Wednesday, December 07, 2011

SCROOGE’D : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission buries ‘bad news’ annual report at Christmas, again refuses to release ‘compensation to clients’ data

SLCC montageBah, Humbug ! MacAskill’s Scottish Legal Complaints Commission intends to bury its bad news annual report on the run up to Christmas. CHRISTMAS is a good time to bury bad news and the many ghosts of Christmas past, especially if the bad news happens to come from Scotland’s regulator of complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’, the anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) who, after a series of unexplained delays, are expected to publish their latest annual report on or after 20 December 2011 in the hope of quietly burying its consistently poor performance as Scotland’s legal watchdog which has so far not recommended the prosecution of one single crooked lawyer in what is approaching a very long four years since being created in 2008.

And in an attempt to keep the public from knowing just how bad the SLCC have performed, the SLCC has today REFUSED a SECOND Freedom of Information request to release information & figures on exactly how much money the SLCC have awarded over the last three years to clients who have suffered financially at the hands of their legal representatives. Since the SLCC came into being in 2008, it has NEVER published any data or information on how much compensation it has awarded clients who raised complaints about their solicitors.

SLCC refusal of compensation amount awards FOIThe SLCC’s second letter refusing to disclose the compensation amounts awarded to victims of crooked lawyers states : “I confirm the SLCC holds the information that you have requested. The SLCC endeavours to release as much information as possible. However, it has decided that the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the exemption found in Section 27 (1)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

The information you have requested is intended to be included in the SLCC’s annual report, which at the time of writing this letter is excepted to be published within 12 weeks. The SLCC has considered whether to withhold the information is reasonable and decided that it is because it will enable us to publish the information in context and in conjunction with other information about complaints.

The SLCC accepts that the information is of interest to the public but in the context of this decision has considered whether its release at this time, in advance of the publication of its annual report is in the Public Interest as set out in the Information Commissioner’s guidance. The SLCC’s view is that the arguments for withholding under section 27 outweigh those for releasing it.

1. The information requested is pertinent to the public in that it gives an indication of the effectiveness of the SLCC and information to both complainers and practitioners about outcomes of complaints. It would be argued that publishing this information as soon as possible is in the public interest for this reason.

2. The SLCC has a wider duty to report on complaints about the legal profession. Putting information in an appropriate context and publishing it in conjunction with other information to add meaning and value to it is an essential part of that reporting. Releasing the information as requested would not enable that to happen.

3. The SLCC has a statutory duty to lay its annual report before Parliament.  It is in the public interest that this is complete and appropriately quality controlled. Release of discrete sets of data in advance of publication would not support that.

I appreciate that in response to your earlier FOISA request of 5 July 2011, we had detailed our expectation that out annual report would be published within 12 weeks of your request. While this was our intention, we unfortunately experienced production related delays. Considering this delay, we have approached your request afresh in light of the above guidance along with our present confidence that we should be in a position to release our annual report within the next six weeks. We have also gone on to consider whether we should release the information anyway. Our decision is that section 27(1) should still apply and the information be withheld for all the reasons stated in this letter.

This is the SECOND FOI request for information on actual compensation figures paid out to clients who complained about their lawyers, with the first request, in July being refused by the SLCC’s Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew as a “vexatious request”, to which Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion found the SLCC had failed to handle correctly. Mr Dunion’s decision stated : Following an investigation, during which the SLCC withdrew its reliance upon section 14(1), the Commissioner found that the SLCC had failed to deal with Mr Cherbi's requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, on the basis that Mr Cherbi's requests were not vexatious in terms of section 14(1). The full decision by Mr Dunion can be read here Decision 219/2011

TODAY, an insider close to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s Board has revealed the SLCC HAD NEVER INTENDED to publish information on compensation paid out to clients until Diary of Injustice had raised the matter in FOI requests to the SLCC. The insider claimed the FOI requests, coverage of the issue on Diary of Injustice, a “rather nasty, bitter discussion between board members relating to Mr Cherbi’s investigations (which I have been told of) and Mr Dunion’s own investigation as a result of this journalist’s request to Mr Dunion’s office on the matter, have collectively FORCED the SLCC into a reluctantly taken decision to eventually publish the compensation data.

The insider said : “The levels of compensation paid out to consumers is on the low side and the SLCC never expected to be asked about it. However because the information was requested via Freedom of Information, it was down to playing a waiting game to structure the data in such a way any criticism over the low value of awards will be curtailed by other issues in the Annual Report.”

