SHHH HAPPENED : Scotland’s new Information Commissioner to be Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew, rebuked FIVE TIMES for being ANTI-FOI

SLCC’s Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew is to be the new Scottish Information Commissioner. THE Scottish Parliament has announced today that ROSEMARY AGNEW, the current Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) is to be appointed on Tuesday 1 February after a ‘formality vote’ by msps as the new Scottish Information Commissioner, replacing the highly successful Kevin Dunion who has served two terms in the role. However, in comparison to the widely  respected Mr Dunion, Ms Agnew, who take up the post in April to be FOI Chief for the next SIX YEARS at £78K a year, is widely viewed to be anti-foi, given her less than glowing record of handling FOI requests at the SLCC, where she was rebuked at least FIVE TIMES by the current Information Commissioner for unfairly using FOI legislation to obstruct the release of data to journalists and members of the public who submitted Freedom of Information requests.

Ms Agnew was made the politicians choice for the post of Information Commissioner after a series of closed to the public recruitment hearings took place by an all women msp selection panel, comprising the following msps : Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick MSP – Chair, Margaret Burgess MSP, Helen Eadie MSP, Christine Grahame MSP, Alison McInnes MSP, Mary Scanlon MSP, Maureen Watt MSP.

Documents obtained by Diary of Injustice under Freedom of Information legislation after the SLCC was forced to publish its “Gifts & Hospitality Register revealed the Presiding Officer of the Parliament, Tricia Marwick MSP who was also chair of the all women msp panel who made Ms Agnew their choice as Information Commissioner, had offered hospitality to Ms Agnew during the time msps were considering the candidates to replace Mr Dunion. Diary of Injustice reported on these revelations, here : Legal Complaints CEO & ‘front runner’ for Scottish Information Commissioner role received hospitality from msps, law firms & Law Society of Scotland

Ms Agnew was widely tipped for the role, after leaks to the media confirmed msps wanted someone on their side in the job, covered earlier by Diary of Injustice here : SHHH Happens : SLCC Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew tipped for FOI Commissioner role after 5 FOI ‘rebukes’ & refusals to monitor Master Policy

While the Scottish Parliament’s Press Release on the appointment claims Ms Agnew “…committed to the principles of accountability and transparency …” her term at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, firstly as Head of Investigations, and secondly as Chief Executive, replacing the SLCC’s first CEO Eileen Masterman who resigned after a year in the job, saw the SLCC fail to recommend any prosecutions of crooked lawyers, a move even criticised by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.

Ms Agnew in her role as the SLCC’s Chief Executive was also revealed to have taken decisions which led to some clients who had complained about their solicitors facing financial ruin, after she refused repeated requests by members of the public to monitor claims made against the Master Insurance Policy, the Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme operated by the Law Society of Scotland to compensate victims of negligent “Crooked lawyers.”

The Master Policy which Ms Agnew refused to monitor claims against, was linked in an independent report carried out by the SLCC to client suicides covered up by the Law Society of Scotland & the insurers. Diary of Injustice reported on the report into the Master Policy here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were asked for comment on the Scottish Parliament's announcement of its recommendation to appoint current CEO Rosemary Agnew as FOI Commissioner and what impact the loss of a second Chief Executive in three years has on the SLCC. No response has been received from the SLCC.

There is also no word yet on recruitment for a new SLCC Chief Executive, to a position which must be so fantastic, everyone wants out of the job as soon as they are in it.

BACKGROUND : ROSEMARY AGNEW, SLCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Rosemary Agnew is the SLCC’s second Chief Executive in three years. Ms Agnew took on the role after a short recruitment phase to replace the SLCC’s first Chief Executive Eileen Masterman who resigned after a bitter exchange with Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney over issues involving meetings the SLCC held in connection with the Master Policy.

Ironically, one of Rosemary Agnew’s key refusals to disclose information to the public was information and discussions surrounding the SECRET SUBSTANTIAL PAY-OFF negotiated by lawyers acting for former SLCC CEO Eileen Masterman and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The secret payoff was also backed by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and Scottish Ministers also refused to disclose the amount paid to Ms Masterman. Diary of Injustice reported on the secret pay-off scandal in an earlier article here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

The Scottish Parliament’s Press Release (below) makes little reference to Ms Agnew’s work at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

NEW SCOTTISH INFORMATION COMMISSIONER TO BE APPROVED BY PARLIAMENT

The Scottish Parliament will tomorrow be asked to approve the nomination of Rosemary Agnew as the new Scottish Information Commissioner.

Mrs Agnew, who is currently the Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is set to replace Kevin Dunion who demits office on 23 February 2012.

Created under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, the Scottish Information Commissioner is responsible for enforcing and promoting Scotland’s freedom of information legislation.

The appointment will be for a fixed term of six years and attracts a salary of £78,000 per annum. The Parliament will be invited to agree Mrs Agnew’s nomination before the recommendation goes to Her Majesty The Queen for formal appointment. If approved, it is expected that Mrs Agnew will take up post in April.

Biographical Information

Prior to her work with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Mrs Agnew worked for the Local Government Ombudsman for 8 years. Throughout her career she has been committed to the principles of accountability and transparency and has worked with a range of public and private sector organisations to deliver service and procedural improvements.

Text of Motion to be approved by Parliament on 1 February 2012

That the Parliament nominates Rosemary Agnew to Her Majesty The Queen, for appointment as the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Legal Aid fraud running at ‘up to £14m a year’ claims insider, as SLAB refuse to release details on Law Society venture ‘to siphon off public cash’

Lawyers cant count, but they sure can steal, says legal aid board insider. A STAGGERING CLAIM that anywhere up to 10% of the ONE HUNDRED & FORTY ONE MILLION POUND annual budget of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), equivalent to FOURTEEN MILLION POUNDS a year is being lost to fraudulent claims made predominantly by solicitors & law firms across Scotland has surfaced as a result of enquiries by Diary of Injustice journalists into vast lists of legal aid claims made by lawyers in connection with their work on civil and even criminal cases which are in some cases, taking up to five times longer to settle than would normally be expected, or in an exponentially growing number of cases, particularly civil damages claims, the cases “seem to be going on forever”, in some cases, taking several years to resolve, or simply be closed without a result even though vast sums of legal aid has been claimed for case work.

The claims of  massive legal aid fraud in Scotland, which insiders at the Scottish Legal Aid Board say is so organised & so complicated it is overwhelming SLAB’s investigation teams, sprang to light after Diary of Injustice began inquiries into massive legal aid claims made by Kilmarnock solicitor & sole practitioner NIELS LOCKHART, who managed to rake in around SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS of taxpayer funded legal aid in an unbelievable two years and escaped any prosecution after SLAB officials accused him of making dodgy claims, reported here : One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case

The scale of the legal aid fraud problem in Scotland has reached epic proportions, insiders claim, due in part to the recession where many law firms are experiencing such a drop in business, they have turned to what some have dubbed “organised theft” where clients are virtually being pulled off the street, asked if they have anything wrong with them, if they want to make a damages claim against anyone from local authorities to their doctors, and even including their neighbours.

In some of the cases allegedly under investigation, Diary of Injustice has been told by insiders it also appears some law firms in localised areas around Scotland have grouped together to cover each other’s fraudulent legal aid claims in attempts to prevent the Legal Aid Board’s audit & compliance teams from discovering the truth.

However, it appears some at the Law Society of Scotland have noticed the growing trend of media investigations into legal aid, and, amid fears the investigations & bad publicity would spark further difficult questions over where exactly the publicly funded legal aid was going, and how it was being used, new policies & projects were being put in place by Law Society officials to deal with the legal aid issue, which is now seen as key funding to keep many law firms afloat.

