the floodgates are open which one of the Law Society’s members is going to be the first to bring a harrassment claim. Keep a close eye on the court listings – that might be sooner than you think.

22 December 2011 10:58
===================================

It is already happening in a notorious case in Scotland, where the Law Society of Scotland have acted unlawfully in repeatedly intervening into the lawful prosecution of their Scottish lawyer member, saving him from jail, and have allowed their member to make repeated bold false and vexatious allegations against his former client victim, in the knowledge that these attacks were causing his former client to be at extreme risk of suicide, whilst malevolently falsley accusing the former client of harrassment, when of course the opposite was the case.

Rather than stopping these vexatious and vengeful attacks, as a result of knowing of his former client's vulnerable health, the concerted collusion has continued, whereby the Scottish lawyer is now attempting to 'steal' his former client's home from under him through fraudulent and vexatious Court action.

A senior member of the Crown Office is also involved in serious criminality with respect to this case and has been put on Notice regarding his part in it.

There is no immunity or Absolute Priviledge that can be claimed by Senior Crown Office staff in the carrying out of their duties, if they knowingly and overtly break the law, in order to save someone from prosecution when they have been caught RED-HANDED.

Anonymous said...

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission this year, 503 complaints were ruled ineligible for investigation despite protests from many clients over the handling of their apparently ‘ineligible’ cases while 81 conduct complaints were referred to the Law Society of Scotland and 4 complaints were referred to the Faculty of Advocates for investigation. Of the remaining, 210 complaints were dealt with and closed by the SLCC, and 566 were still in hand at the year end, including 290 awaiting a decision on eligibility.
==============================
Dear Clients,

The only place you will get your complaints published is on the web sites.

The SLCC and Law Societies hate our guts and are dedicated to abusing us for money and reputations. Lawyers love lawyer = cover ups.

Go to the web sites and tell everyone what these people do to you. I bet my life they get a bigger bonus the more complaints they reject.

Regards

From one who knows.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC...Sort of like the launch of the Titanic without a rudder...

Certain to sink pretty soon but in the meantime doesn't know where it is going...

Anonymous said...

Would it not be better to build an enormous effigy to the indefatigability of Scottish lawyers on the top of Arthur's Seat, to be seen from miles around and to spend a £Million pounds per year on sodium spotlights to illuminate it at night to exemplify the beacon of light and gallantry that the Scottish lawyer brings to Society?

Or is it the intention to torture and humiliate client victims with the Process?

Anonymous said...

Mediation seems to be a system specifically designed in order to keep crooked Scottish lawyers in a job?

What is the motivation behind a system that trivialises legitimate client concerns, then pays clients insulting payments by way of compensation, when strictly adhered to regulation would rid the Scottish lawyer profession of their rotten element and an equitable compensation system for client victims would serve as a deterent for the rooten element?

Anonymous said...

FANTASTIC bit of writing Peter you have proved yet again this mob at the SLCC should not be allowed to call themselves a "regulator" when all they have done is uphold a lowly seven complaints.Incidentally do you know exactly what the terms of these seven complaints are?
I'm guessing they do not merit striking off otherwise there would have been a lot more in this annual report about what really happened and how brave the SLCC were to pursue it all the way to a prosecution etc which we now know never happened.

Disgrace!