He continued : “To put it bluntly, the SLCC abused Freedom of Information legislation to cover up the compensation figures it will find embarrassing given the amount of money spent on the SLCC and public expectations of a better complaints service than was provided by the Law Society of Scotland.”

The SLCC has the power in Section 56 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to award up to £5,000 to complainers who are directly been affected as a result of the solicitor’s misconduct (as a result of a conduct complaint) or up to £20,000 for complainers who  have been directly affected by the inadequate professional services provided by their solicitor (in the case of a service complaint). The compensation awards in all instances are at the direction of the SLCC to be paid by the solicitor who is the subject of the complaint.

Earlier in October of this year, Diary of Injustice revealed the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were awarding victims of crooked lawyers as little as TEN POUNDS, after their lives had been shattered by the actions of their legal representatives. The article can be read here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to publish details of ‘loose change’ client compensation as board & staff live it up on YOUR millions

As revealed on Diary of Injustice on Monday of this week, the SLCC’s Board have authorised their Investigations Manager to produce a report on the levels of compensation paid to clients after a discussion took place at the SLCC’s October board meeting. However it was revealed in the discussions that solicitors & clients had in some cases not accepted the levels of compensation awarded by the SLCC.

The minute of the SLCC’s October meeting stated : There was some debate around the levels of compensation recommended at Investigation stage and the levels of compensation awarded at Determination stage. It was agreed that the Investigations Manager would provide a report on compensation/abatement recommended and rewarded. The report should include any comments from the Practitioner and Complainer as to why they are not accepting proposed settlements. The target date of this report being completed is laughably listed in the October board minutes as February 2012.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was created as a result of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, and brought into being by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in 2007 spent TWO MILLOIN POUNDS of taxpayers money on the hapless law complaints quango. Mr MacAskill went onto handpick a collection of quangocrats, ex Police Officers & lawyers to fill the SLCC’s board who have to-date claimed somewhere in the region of over HALF A MILLION POUNDS in expenses claims yet the SLCC has by its own admission only upheld one single complaint against an unidentified solicitor


Anonymous said...

This stinks!

If they intend to publish why the delay now, one big cover up in progress without a doubt.

Great reporting, although I bet the SLCC don't agree.

Anonymous said...

And in an attempt to keep the public from knowing just how bad the SLCC have performed, the SLCC has today REFUSED a SECOND Freedom of Information request. CRIMINALS PETER, GREAT WORK AS ALWAYS.

Anonymous said...

The tyranny of the minority springs to mind.

Peter do you have any idea when Solicitors from Hell will be back online? Thanks

Anonymous said...

I was right it is the Scottish Legal Cover up Commission.

Anonymous said...


How your solicitor can help you:

1. It may be that you need legal advice because you are splitting up from your partner.

2. Or have been made redundant from work.

3. You may be owed money by someone who is refusing to pay.
4. Or have been injured in an accident.

5. You may be buying a house.

  6. Or trying to get your landlord to repair your home.

    7. These are just a few examples of the many problems that a solicitor may be able to help you with.
8. You should not worry about going to see a solicitor.

9. Remember they are there to help you and offer you advice.

  10. Legal advice like anything else you buy costs money, but as a service its value can be enormous.
  11. You should view your solicitor as a guide and adviser - providing expert help on the law and the legal system.

  12. As a client you are entitled to expect high standards of professional service from your solicitor supported by the high level of
  consumer protection provided by the solicitors profession.

13. As a client, you have certain rights, for example, your solicitor must act in your best interests.

Don’t believe any of the above. It’s simply not true.

Anonymous said...

Rick Kordowski said: “Up until recently it was perceived by the public that the Law Society were there to protect us all from rogue solicitors. This is clearly not the case and the penny has now dropped. “There will be dozens more [sites] popping up in reaction to Mr Justice Tugendhat’s injunctions against me.” Meanwhile, Tugendhat J has not yet handed down a written judgment following his verbal judgment last week.

Good man Rick, now they are all Solicitors from Hell, against free speech and terrified of honest feedback. Those criminals Hudson and Tugendhat, I would lock them up and weld the door shut.

Anonymous said...

“rather nasty, bitter discussion between board members relating to Mr Cherbi’s investigations”

Was this the convo about hiring a hitman like the Law Society did to hack your f*cking head off?