One of the ‘new projects’ to target legal aid funds, which appears to have been backed by the Law Society of Scotland, hit the buffers after many of the Law Society’s own member solicitors objected to the remit of the private company formed to handle legal aid payments, accusing the company, ESTO LAW Ltd, which was formed by members of the Law Society of Scotland’s very own legal aid negotiating team, as little more than “a legal firm created to siphon off public cash”

The five directors of ESTO LAW Ltd were John Scott QC (Edinburgh), Ian Bryce (Livingston), Ken Dalling (Stirling), Vincent McGovern (Hamilton) and Stuart Munro (Glasgow). The other directors are Neil Robertson, a partner of Ian Bryce, and John Keenan, a partner of John Scott.

The Law Society of Scotland’s journal reported that ESTO was to offer defence solicitors liable to be called out to police stations at any hour, a means of outsourcing this work without losing the client for any subsequent proceedings. It undertakes that its role will conclude once the police station work has been reported on to the instructing solicitor and to the Scottish Legal Aid Board. "This should relieve you of the pressure of providing out of hours advice, while offering reassurance that your clients are being well advised and will not be lost to you", its launch document promises. In the same article, the journal also reported that ESTO’s directors had “denied making improper use of information gained in negotiations with the legal aid authorities.”

A SLAB insider described the ESTO Law debacle as another attempt by the Law Society to retake control of the legal aid issue which floundered “… after some lawyers finally twigged where their money would be going, as in not to them!”.

However, when Diary of Injustice asked SLAB to release information regarding dealings between the directors of ESTO LAW Ltd and the Legal Aid Board, little by way of usable information was produced, with SLAB bizarrely claiming it would be “a criminal offence to supply the information” after one of the ESTO LAW Ltd directors objected to public disclosure, even though the discussions surrounded negotiations which would have involved vast sums of public money.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board said in its FOI response : I can confirm that the Board does hold information contained in documents which were received from Esto Law Ltd about the services/proposed services offered by Esto Law Ltd.  However, we consider that we are exempt from disclosing the information because the following exemption applies: Section 26 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – disclosure of the information is prohibited, for example, under an enactment.

We consider that this exemption applies because Section 34 of Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 prevents Board employees from disclosing this information without the consent of the applicant/person who supplied the information.  It would be a criminal offence to supply information in breach of this provision.    We contacted the director of Esto who supplied us with various information in emails regarding the services being offered by Esto and asked for his permission to disclose this information to you.  The Esto director confirmed to us that he did not consent to the disclosure of the materials in these e-mails.

However, I can advise that two meetings were held between staff from the Board and representatives of Esto Law Ltd on 8 November 2011 and 23 November 2011 to have initial discussions with a view to ensuring that their proposals met the Board’s requirements for the operation of the Police Station Duty scheme, and our requirements for the registration of firms and connected solicitors.  No formal applications for registration had been made at that stage.  We would expect any new private firm proposing to deliver a new service such as that proposed by Esto to have discussions with us to ensure that their proposals fully met all our requirements.  At no stage did we advise that any special arrangements could or would be made for Esto Ltd.  No minutes were taken of these meetings.

Emails between Board staff to an Esto director about the proposed services to be provided by Esto were also disclosed, showing cosy chats between the former Law Society Legal Aid Negotiating Team and SLAB officials :

From: Kingsley Thomas, SLAB Manager of Criminal Legal Assistance

To: Vincent McGovern, Esto 23 November 2011 19:41

Following our meeting this afternoon, I have enclosed a copy of the current detention advice that our Contact Line solicitors are using to record the details of all the calls we receive from the police where a suspect requires advice, either from a named solicitor, a Contact Line solicitor, or a duty solicitor.  As I mentioned today, we are currently revising this form, and introducing a new separate form for personal attendances that we do.  When the new form is finalised, I’ll let you see this.

I can confirm that we will also give some more thought to the question of ESTO being on the duty plans to allow A&A to be provided.

From: Colin Lancaster, SLAB Director of Policy

To: Vincent McGovern, ESTO 9 December 2011 17:13

Thanks for this. It seems to be a draft of the agreement between esto and the client firms, rather than esto’s contract with the esto lawyers. While it’s good to see clarification of the A&A arrangements etc as between esto and client firms, I think the other contract would be the thing we would be keen to see so that we can be clear about the nature of the connection between the esto lawyers and esto, from a compliance and registration perspective. If you are in a position to send us that document, we’d be happy to look at it.

A solicitor speaking to Diary of Injustice tonight ‘hit the roof’ over the disclosures, alleging SLAB & the Law Society appear to have some dark secrets worthy of exposing on how ESTO LAW came about and what its motives were.

He said :“We need to get to the bottom of what was going on with Esto Law and the Law Society. What little has been published appears to indicate there is far too close a relationship with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland which is not in the public interest when it comes to legal aid matters.”

After many solicitors complained about the ESTO LAW Ltd move to grab legal aid cash, it appears the firm folded and the directors resigned, leaving the Law Society of Scotland to pick up the pieces.

Currently, the Law Society is investigating the issue, however the Glasgow Bar Association have posted an account of a meeting with the Law Society over the ESTO LAW debacle on their website, HERE which appears to indicate the Law Society are as bad at investigating their own fit ups, as they are investigating the likes of solicitors who make off with hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal aid claims each year.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE ? Lawyer who raked in £600K of Legal Aid & left clients ruined, now being investigated by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

A solicitor from Kilmarnock who took over £1/2 million in legal aid is being investigated by the SLCC after clients made complaints. NIELS LOCKHART, a sole practising solicitor from Kilmarnock who was the subject of several reports in the Sunday Mail newspaper last year after a joint investigation with Diary of Injustice into legal aid fraud, is now confirmed by legal insiders to be under investigation by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), after some of Mr Lockhart’s clients filed complaints over his damaging conduct in their cases, conduct which the SLCC has been told, has left some former clients now financially ruined and with little hope of recovery. Mr Lockhart’s actions in one of the cases in particular, that of Esther Francis (70) have caused such hardship the pensioner was left homeless after losing everything from a failed claim Mr Lockhart was dealing with on Esther’s behalf. Esther was also threatened by Lockhart over the non payment of bills, leading to the pensioner having to starve herself to meet Lockhart’s demands for money.

However, despite the detailed complaints submitted to the SLCC about Mr Lockhart, and admissions from sources within the law complaints regulator they are well aware of media investigations exposing Lockhart, the SLCC sent several letters out to complainants asking if they wanted to enter into mediation over their complaints against the now infamous lawyer, rather than see justice done in a proper investigation which could eventually lead to Lockhart being struck off as a practising solicitor. In 2011, Diary of Injustice reported :

Calls to investigate Scottish Legal Aid Board & Law Society over ‘dodgy dealings’ in ‘voluntary removal’ of £600k lawyer from legal aid register THE SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD (SLAB) & the Law Society of Scotland are facing calls for an inquiry into the way they both deal with alleged cases of legal aid claims abuse after it was revealed in a national newspaper a solicitor who raked in over £600,000 in legal aid claims over two years was allowed to quietly remove himself from the legal aid register after a deal had been struck between his lawyer and the legal aid board to avoid any further proceedings, even though SLAB had made a detailed complaint to the Law Society of Scotland in 2006, a complaint which took the law complaints self regulator a whopping FOUR YEARS to investigate !

One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case Legal Aid Chiefs accused lawyer Niels Lockhart of excessive claims yet no prosecution or repayment took place. A SECRET REPORT by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) into “excessive” claims for legal aid made by Kilmarnock based solicitor Niels S Lockhart who raked in over £600,000 in legal aid claims over two years can now be published, revealing the full extent of SLAB’s accusations against the sole practitioner, the FOUR YEAR WAIT for the Law Society of Scotland to rule on the case and the intervention of the Legal Defence Union who brokered a deal allowing Mr Lockhart to walk away from all accusations over his claims for legal aid.