Anonymous said...

From the SLCC letter you quoted : "The information you have requested is intended to be included in the SLCC’s annual report, which at the time of writing this letter is excepted to be published within 12 weeks. The SLCC has considered whether to withhold the information is reasonable and decided that it is because it will enable us to publish the information in context and in conjunction with other information about complaints."

So in essence what they are saying is they need time to fabricate a few payments or bury the payments info deep in their accounts/annual report.

Noting the SLCC have never published this info before now as you say this is an absolute scandal and for those who claimed the 1/2 million in expenses they should be made to pay every penny back.

Keep up the good work Peter!

Anonymous said...

These idiots at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission like digging holes for themselves don't they?
As for the Christmas report well how many victims of the SLCC will be getting an expensive card from Jane Irvine and the mob who run this disgrace?

Well done Peter for exposing their lies!

Anonymous said...

"constant sniping about the cost of running it, expenses run up by board members and the cash surplus it is carrying. Admittedly, the fingers squeezing the triggers are unlikely to be satisfied whatever the explanations."

Nice to know who your friends are Mr Cherbi.Be warned for another fit up ahead of Christmas.

Anonymous said...

Did they threaten Peter's life?I am not surprised one bit.there are countries where someone writing like Peter would be imprisoned tortured or murdered and now it seems Scotland will join that list.

Anonymous said...

Their letter to you refusing disclosure is so long and the excuses so many there must be a lot to hide.

How many people have received the £10 deal from the SLCC?I wonder how those people feel when they get an offer like this after being ruined by some crooked lawyer?

Anonymous said...

Hey Rosemary & Jane its December 7th - a lot longer than 12 weeks since Peter requested the info in July!

What are you all so worried about releasing the info if there's nothing to hide?


Anonymous said...

SLCC lack a lot of credibility on this like everything else!

Anonymous said...

What happens if some lawyer steals £500,000 from their client?
Is the client going to accept something up to the £20,000 limit?

It is all very biased towards the lawyers and I'm willing to bet they have never given anyone the £20,000 compensation limit yet!

Anonymous said...

As I have said before Scotland is now down to one law blogger keeping everyone posted on the SLCC and complaints about lawyers.Consumers have no bloody chance against these odds it is a disgrace!

Anonymous said...

Again more bad news you wont see on BBC because they dont expose crooked lawyers for some odd reason even though we are all being ripped off each year for £145.50 but dont expect any mention of crooked lawyers or crooked regulators of lawyers because its all banned isnt it!

Anonymous said...

This is extremely worrying.No press investigations into the SLCC or Law Society and nothing from the BBC either.BBC Scotland were all over Edinburgh Council fleecing tenants for fake repairs and dodgy landlords yet no investigation on how crooked lawyers are off the hook every time and this dummy SLCC handing out £10 fines to lawyers after people who lose their live savings to lawyers.THE SILENCE IS CRIMINAL

Anonymous said...

Why are we allowing them to get away with it?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 7 December 2011 19:12

Thanks for the tip ...

# Anonymous @ 7 December 2011 21:32

There should be no limit of compensation. The limits in the LPLA Act were created by lawyers.

What the lawyer steals from the client should be paid back in full and with compensation for the loss in the first place as well as the lawyer in question being struck off.

# Anonymous @ 7 December 2011 20:36

I'd be interested to hear from people who have been offered compensation by the SLCC and what happened ...

Anonymous said...

Odd that Scotsman link having a go at you has no journalist's name on it.Why is that?

Anonymous said...

Clearly you have them on this one Peter!

Good work as always.

Anonymous said...

Why are the SLCC sending out FOI responses minus the name of the person sending it?

Also whoever it is who wrote this letter (could be anyone from that scrawl of a signature) argues they need to release the compensation information with more information to explain it yet this report they are now talking about in their October meeting (supposed to be completed by February) is gathering information which should be released with the compensation data in their annual report at Christmas (if it is to be believed)

As usual something very fishy going on here.Clearly they have something to hide with how much has been paid out to complainers if they are this willing to misuse FOI law to such an extent and makes you wonder how much they abuse FOI law with others.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the figures released by the SLCC can they be trusted to tell the truth?

It strikes me now any disclosure by them on the compensation thing will have no credibility at all.

Anonymous said...

The Chinese certainly know how to deal with corruption!

Here the same crook would be free in a matter of days thanks to her crooked lawyers or some association with a prosecutor

Anonymous said...

No SLCC Christmas card for you then Mr Cherbi!

Anonymous said...

I really wouldnt worry too much about what the Scotsman prints on behalf of the legal profession against you although if they are going to this trouble you must be hurting lawyers and the SLCC badly.

Anonymous said...

To those who are saying Peter should be on the SLCC you could not be more wrong.

If Peter had been working for the SLCC he would never have been allowed to write as excellently as he has,exposing the corruption of the SLCC Law Society of Scotland and self regulation.

A job well done!

Anonymous said...

The SLCC's letter is rubbish.I'm surprised Dunion fell for this kind of crap.

Anonymous said...

Half a million in expenses for doing bugger except covering up for crooked lawyers all should be a criminal offence

Anonymous said...

I have enjoyed reading your blog this afternoon Mr Cherbi,the legal profession in Scotland must squirm every time you reveal one of their client traps and yet another crooked lawyer getting away with it.

As for this slcc well I have heard enough about them now to know the whole outfit are up to no good.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter all the best for your family and colleagues at Xmas. Another year of superb journalism.

Anonymous said...

Did they threaten Peter's life? That will be the rock they perish on.

Anonymous said...

7 December 2011 19:12

This is a typically repugnant & misleading article by the Scotsman that could have been penned by the Law Society and just fleshed-out by a lazy reporter.

Let's examine what was reported and determine just who the SLCC is there to serve?

"I think we've kept continuity," says Rosemary Agnew, the new chief executive, "We've consolidated the work of the first year. We're addressing the new challenges presented by the changed economic environment. We're an organisation that is evolving as it establishes itself."

CONTINUITY & CONSOLIDATED - Continue to let Scottish lawyers off SCOT-FREE, whilst retaining cash reserves.

EVOLVING - From Fat Cats to Fatter Cats

RE The Ver Low No. Of Cases Of Complainants Reporting To The SLCC, Jane Irvine gives 3 reasons:

1) Falling Housing market!
2) Lawyers must be resolving complaints at source
3) "it takes a long time to fall out with a lawyer"

This shows the mocking contempt these people have for victims of Scottish lawyers, when she knows the real reason for the Ultra Low numbers reaching the SLCC is that the SLCC is corrupt. She is corrupt. Yet she mocks us!

Then she says, "There may be more business on the way when the SLCC itself becomes better known as a fearless defender of the aggrieved client". (DISGUSTING)

Then you find out that £740,000 from SLCC reserves (public money, which should have gone out in compensation) was given to Scottish Lawyers to reduce their levy!

And Rosemary Agnew plans to charge the Scottish Lawyers even less for next year meaning they intend to continue to CONSOLIDATE the OPPRESSION against Client victims

Anonymous said...

The problem seems to lie with the people at the slcc.We all know what a big mistake it was to stuff a lawyers regulator with lawyers ex-lawyers ex-Law Society staff ex-cops ex-useless ombudsmen and political stooges each with 10 other jobs mostly paid for by taxpayers.

The result of the stuffing is the SLCC.A recipe for disaster.

Anonymous said...

What happened to all of the consumer organisations?

Why aren't they being more vocal about this blatent corruption?

This situation is becoming more and more like the Mafia every day.

E-v-e-r-e-y-b-o-d-y knows they are corrupt but nothing seems to get done about it.

Things are just allowed to drift along as if nobody can see that they are sucking the life out of society....

Anonymous said...

The SLCC must be one of the most openly subversive public body's in existence?

Anonymous said...

1st comment

Yes it does stink! and its full of corruption too but it seems to have the backing of Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government so there's no chance of doing anything about it unless people decide TO FIND OTHER WAYS OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT BEING RIPPED OFF BY THEIR LAWYERS INSTEAD OF LETTER WRITING TO THE LAW SOCIETY OR THE SLCC WHICH GETS YOU NOWHERE


Anonymous said...


It is quite clear from the SLCC's letter, refusing to release the information you requested to gather the following:

1) That you have caught the SLCC out deceiving the Scottish Public

2) The SLCC had no intention of releasing this information to you in July. That is why they sought 12 weeks thinking time

3) After 12 weeks of thinking, their only plan was to hope you would forget and go away!