Legal Aid officials hid details of dodgy claims scandal as ‘Pay-Up threats’ from £600K legal aid rogue lawyer leaves pensioner, 70, starving, homeless SLAB’s secret deal with Law Society of Scotland & LDU kept info on legal aid accusations against solicitor from clients. A VULNERABLE PENSIONER was left HOMELESS & HAD TO STARVE HERSELF to pay legal fees after being threatened by Kilmarnock solicitor Niels S Lockhart over a missed £100 payment of legal bills which were originally being paid by Legal Aid. Esther Francis, 70, had gone to Niels Lockhart for help in a dispute with her housing association and was originally put on legal aid by the lawyer who has already claimed around SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS of legal aid money in previous years for other clients, however she was not told by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) her solicitor, Mr Lockhart had ‘voluntarily’ withdrew himself from being able to provide legal aid, AFTER he was accused by SLAB of making excessive legal aid claims.

Diary of Injustice continued to report on allegations surrounding Mr Lockhart and the Law Society of Scotland’s efforts to avoid a prosecution. All previous reports can be viewed HERE.

The long story of Mr Lockhart’s legal aid claims began in the first half of the last decade, although it took the Scottish Legal Aid Board years to catch up with him, when on 5 June 2005 the Scottish Legal Aid Board sent a report to the Law Society of Scotland in terms of S32 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 against the sole practitioner firm of Niels S Lockhart, 71 King Street, Kilmarnock. The secret report, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, can be downloaded here : SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD S31 COMPLAINT REPORT TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND : NIELS S LOCKHART (pdf)

The Scottish Legal Aid Board’s report outlined a number of issues that had been identified during the review of case files & accounts which raised concern about Mr Lockhart’s conduct and which fell to be considered as a breach of either Regulation 31 (3) (a) & (b), relating to his conduct when acting or selected to act for persons to whom legal aid or advice and assistance is made available, and his professional conduct generally. These issues illustrated the repetitious nature of Mr Lockhart’s failure to charge fees “actually, necessarily and reasonable incurred, due regard being bad to economy”

The heads of complaint submitted by the Scottish Legal Aid Board to the Law Society of Scotland were :

(1) Excessive attendances, (2) Lack of Progress, (3) Splitting/Repeating Subject Matters, (4) Inappropriate Requests for Increases in Authorised Expenditure, (5) Matters resubmitted under a different guise, (6) Standard Attendance Times, (7) Attendances for Matters Not Related to the Subject Matter of the Case, (8) Unreasonable Charges, (9) Double Charging for Correspondence, (10) Account entries not supported by Client Files, (11) Attempt to Circumvent Statutory Payment Procedure for Property Recovered or Preserved, (12) Continued Failure to act with Due Regard to Economy.

The report by the Scottish Legal Aid Board revealed that, of all firms in Scotland, the sole practitioner firm of NS Lockhart, 71 King Street, Kilmarnock, granted the highest number of advice and assistance applications for "interdict" (392) for the period January-October 2004.The next ranked firm granted 146, while the next ranked Kilmarnock firm granted only 30.

The report stated : “While conducting a selective analysis of Niels S Lockhart's Advice and Assistance accounts, it was clear from the outset that much of his business comes from "repeat clients" and/or members of the same household/family, whom he has frequently admitted to Advice and Assistance. The analysis revealed persistent patterns of excessive client attendances, the vast majority of which are irrelevant, unnecessary and conducted without due regard to economy.”

“It was also clear that Niels S Lockhart makes grants for a number of interlinked matters, where there is clearly a "cross-over" of advice. Consecutive grants are also often made as a continuation of the same matter shortly after authorised expenditure has expired on the previous grant.”

“This appears to the Board to be a deliberate scheme by Niels S. Lockhart to make consecutive grants of Advice and Assistance on behalf of the same client for the same matter, for personal gain. By so doing, he has succeeded in obtaining additional funds by utilising new initial levels of authorised expenditure for matters where, had further requests for increases in authorised expenditure under the initial grant been made to the Board, they would with every likelihood have been refused by Board staff.”

“Closer scrutiny of Niels S Lockhart's accounts and some client files has given rise to a number of other serious concerns, e.g. numerous meetings, standard of file notes, encouraging clients to advance matters while demonstrating a lack of progress.”

“After a meeting between SLAB officials & Mr Lockhart on 14 April 2005, Mr Lockhart was advised that SLAB’s Executive Team had approved of his firm’s accounts being removed from the guarantee of 30-day turnaround for payment of accounts, and that henceforth, to allow the Board the opportunity to satisfy itself that all fees and outlays had been properly incurred and charged by the firm, he would be required to submit additional supporting documentation and information with his accounts (including client files).”

The report continued : “Over the next few months, Mr Lockhart telephoned Accounts staff many times, often on a daily basis, repeatedly asking questions about the type of charge they considered acceptable or unacceptable in a variety of situations. Staff reported that, despite their having given Mr Lockhart the same answers time and again (both via correspondence and over the telephone),he continued to submit accounts with unacceptable charges. In a final effort to counter these continuing problems and to emphasis the Board’s stance in relation to the various issues of concern, our Accounts Department sent him a letter on 23 December 2005.”

“Mr Lockhart did not provide a written response to this correspondence. He did however contact Mr McCann of the Legal Defence Union, who wrote to the Board seeking a meeting with Board officials to try to resolve the payments issue. Our view however was that this would not advance matters as Mr Lockhart had been given a clear steer both after the April 2005 meeting and in the December when Accounts wrote to him on a number of matters.”

However, the secret report revealed SLAB officials had made a significant omission, amazingly, failing to interview any of Mr Lockhart’s clients despite the allegations of excessive legal aid claims.

The SLAB report revealed : “Board staff have not interviewed any of Mr Lockhart’s clients as we have no reason to believe that, for example, the multitude of meetings that he held with them—sometimes more than twice daily—did not take place; our concern is that they DID take place and he has sought to claim payment for these multitudinous meetings,very few of which could be described as necessary and reasonable. We believe that such work had no regard to the principle of economy: our contention is that it is highly unlikely that any private paying client would be willing to meet the cost of the service provided by Mr Lockhart. That aside, there are cases set out in the report where it is difficult to see what advice or assistance has actually been provided. Our Accounts staff are continuing to assess a number of his accounts and examining the corresponding client files which indicate repetition of the issues that gave rise to our initial concerns.”

The report’s findings concluded : “From April 2002—March 2005, Niels S Lockhart was paid £672,585 from the Legal Aid Fund. Of this, £596,734 (89%) was in relation to Advice and Assistance cases, with £570,528 (85%) solely in relation to Civil Advice and Assistance. In the Board’s view, the ranges of actions taken by Niels S. Lockhart towards achieving those payments are not those appropriate to a competent and reputable solicitor.”

“Based on the supporting evidence he arranges for, or permits, his clients to attend his office on numerous occasions for excessive, unnecessary and often irrelevant meetings. In the main, these do not appear to have advantages for their further welfare or advance their case, but merely act as a mechanism for the firm to exploit the Legal Aid Fund by charging for these unnecessary and unproductive meetings. The nature of subject matters is often repeated, resulting in numerous duplicate/multiple/consecutive grants submitted under various guises, thus avoiding the Board’s computerised checks on subject matter. This pattern of conduct is deliberate,recurring and persistent, serving—in the Board’s view—as a device to generate considerable additional income for the firm to the detriment of the Scottish Legal Aid Fund.”

SLAB’s report was heavy on accusations yet achieved little, as did their complaint to the Law Society. The Scottish Legal Aid Board presented its report & complaint to the Law Society of Scotland on the 5th June 2006 but had to wait until a stunning FOUR YEARS until August 2010 before the Law Society even got round to sending SLAB a copy of the Law Society investigator’s report, which recommended that 11 out of 12 of SLAB’s complaints were “made out” and also recommended that the Law Society exercise its powers to exclude Niels Lockhart from giving advice & assistance to or from acting for a person to whom legal aid is made available.

However, two months later in October 2010, Mr Lockhart’s legal representative James McCann of the Legal Defence Union approached SLAB with a prospective offer that Mr Lockhart would withdraw fully from providing legal aid if SLAB’s S31 complaint was withdrawn. A Minute of Agreement was drafter and agreed with Niels Lockhart & the Legal Defence Union outlining the voluntary and irrevocable withdrawal by Mr Lockhart and the firm from the provision of all firms of legal assistance (funded by legal aid). The Minute of Agreement also outlined the Board’s intention to make a press release detailing that following SLAB’s investigation into the firm and their subsequent complaint to the Law Society of Scotland, SLAB had accepted this permanent withdrawal by Mr Lockhart and the firm from providing all forms of legal assistance.