4) The figures you seek will never appear in any Report, meaning that the SLCC are the only Public body ever in the world to be totally unaccountable to the public

5) By Answer No. 2 in their letter, they reveal that their funtion is to act as a propaganda tool for Scottish lawyers!

6) By anyones measure - Rosemary Agnew, Jane Irvine and by implication the eerily silent Kenny McAskill are all shown up to be the crooked mouth pieces and apologists for the Law Society of Scotland that they are and if they do not resign within the next few day's then I imagine that they will be risking arrest by the Police.

(It is such an obvious scam)

Anonymous said...

Something to hide,Jane?
I told you treating Peter like you have would bring the SLCC a lot of trouble :)

Anonymous said...

I was told by one of the Legal Ombudsman's staff they regularly read your blog to find out just how big a mess the situation is in Scotland!

Anonymous said...

Obviously the slcc have made little in the way of compensation orders or there is something worth hiding among the information.

Whatever the case we deserve to know and to know why they have went to all this trouble to hide it.

Anonymous said...

Peter I spoke to someone at the Herald today who said one of their journalists who wrote a damaging story about Douglas Mill went off to write for the Law Society of England's equivalent of the JournalOnline.Is this true?

Anonymous said...

Even the Lord President thinks the SLCC is a waste of time - just look what Hamilton said in the decision Semple v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Anonymous said...

Pity.If you had been on it I'm sure we would have seen a very different SLCC.

Anonymous said...


Apart from you who is or is there any advocate for clients with problems with their lawyers in Scotland?

Anonymous said...

“To put it bluntly, the SLCC abused Freedom of Information legislation to cover up the compensation figures it will find embarrassing given the amount of money spent on the SLCC and public expectations of a better complaints service than was provided by the Law Society of Scotland.”
If employees of a local council report an innocent resident of a local council corrupt housing officers hide the employees lies behind the FOI Act. It has happened and will be exposed. FOI request to find out who lied, refused.

Remember what Hannah Arendt wrote about bureucracy, a system where colleagues make sure no one is guilty which is the current reason for widespread resentment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Half a million in expenses for doing bugger except covering up for crooked lawyers all should be a criminal offence.
Yes criminal offence I agree, but who polices establishment crooks, they do.

These people are criminals who are accountable to their own, they live outside justice.

Anonymous said...

SLCC MacAskill's criminal quango.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 7 December 2011 23:50

I have since been told who wrote it ... and one should remember the Scotsman is a very different paper today than it was say ten or fifteen years ago ...

# Anonymous @ 8 December 2011 10:50

Good points ... I doubt whatever the information which the SLCC claim is to be included in their annual report will be sufficiently accurate or believable without at least some of the information from that report for February 2012 they are now talking about ...

# Anonymous @ 8 December 2011 16:26

Thanks ...

# Anonymous @ 8 December 2011 17:31

Thanks, Christmas greetings to you too !

# Anonymous @ 8 December 2011 21:24

Yes it is true. However the 'damaging story' is not what eventually forced Douglas Mill to resign, it was the video clip of the Justice 2 Committee session debate in which Mill swore on his Granny's Grave, according to one of the people at that meeting who is now in a very senior position ...

I am also aware another journalist left the Herald to work for the Faculty of Advocates ...

# Anonymous @ 8 December 2011 22:02

Not really.

I realised just after the Scottish Government started recruiting for the SLCC it was going to be a useless organisation from the start.

Lets just say a senior Government insider warned me how it was going to turn out, hinted there would be many scandals worth exposing and he has been proved correct on everything he said ...

Some comments have not been published on this article as they contain details which are better suited to a full article and coverage in the wider media.

I would remind readers if any of you have problems with your solicitors or feel you are being involved in a legal aid fraud, please contact me via with full details of your case and we can take matters forward from there.

Anonymous said...

The lesson here is foi can and is being twisted for the benefit of crooked lawyers and nothing much seems to be done about it

Just why should the slcc be allowed to claim they are releasing info in 12 weeks then after 6 months make the same claim and get away with it?

Anonymous said...

Jane Irvine and Rosemary Agnew are under suspicion of wrongly using the FOI Act to prevent the release of data, which could show that they are not upholding the law peruant to the relavent legislation bringing the SLCC into effect and also their common law duty of care as well as their conduct as public officials.

Kenny McAskill must order an enquiry into this with immediate effect, as if proven, this could lead to criminal charges being brought, notwithstanding they people concerned should be sacked for willful misconduct in public office

Anonymous said...