Legal Aid Board asked Law Society to withdraw complaint after secret deal was reached with Legal Defence Union. “In November 2010 SLAB advised the Law Society of Scotland that they had negotiated with Mr Lockhart his voluntary removal from the provision of legal assistance with effect from 1 November 2010 and acknowledged that the Society had separately received information from Mr Lockhart signalling his intention to withdraw from provision of all types of legal assistance. In the light of this, we sought to know from them whether they accepted SLAB’s withdrawal of the S31 complaint against Mr Lockhart.”

“In December 2010 the Law Society wrote to SLAB advising that they had accepted SLAB’s withdrawal of the complaint and that they were closing their file and taking no further action.”

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine had secret no-notes meetings with devisive Legal Defence Union in swanky Balmoral Hotel. Now, in 2012, rumours of further involvement by the legal profession on behalf of Mr Lockhart are again circulating, alleging the Legal Defence Union have again been asked to involve themselves with the SLCC over the investigations being carried out into Lockhart. If true, the rumours may damage the credibility of the SLCC even further, after an investigation by Diary of Injustice into the dark world of the Legal Defence Union revealed last year that senior members of the Legal Defence Union have enjoyed cosy get-togethers with Jane Irvine, the Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission at the expensive Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh, meetings in which all note taking & record keeping were barred.

In July of 2011, Diary of Injustice followed up the investigation into the LDU-SLCC relationship with the following report :

Investigation reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's links, secret 'off the record' dealings with lawyers lobby group Legal Defence Union REVEALED : Law regulator’s dealings with organisation linked to client suicides & blocked prosecutions of legal aid fraudsters. AN INVESTIGATION by Diary of Injustice into dealings between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the ‘independent’ quango which regulates complaints against Scottish lawyers and the Legal Defence Union, an organisation which represents the best interests of lawyers, recently linked to blocked criminal prosecutions of legal aid fraudster lawyers & also the suicide of a married Oban family man in the SLCC’s 2009 report into the Master Policy, has revealed a series of cosy meetings between the regulator & pro-lawyer lobby group at expensive Edinburgh hotels which the heads of both organisations agreed to keep off the record and away from public gaze.

According to claims from SLCC insiders who were fed up with the non-achieving law complaints regulator, the scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Legal Defence Union have now become so close, SLCC staff privately joke it is now “routine” for the Legal Defence Union to intervene in complaints investigations on behalf of solicitors interests while consumers who make complaints about their solicitors to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are not represented in any way and have no organisation to turn to for help with their complaints.

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine agreed no records of discussion between regulator & lawyer’s lobby group at Balmoral Hotel. A limited amount of papers reluctantly disclosed by the SLCC under Freedom of Information legislation show a series of discussions between the two pro-lawyer bodies bosses, Jane Irvine for the SLCC and LDU Solicitor Director William Macreath, also a partner at law firm Levy McRae, who, according to the text of one of the letters disclosed to Diary of Injustice under FOI laws, both agreed “there would be no formal records of any element of the discussion.”. The letter from Jane Irvine to the LDU Director which disclosed the secret no-records-of-meetings policy went on to detail several technical issues about complaints regulation and how the SLCC should deal with solicitors & consumers, the former apparently having much greater priority over the latter. The limited Freedom of Information disclosure of documents disclosed by the SLCC documenting only a fraction of its dealings with the Legal Defence Union can be viewed online or downloaded here : FOI Disclosure : Involvement & meetings between Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Legal Defence Union

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is yet to announce what, if any measures it is taking with regards to complaints made against Mr Lockhart.

Legal Complaints CEO & ‘front runner’ for Scottish Information Commissioner role received hospitality from msps, law firms & Law Society of Scotland

Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew is ‘front runner’ for Scottish Information Commissioner role. DOCUMENTS published in response to FOI requests after an investigation by Diary of Injustice today reveal ROSEMARY AGNEW, the Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) who is tipped to be the Scottish Parliament’s choice as the new Scottish Information Commissioner, replacing the highly successful Kevin Dunion, has been forced to declare multiple receipts of hospitality from law firms, the Law Society of Scotland, and from politicians such as the Scottish Parliament’s very own Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick MSP, who also chaired the selection panel of seven msps who interviewed Ms Agnew as a candidate to serve as Scotland's Information Commissioner for the next EIGHT YEARS.

The SLCC was forced to publish its “Gifts & Hospitality Register” in response to Freedom of Information requests from Diary of Injustice after this journalist began investigating rumours of multiple gifts, hospitality & undeclared contact with law firms, staff & key figures from the Law Society of Scotland including former Law Society Presidents, clandestine no-notes-taken meetings in posh Edinburgh hotels between SLCC Chiefs & shady organisations such as the Legal Defence Union, insurers such as Royal Sun Alliance PLC & Marsh UK, and MSPs & their staff.

Some of the entries in the SLCC’s Gifts & Hospitality Register, which does not appear to have been kept up to date with current events, show a range of Hospitality gifts by way of dinners & occasions attended by Ms Agnew which raise questions over the closeness of contact between key staff at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the legal profession, which the SLCC are supposed to be regulating.

Hospitality rules ? 26/8/10 Rosemary Agnew John Schmidt, Regulation and Markets Shepherd & Wedderburn Festival Show (2) and Dinner, Chair also invited and attended.

30/09/10 Rosemary Agnew Patricia Goldie Scott Moncrieff – Internal Auditors Business Lunch

6/12/10 Rosemary Agnew Law Society of Scotland Law Society of Scotland Invitation to Christmas drinks party at their offices. Accepted

13/01/11 Rosemary Agnew Law Society of Scotland Law Society of Scotland Invitation to LSS Dinner with charity raffle 11th March 2011. Accepted

21/02/11 Rosemary Agnew Scott-Moncrieff SLCC’s Internal Auditors Informal Business Lunch at offices – accepted.

24/02/11 Rosemary Agnew Ayr Faculty Law Book token for delivering presentation, donated to the Office Charity

25/05/11 Rosemary Agnew Jamie Millar, President Law Society of Scotland Reception for the CEO of the Law Society of Malawi. Accepted

26.7.11 Rosemary Agnew National Museum of Scotland Museum Accepted. Invitation to reopening of the Museum.

Hospitality offered by Presiding Officer & Chair of selection panel during meetings to decide new Info Commissioner 12.07.11 Rosemary Agnew Tricia Marwick MSP MSP Declined. Invitation to launch reception of 2011 Festival of Politics and the World Press Photo Exhibition in Parliament’s main hall. In one entry, dated July of 2011, the SLCC’s Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew also received an invitation from the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick, to attend a reception at the Scottish Parliament. While the hospitality from Ms Marwick was declined, it appears to have come at the same time Ms Agnew was considering her position in relation to applications & interviews held at the Scottish Parliament for the role of Freedom of Information Tsar after the current Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, finished his second & final term as Scotland’s Freedom of Information guardian. of Information Commissioner in which msps were speaking to candidates who were interested in taking on the

However it now transpires from an investigation, the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick who offered hospitality to Ms Agnew also sat on the all women msp selection panel which conducted the highly secret interviews of the five candidates seeking the post of Information Commissioner. The panel is rumoured in the media and by insiders to have made Ms Agnew their choice to replace Mr Dunion.

A Scottish Parliament official confirmed the identities of the cross party panel, which was made up of the following Members : Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick MSP – Chair, Margaret Burgess MSP, Helen Eadie MSP, Christine Grahame MSP, Alison McInnes MSP, Mary Scanlon MSP, Maureen Watt MSP.

While Mr Dunion is set to leave office in a matter of days, there is still no official announcement from the Scottish Parliament on who is to succeed him as the new Information Commissioner. On being quizzed about an announcement regarding the identity of who is to be Scotland’s new Information Commissioner a Scottish Parliament spokesman said: “A seven member, cross-party selection panel followed an open recruitment process with candidates assessed against a number of criteria. We expect to be in a position to confirm the nominee to Parliament, ahead of Kevin Dunion’s departure in February.”

However, amid claims msps have been looking for “a less enthusiastic candidate for the key FOI role" than Mr Dunion, who is generally regarded as being pro information disclosure, the Scottish Parliament have REFUSED to release any details about who was interviewed for the post and what information particularly concerning the candidate’s backgrounds was considered.

A solicitor from a well known law firm who have used FOI on a number of occasions spoke to to Diary of Injustice today on the subject, saying : “Given the position of Information Commissioner is of significant public interest I would have thought we are entitled to open hearings at the Scottish Parliament with the candidates appearing in front of Committees to be questioned about their attitude towards Freedom of Information rather than this secret interview process which appears to have descended into a version of the old pals act.”

He went onto say : “It seems rather suspicious to me that our msps are waiting until the last few days to announce Mr Dunion’s replacement when the position is of such importance to the public. What does the Scottish Parliament have to hide about who is taking up the role ?”

Earlier this week, in the wake of reports in the media regarding Ms Agnew’s apparent position as ‘front runner’ to replace Kevin Dunion, a key player in the recruitment process has approached Diary of Injustice for more information on Ms Agnew’s position at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and her history of dealing with Freedom of Information disclosures after it was reported Ms Agnew has been slapped down at least FIVE times by the current Information Commissioner over significant failures in releasing information to the public & media.

Diary of Injustice asked the Information Commissioner’s office if it have been informed of who is to replace Mr Dunion in the role of Information Commissioner. A spokesperson said : “I can confirm that we have not received any notification or confirmation from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body regarding who Kevin Dunion’s successor might be. As such it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the speculation that has surfaced in the press.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and Ms Agnew have not made any comment on the situation, and so far, the SLCC have not made any public moves to advertise Ms Agnew’s job as Chief Executive, which she has held for a little over a year after replacing the controversial former SLCC CEO Eileen Masterman, who resigned after a bitter exchange with Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney over issues involving meetings the SLCC held in connection with the Master Policy and claims of “ill health” which led to a secret & substantial pay-off, personally signed off by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Diary of Injustice reported on the secret Masterman pay-off scandal in an earlier article here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

If Ms Agnew is appointed to replace Kevin Dunion as Scotland’s Information Commissioner, the SLCC will be forced to recruit its third Chief Executive in three years, leading to concerns from consumer groups, clients, and even the legal profession that there is little continuity at the anti-client law complaints quango which has achieved little since being created in 2008 by the Scottish Government as an ‘independent’ regulator to deal with complaints against Scottish lawyers

Ms Agnew’s position as front runner to be the new Scottish Information Commissioner was reported in an earlier article, here : SHHH Happens : SLCC Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew tipped for FOI Commissioner role after 5 FOI ‘rebukes’ & refusals to monitor Master Policy

The Daily Record newspaper featured further comment :

STOP SECRET : Revealed: Government, police & local councils all among public bodies who flouted anti-secrecy laws

TIP FORCED TO DISCLOSE Jan 9 2012 Exclusive by Chris Musson

A WOMAN tipped to be Scotland's new anti-secrecy tsar has had a string of rulings made against her by the man she could replace.

Rosemary Agnew, who heads the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is one of six people interviewed to be the next Information Commissioner. But Kevin Dunion has slapped down the SLCC eight times - five since Agnew took over as Chief Executive in October 2010.

Legal Reform campaigner Peter Cherbi, who had several requests knocked back by the SLCC, cast doubt over her suitability. He said : "How someone like that could be put in charge of openness is beyond me, unless they want to shut down openness and accountability."

Agnew did not respond to requests for a comment.

HOSPITALITY FREE FOR ALL AT THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

The Hospitality Club : More gifts than complaints findings at Scotland’s law complaints quango. The SLCC’s registers of gifts & hospitality contains items such as invitations to dinners, drinks parties, lectures events and other gifts offered by several personalities from Scotland’s legal world including past Law Society Presidents Ian Smart & Jamie Millar, law firms such as Pagan Osborne, Shepherd & Wedderburn, Anderson Strathern, Beveridge & Kellas SSC, auditors KPMG & Deloitte, consumer organisations Consumer Focus Scotland & Which?, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, the Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland, the Medical Protection Society, the Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council Scottish Committee (AJTC), Scottish Government & others. While some members of staff are identified, others apparently are not, leaving a degree of suspicion over who attended some of the events such as law lectures at the Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh.

Scottish Courts remain a “Victorian”, ‘obstructive’ venue for many court users & party litigants despite small rise in ‘satisfaction survey’ results

A two percent rise in court user satisfaction masks deep concerns over poor state of Scotland’s Courts, run by body chaired by Lord President Lord Hamilton. SCOTLAND’S COURTS and the Scots justice system have been called everything from “Victorian”, “Institutionally racist”, “Institutionally sectarian”, “Institutionally corrupt”, & “Institutionally prejudiced” to name but a few of the accusations coming from all sectors of society, from court users, consumer groups and even from the most senior members of the judiciary itself. Put simply, when the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, calls the Scottish civil justice system “Victorian” and “unfit for purpose”, there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with our courts and how they handle access to justice, a seemingly ever dwindling right of Scots.

Curiously however, this is not the picture painted in the now nearly annual survey of court users carried out by the Scottish Court Service (SCS), in which their latest 2011 study released today claims a high level of “satisfaction” among court users, resting on the back of a small two per cent rise in “satisfaction” with some aspects of the Scottish Court Service. The SCS is the ‘independent’ body which runs Scotland’s courts, established by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, governed by a Corporate Board and chaired by the Lord President, the most senior judge in Scotland.

The survey, carried out by MVA Consultancy on behalf of the Scottish Court Service shows that 83% of respondents were satisfied overall, the highest ever recorded level, and up from 81% in 2009. Levels were similar for professional and non-professional users, with 85% of professional respondents, and 82% of non-professionals, stating that they were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied overall. The full survey report can be viewed online HERE with a summary HERE or downloaded from the Scottish Court website HERE

Among other findings, almost a third (31%) of respondents stated that they had travelled to court on the day of the survey as a car driver, with a further 15% stating that they were a car passenger. Over three quarters of respondents (78%) had travelled for up to 30 minutes to attend court. The majority of respondents had spoken with court staff on the day that they were surveyed, and most stated that they had found court staff to be either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ helpful (95%) and either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ polite (96%).

Less than half (46%) of all respondents stated that court staff had kept them informed about what was happening during the time they were in the court building. However, the majority of respondents (96%) who were given update information said that this information was either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ helpful. Just over half of all respondents (55%) said that they had had to wait to take part in court proceedings. Waiting times varied considerably by area.

Over half of the respondents said that they were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied (52%) with their wait to take part in court proceedings. A further 19% said they were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ dissatisfied. There was a high level of satisfaction with regard to perceived safety and security, ranging from 80% for the cells to 96% for the jury room.

The main factors that appear to be driving users’ overall experience are satisfaction with court staffs’ attempts to keep respondents informed about how much longer they were likely to have to wait and satisfaction with helpfulness of the information provided by the court staff. The results from the survey compare favourably with previous years, with definite improvements in overall satisfaction over time in Lothian and Borders and the High Court and Court of Session.

Since the last survey in 2009, those questioned were more satisfied with the quality of refreshments available and the comfort and cleanliness of both court rooms and waiting areas. A high 96% found Scottish Court Service (SCS) staff polite, while 95% found SCS staff helpful. For the first time security was covered showing that most users felt safe inside Scottish court buildings, ranging from 80% of those who had been in the cells to 96% of jury room users.