I think Mr Kenny McAskill has got some explaining to do with regard to the SLCC board membership and constitution.

We know that it is a junket for loyal servants from ex-judges, ex Law Society of Scotland memners, ex policemen and others.

But we also now learn that the legal bill for running the SLCC for the very few cases which reach it (due to lack of trust and disillusionment of client victims) is many hundreds of thousands of pounds if not over a £Million.

Where is the justification for having high-salaried big-hitters on the Board of Directors of the SLCC, if they add nothing of value to the organisation other than to hold out their hand?

Surely it would be better to replace the SLCC (when it fails - within the next few weeks) with a body that Society has trust in like Which?.

Then you would have x100 more cases being referred and you would have HUNDREDS and into the THOUSANDS of SUCCESSFUL cases brought against Scottish lawyers and then finally this industry will undergo a modernisation where it will no longer be acceptable for peoples lives to be ruined in the pursuit of cash for a Scottish lawyer.

Anonymous said...

The Information Commisioner, Mr Dunion must step in here and act, as the SLCC are making a mockery out of him and his Office.

In their recent response the SLCC have patronisingly just patted the Information Commissioner on the head and completely disregarded his earlier Finding, as if to say, 'So you think you have the timerity to cross me? Well, I will show you!'

It will be intersting to see if Mr Dunion now Directs the SLCC to produce the statistics asked for, which the SLCC originally agreed to provide, then reneged on this agreement.

If he fails to ask for this information to be released then it may mean that political pressure has been put on him to remain silent (As McAskill, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Government are under increasing pressure over this matter), which may result in his own resignation as he is an honourable man!

Anonymous said...

What does it take before the Police to become involved?

I thought the Police were supposed to look after the interests of the public and protect them from criminals and from those who break the law in acting againt the public?

These people have shown by their actions and Public Statements that they hold the Public in utter contempt but at the same time feel entirely protected by the Government, as they are allowed to continue to act against the interests of the public and in favour of Scottish lawyers.

There is now a minority grouping of Scottish Legal Mafia Criminals, who have infiltrated, the Crown Office, the Courts and Government, so that they can continue to act above the law and protect their own narrow interests, always to the detriment of the public and always to defeat the ends of justice.

It is about time the Police did what it says on the tin and protect the public, instead of being intimidated by the Crown Office/Government, or else Scotland will continue to slide further into the the corrupt Society we have become and there will be more examples of Parliament £Millions missing? Trams Project £Millions Missing? Edinburgh Renovations £Millions missing, not to mention Lockerbie, Megrahi, Shirlie McKie case etc...

Anonymous said...

If Rosemary Agnew tells the Information Commissioner that she needs 12 weeks to collate information and then when this date passes then says she needs another couple several months to be able to provide this information.

The Information Commissioner must think that the the Rosemary Agnew is totally and utterly incompetent or that she is being deliberately evasive.

Which ever one it is, he should condemn her behaviour as being unbefitting of a person holding Public Office!

A Scandal!

Anonymous said...

The SLCC should be shut down.

It has never represented the rights and looked out for the interests of clients of former Scottish lawyers.

It is run by people who are minded first to look after the interests of Scottish lawyers before the public.

The public do not trust it.

The SLCC was formed under the instruction of the Law Society of Scotland, in order that they could clamp-down even harder on complaints against their member Scottish lawyers.

The SLCC is operating as a sham organisation and has received public funding under false pretences which is Fraud.

It is being run be people with no credibility whatsoever, who are taking money knowingly under false pretences which is Fraud.

Anonymous said...

I think that the Citizens Advice Bereaux (CAB) is leaving itself open to being pursued by unhappy clients, who have been advised to go to the SLCC by the CAB, after becoming dissatisfied by their crooked Scottish lawyer.

There is plently of evidence to the CAB for them to stop advising unhappy Scottish solicitor clients to go to the SLCC and to instead advise them to report their concerns to the police.

The police being the only force with the authority to act in the public's interest in this regard.

Anonymous said...

4. Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

5. Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

6. Honesty

Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interests.

By anyone's measure the SLCC is a sham organisation and everything about it shows that it is being run by the Law Society of Scotland.

The fact that they have made such an appauling pig's ear of disguising this fact, is proof-positive of their involvment

Andrew Gilligan