Scottish Court Service Chief Executive Eleanor Emberson welcomed the results, saying, ”Achieving an 83% level of satisfaction among users is a credit to all our hard working and dedicated staff. The organisation is fully committed to a Customer Service Excellence programme as a way to develop our services to meets the needs of court users. We will use the constructive comments provided in the survey to continue this improvement.“

The Scottish Court Service has conducted satisfaction surveys with public and professional court users since 2005 although finding anyone who has participated in them has proved to be more difficult than the needle in the haystack scenario. The Scottish Court Service definition of “Court users” include all who enter or transact business within the court building and this includes for example solicitors, advocates, staff, social workers, police, jurors, witnesses, accused and members of the public including those involved in or interested in civil and criminal cases. The survey was conducted across all jurisdictions (Court of Session, High Court, Sheriff Courts and Justice of the Peace Courts).

However, satisfaction levels from growing numbers of party litigants who cannot afford or cannot obtain legal representation for a variety of reasons, do not appear to fit in with the SCS survey findings which do not give one single mention of party litigants or those who appear to be involved in some of the most complicated sectors of litigation such as negligence cases against the professions & public services. There is also no mention of McKenzie Friends, otherwise known as Lay Assistants in Scottish Courts.

In one case of a party litigant currently under investigation by Diary of Injustice, a case liable to show a distinct lack of satisfaction with the Court Service, audio recordings of conversations between court staff & the party litigant appear to show the party litigant being told not to turn up at court hearings involving a highly suspicious ‘fees recovery’ action pursued by a law firm against a former client who the law firm dropped at the last minute during a damages claim against his former employer. Yet while court staff told the now seriously ill party litigant not to show up at court, the law firm at the centre of the wrangle somehow managed to persuade a Sheriff Principal to grant their demands without any regard to a fair hearing for their former client who is now so ill he is excused by doctors from the court hearings.

Further enquiries into seven other long running cases involving party litigants in Scotland’s Court of Session & Sheriff Courts have revealed not one of the party litigants who have been involved in long and difficult legal actions in the courts were consulted by or ever encountered any survey teams acting for the Scottish Court Service.

One solicitor speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon said “..the survey was unlikely to restore any confidence in the Scottish courts system” which has, even in the eyes of at least some members of the judiciary, been long overdue for a complete overhaul to put the public first, instead of the professions & vested interests.

Admittedly, there are steady signs of improvement in the SCS in some quarters, where, slowly but surely, parts of the courts system is beginning to open up to reforms, some of which appear to be brought about by increased media & public scrutiny of a domain still regarded by many in the legal profession as its closed shop business window. It is a fact Diary of Injustice has over the years, seen a marked increase in the willingness of the Scottish Court Service to engage the media and public in matters where previously a wall of silence was usually practised.

However, speaking as a journalist who has covered the legal system for many years now, I think we all know Scots satisfaction with the courts system overall, has a long way to go before justice in Scotland can be deemed to be reliable, trustworthy, modern or even honest and whoever is the next Lord President must be a force for change, instead of more stagnation in Scots access to justice.

SCOTS JUDGE DISATTISFIED WITH VICTORIAN JUSTICE & COURTS SYSTEM

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, author of the Civil Courts Review. The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, in his speech to the Law Society of Scotland’s 60 year anniversary conference in 2009, reproduced in full here said : “The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that had survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in substance its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and it is failing society. It is essential that we should have a system that has disputes resolved at a judicial level that is appropriate to their degree of importance and that disputes should be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently and without unnecessary or unreasonable cost. That means that the judicial structure should be based on a proper hierarchy of courts and that the procedures should be appropriate to the nature and the importance of the case, in terms of time and cost. Scottish civil justice fails on all of these counts. Its delays are notorious. It costs deter litigants whose claims may be well-founded. Its procedures cause frustration and obstruct rather than facilitate the achievement of justice."

Solicitors from Hell website owner goes after Law Society of England & Wales with representative class action, signatures invited

Solicitors from Hell owner is seeking to take on the Law Society of England & Wales in a class action. IF YOU have experienced a rejected complaint at the hands of the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) or Solicitors Regulator Authority (SRA), or even worse, if you have been awarded a fraction of the losses incurred by your legal representatives, you may well wish to join a REPRESENTATIVE CLASS ACTION against the Law Society of England & Wales which is being pursued by Rick Kordowski, the owner of the well known SOLICITORS FROM HELL (SfH) website, itself removed from the internet after the Law Society of England & Wales secured an interdict in the High Court on behalf of itself & other vested interests after concerns clients of ‘rogue lawyers’ had posted too much information about their experiences at the hands of their legal representatives, experiences so horrific they were liable to heavily impact on law firms business.

The website created by Mr Kordowski for the class action requests signatures of those who have not had a fair hearing with regard to their complaints against solicitors. Details follow :

Has the Legal Ombudsman or the SRA rejected or ignored your complaint? Have you been awarded a fraction of the losses you incurred?

JOIN ME in a collective ‘representative action’ against the Law Society of England and Wales on behalf of ALL who have suffered a loss as a result of a solicitor’s actions or negligence.

I believe the Law Society’s complaint handlers have failed in their ‘duty of care’ by rejecting valid complaints. Or upholding complaints - but only awarding a fraction of the loses incurred by the legal consumer.

In UK tort law, a ‘duty of care’ is a legal obligation imposed on anyone who has failed to adhere to a standard of reasonable care. I believe the Law Society’s complaint handlers have failed to adhere to this standard in hundreds of cases throughout the UK.

This action is for anyone who has genuinely suffered as a result of a solicitor’s action or negligence and is not, for example, if your solicitor has simply lost your claim or case.

Q. What is a ‘representative action’ or ‘class action’?
A. In law, a ‘representative action’ or a ‘class action’ is a type of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court against a single defendant.

Q. Are you sure? The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 19.6) only allow persons to be represented in civil proceedings by an other if they all have ‘the same interest’.
A. I intend to use a recent judgment as a precedent. A claim by the Law Society where it was clear that the individual interests of the represented was ‘not the same’.

Q. How are you going to finance this action?
A. I will put this claim out to tender to various Barristers Chambers on a conditional fee arrangement (No win – no fee).

Q. Why are you doing this?
A. I was let down by my solicitor. The Law Society ruled in my favour and fined the solicitor £500 (payable to me). But this was a fraction of the losses I incurred as a result of the solicitor's actions. The only option then is to take direct legal action, which, for most people, the costs of individual litigation of this type is prohibited. Sound familiar? Opt in by using the form on the right.

Q. As all solicitors are insured for negligence, can they not simply make a claim to cover my losses?
A. The cost of indemnity insurance for solicitors is one of the highest, second only to plastic surgeons. A solicitor will fight tooth and nail not to make a claim and face a rise in the annual premium.

Q. If I use the ‘opt in’ form will my details be kept safe?
A. Yes, all collected information will be kept in the strictest confidence and will not be circulated, sold or published anywhere at all.

Q. My solicitor let me down by not winning my case. Can I opt in?
A. No. This is a class action claim for all who have suffered loss and want compensation for the anxiety and distress due to the negligence or the actions of a solicitor. Following which, the Law Society’s complaints handlers failed to adhere to a standard of reasonable care.

By submitting your information you understand that there is no guarantee in this action. Full details of the claim will be given to those who have opted in.

If your genuine complaint against a solicitor has been rejected or ignored by the Legal Ombudsman (or the SRA) or if you feel the compensation you were awarded was not sufficient to cover your losses please complete the form on the right. You will be added to the claim and our mailing list with regular updates.

Rick Kordowski

NAME & SHAME YOUR CROOKED LAWYER : Have you been treated roughly by your solicitor ? It’s time to talk, rate, review, name & shame YOUR crooked lawyer

Naming & shaming a crooked lawyer is one of the best ways to warn consumers of the perils of using lawyers who fail to disclose their history to clients. IN response to last year’s court sponsored takedowns of websites such as Solicitors from Hell & others across the UK & Ireland where clients of “crooked lawyers” had used the online ratings sites to publish and even debate their usually bad experiences with their solicitors, it is very clear that in 2012, consumers who are ripped off by their legal representatives or those who know of a story involving a crooked lawyer ripping off members of the public should follow the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) naming & shaming policy, by using this year to OUT those lawyers who fail their clients, whether by negligence, corruption or multiple mistakes in an effort to ensure all consumers are protected from the rogue elements of the legal profession, whether in Scotland, England Wales, or Ireland.

Naming & shaming is terribly easy to do. Make the choice to protect yourself & others, by doing it.

If you have experience of a crooked lawyer, or if you know of anyone who has experience of a crooked lawyer, wherever you are, you can help protect yourself, or help others by ensuring the details of the story are fully published in the media while also making a complaint to bodies such as the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) and the Law Society of Scotland.

Law complaints regulators like the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Law Society of Scotland turn out to be client-haters rather than consumer protectors. Consumers, clients & readers may get a lot further in their complaints and get a lot more satisfaction from a media investigation of their crooked lawyers long before the Law Society or blundering SLCC get round to putting pen to paper (usually more so in an effort to protect the lawyer before protecting the client). Put simply, its more difficult for so-called regulators like the Law Society of Scotland or SLCC to let a crooked lawyer off the hook if they have already been in the newspapers a few times. Its also more difficult to let a crooked lawyer off the hook if, as usually turns out to be the case, the media reveal they have been ripping off many of their clients, not just you, or someone you know.

If you have a story about a crooked lawyer, contact Diary of Injustice via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com with full details of what happened, how you were treated and what you have done about it so far.

Publishing your experiences at the hands of crooks in the legal world will protect you, and protect others, and will also help shame some of those 70K a year plus expenses politicians in the Scottish Parliament who continue to allow lawyers to regulate themselves and cover up for their colleagues, either at the point of complaint or in the courts. Its time you, the public are heard. Its time consumers and clients who fund the legal profession come first and make sure YOU, the fee paying client have the final say in what happens to YOUR crooked lawyer.

As the Sunday Mail reveals, clients & consumers are usually not aware their own crooked lawyer is ripping off a host of others, and getting away with it, until the media comes along and reports it to the wider world :

REVEALED: TOP LAWYER AT THE CENTRE OF 12 NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS

EXCLUSIVE Brief who's making a career out of failure

By Russell Findlay April 23 2006 Sunday Mail

THIS is the high-flying solicitor at the centre of a remarkable 12 negligence claims.

John O'Donnell, 54, makes a comfortable living from conducting complicated property transactions.

But we can reveal insurers Royal & Sun Alliance have already been forced to pay out £350,000 on seven negligence claims against him. And at least five more worth £200,000 are still being contested. His firm, John G O'Donnell & Co, is based in Cathcart, Glasgow. The Law Society for Scotland, who govern the conduct of lawyers, keep his record of complaints a secret.

O'Donnell has also been accused of misconduct but the Law Society, â„¢ has not brought any cases to the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal. The claims centre on complicated transactions involving property and mortgages. 9 One case settled with an £81,000 payout involved Glasgow boxing promoter Alex Morrison, 67, for whom O'Donnell acted in the 2002 sale of his Sydney Street gym to Scottish Enterprise for £130,000. The sale money should have gone to Morrison's offshore firm, Decafarm Ltd, but was instead issued to O'Donnell's.

Decafarm complained to Strathclyde Police fraud squad but the procurator fiscal decided not to prosecute. 9 In other cases, his clients took out two mortgages on property and sold the property, paying off one mortgage. The others lender then had to pursue the solicitor for negligence to get their money back - and his insurance paid out.

Last night, ex-SNP leader and legal reform campaigner John Swinney said: "This appears a clear example of why a robust and independent complaints handling system is required. I hope forthcoming legislation to be considered by Parliament will address these issues."

Peter Cherbi, of Injustice Scotland, said: "If you buy a tin of beans, you can see the ingredients on the label. If you're paying a solicitor, you should be aware of what he or she has been up to. I'm also asking Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson to revoke the exemption of the Law Society of Scotland from the Freedom of Information Act."

Last month, it emerged that complaints against lawyers had risen 30 per cent in a year to almost 5000. But a Law Society of Scotland spokesman said: "The consumer protections for clients of Scottish solicitors are second to none."

Last night, a legal firm issued a statement on his behalf. It read: During 2000-2002, John O'Donnell received treatment for a mental illness. He was diagnosed with clinical depression. During those dark days, Mr O'Donnell accepts his own high standards slipped. Indeed, when making a determination, the Law Society of Scotland makes reference to his illness, citing this as 'extenuating circumstances'. "In 2003, Mr O'Donnell started a new legal practice and has many loyal and satisfied clients."

Two years ago, the Sunday Mail revealed that O'Donnell's office was searched by police as part of a money-laundering probe into McGovern crime family lieutenant, Russell Stirton, 46.

Remember Remember – Where there’s a will there’s a crook. Suspension from legal practice is, however, no deterrence for crooks to come back and rip off people and their wills, as a recent Sunday Mail article exposed the case of the former jailed lawyer Valerie Macadam, now Valerie Penny returned from legal oblivion & started her own will writing business without telling her new clients she was jailed for embezzlement. Quoting from the Sunday Mail article : “A CROOKED lawyer jailed for stealing money from dead clients is back in business, we can reveal. Valerie Penny, 54, runs a slick website to lure customers into handing over £80 for wills. She is selling the same legal services she used to steal £130,000 from clients and their estates - a catalogue of dishonesty that landed her in prison. The struck-off solicitor, who was called Macadam before her marriage, boasts of her "successful career". But she makes no mention of her jail time for robbing clients' cash or her shocking record of professional misconduct.”

Misplaced trust with complaints : Philip Yelland, the Law Society of Scotland’s Director of Regulation for over 20 years yet Scotland has more crooked lawyers than ever. Philip Yelland, the Law Society of Scotland’s director of standards, previously director of regulation and before that head of the Law Society’s horrifically named “Client Relations Office” has been in charge of regulating crooked lawyers in Scotland for over TWENTY YEARS yet from Penman to the present and beyond, most crooked Scottish lawyers have either received a slap on the wrist or no punishment at all while the client ends up financially ruined and excluded from the courts to make sure justice can never be done. Would you trust anyone like this with your complaint ? Make sure you use the media first before trusting the Law Society or SLCC with your lawyer problems.

SHHH Happens : SLCC Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew tipped for FOI Commissioner role after 5 FOI ‘rebukes’ & refusals to monitor Master Policy

Rosemary Agnew, Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission tipped for FOI anti-secrecy role. ROSEMARY AGNEW the current Chief Executive of the under achieving, anti-consumer law complaints quango, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which has today been named along with other Scottish public bodies in a Hall of Shame of organisations including the Scottish Government, Police, quangos & local authorities which deliberately mishandle Freedom of Information requests & disclosures, is reported to be tipped in the secret race to replace current Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion who leaves office in February 2012.

However, it can also be revealed today Ms Agnew in her capacity as SLCC Chief Executive has been rebuked by the current Information Commissioner, Mr Dunion on at least FIVE OCCASIONS for failures in handling FOI disclosures, one of which included the withholding of sensitive compensation payments data during the period Ms Agnew was actually being interviewed for the post of FOI Commissioner by Scottish Parliament officials.

The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB) which itself has been responsible for many controversial decisions including the runaway construction budget of the Scottish Parliament itself, topping half a billion pounds of taxpayers money, is rumoured to be at the point of recommending Ms Agnew’s appointment to the post of FOI Commissioner to msps in the next few days. Yet so far, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and even Ms Agnew herself have all refused detailed comment on the seemingly controversial appointment, which was revealed today in the Daily Record newspaper.

Asked about the rumoured controversial recommendation of Ms Agnew to fill the FOI Commissioner role, a Scottish Parliament spokesman simply said : “We expect to be in a position to confirm the nominee to Parliament early in the new year, ahead of Kevin Dunion’s departure in February.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were contacted for comment and asked : “Does the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have any comment on reports its Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew is to be recommended to msps to replace the current Scottish Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion upon his demit of office in February of this year, and what Ms Agnew's appointment to the post (if confirmed by msps) will mean for freedom of information requests to the SLCC.”

A further question was put to the SLCC : “Does the SLCC have any comment on how the SLCC will cope with having to recruit a third Chief Executive in four years to the SLCC and the impact on the Commission's role of having three Chief Executives since 2008 ?“

The SLCC issued a blunt “no comment” to both questions.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice this morning, a legal insider said he was horrified someone with a record of refusing FOI requests could be appointed to the role of Scotland’s FOI Commissioner.

He said : “Unless Ms Agnew has significantly changed her attitudes towards FOI, I doubt a candidate with at least five rebukes for handling FOI requests who is coming from an organisation which has a history of waging a war of attrition against Freedom of Information laws, can fulfil the requirement for maintaining & strengthening Freedom of Information legislation in Scotland.”

A leading political observer, commenting on the SPCB’s appointment agreed it looked like the Scottish Parliament were about to choose someone who might not continue Mr Dunion’s work of expanding & upholding Freedom of Information compliance in Scotland.

Ms Agnew’s suitability for the role of FOI Commissioner has also been questioned today after it was claimed decisions taken by her in her role as Chief Executive of the Scottish legal Complaints Commission to refuse to monitor consumers individual claims made against the Law Society of Scotland's Master Policy which have left some clients penniless, in a state of financial ruin and facing years of hardship, ill health and hounding by firms of crooked lawyers. The claims were made by clients who have approached the SLCC to request the law complaints quango monitor individual claims made against the Master Policy after being financially ruined by "crooked lawyers" & corrupt Scottish law firms who took their clients for a ride through the courts system.

The SLCC has powers to monitor the Master Policy under Section 39 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 although its staff & board have sought on several occasions to loosely interpreted the terms of the law in an apparent attempt to avoid becoming involved in matters which have already led to confrontation between the SLCC, Law Society of Scotland & Marsh UK, the UK subsidiary of the convicted US Insurers Marsh McLennan Companies who are brokers of the Master Policy which is backed by insurers such as Royal Sun Alliance PLC.

Letter reveals SLCC’s latest Chief Executive told client they will not monitor claims made against crooked lawyers. In a letter released to Diary of Injustice, the SLCC’s Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew refused to become involved in monitoring claims to the Master Policy. Ms Agnew wrote : “..it is not within the SLCC’s remit to monitor individual claims made under the Master Policy. Under the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (Section 39), the SLCC may monitor the overall effectiveness of guarantee funds, etc and professional indemnity arrangements put in place by the Law Society of Scotland for its members (ie the Master Policy). This power does not extend to our active involvement in the way in which individual indemnity claims are being dealt with by the insurers.”

A succession of additional letters from Ms Agnew to claimants have been released to Diary of Injustice, showing Ms Agnew refused requests by beleaguered clients to monitor their claims to the Master Policy.

Speaking at the time of Ms Agnew’s blunt refusals to monitor claims to the Master Policy, Consumer Focus Scotland sided with clients, and supported calls for consumers to be able to submit concerns about the Master Policy on their cases directly to the SLCC. A spokesperson for Consumer Focus Scotland said : “After concerns were raised with the SCC (Scottish Consumer Council) regarding the operation of the master policy, the SCC argued that the SLCC should be given power to monitor the effectiveness of the master policy in the Legal Services and Legal Profession (Scotland) Act 2007, and we were very pleased when this was included.”

The spokesperson continued : “It has always been our understanding that the intention behind section 39 of the Act was that the SLCC would monitor the overall effectiveness of the operation of the Master Policy, rather than monitoring individual claims. It does seem to us, however, that in order to monitor the overall effectiveness of the Master Policy, the SLCC must be able to consider evidence about the way in which individual claims to the Policy have been handled. It is therefore important that consumers are able to submit concerns about the way their claim has been handled to the SLCC, to assist the SLCC to undertake this function effectively.”

Ms Agnew’s refusal to involve the SLCC in actively monitoring individual claims to the Master Policy has come of something as a shock to many legal observers, who keenly anticipated the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would end the world of corruption surrounding damages claims made against rogue solicitors & law firms by financially ruined clients, particularly after an independent report commissioned by the SLCC found the Law Society of Scotland & the Master Policy insurers had covered up the fact clients had committed suicide after being let down by law firms who were supposedly representing their claims against the Master Policy in the Court of Session, itself well known as a cosy lawyer only club unwilling to rule against the profession. Diary of Injustice reported on the report into the Master Policy here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

A solicitor speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon said “The SLCC lacked any credibility on the news it was about to lose yet another Chief Executive.” He went onto claim the SLCC “has little consumer confidence, is not trusted by the legal profession, appears to hold no continuity and should be scrapped.”

BACKGROUND : ROSEMARY AGNEW, SLCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Rosemary Agnew is the SLCC’s second Chief Executive in three years. Ms Agnew took on the role after a short recruitment phase to replace the SLCC’s first Chief Executive Eileen Masterman who resigned after a bitter exchange with Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney over issues involving meetings the SLCC held in connection with the Master Policy.

Ironically, one of Rosemary Agnew’s key refusals to disclose information to the public was information and discussions surrounding the SECRET SUBSTANTIAL PAY-OFF negotiated by lawyers acting for former SLCC CEO Eileen Masterman and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The secret payoff was also backed by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and Scottish Ministers also refused to disclose the amount paid to Ms Masterman. Diary of Injustice reported on the secret pay-off scandal in an earlier article here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman (foreground) received Scottish Government approved pay off after lawyers intervened says auditor report. RUMOURS that Eileen Masterman, the former Chief Executive of the much derided Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), received a SUBSTANTIAL PAY OFF after she resigned on grounds of “ill health”, after serving less than SEVEN MONTHS in the £80,000 a year, £1,350 plus, a week job have now been confirmed with the publication of a “Key Memorandum Issues” document prepared for the SLCC by the Edinburgh offices of auditors Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton were called in to replace the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) as the SLCC’s auditors, after SLAB were abruptly sacked from their auditing role by the SLCC’s board in 2009 after much bickering over the Legal Aid Board’s scrutiny of the failed law complaints quango.

Today’s Daily Record report :

STOP SECRET : Revealed: Government, police & local councils all among public bodies who flouted anti-secrecy laws

Jan 9 2012 Exclusive by Chris Musson

THE public bodies who fought tooth-and-nail to keep secrets from you are today exposed by the Record. The Government, police forces, councils and taxpayer-funded quangos all flouted anti-secrecy laws by knocking back legitimate Freedom of Information requests. They were forced to back down by Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s first Information Commissioner, who ruled in favour of the public 359 times since the new rules came into force in January 2005.

The worst offenders were the Scottish Government, who wrongly refused to disclose ­information 78 times over the last seven years. However, they also received the highest number of requests of any public body. Second on the league of shame were Edinburgh City Council, with 22 decisions against them. Third were Glasgow City Council with 17 decisions fully in favour of applicants, and fourth were Scottish Water with 15.

Among legitimate requests knocked back were details on the numbers of sex offenders in various areas – with Strathclyde Police, Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary all falling foul. Surgical mortality rates were also wrongly withheld by the NHS, as were details of public payments to firms of private consultants.

Dunion and his office made 1336 decisions to December 14, 2011. As well as the 359 fully in favour of the person appealing a refusal, 450 were partly in their favour.

A person who gets knocked back for an FoI request must first appeal to the public body before going to the Information Commissioner. It is time-consuming, meaning many members of the public give up, even if they have a good case.

But public bodies often fight to the bitter end, despite decisions being overturned by the ­Information Commissioner. Public bodies’ disregard for the laws is still widespread seven years on – and even appears to be growing. Last year saw the highest total for successful appeals by the public – on 85 occasions.

Dunion, who grew up in Fife and Clackmannanshire and was the rector of St Andrews University until 2011, steps down next month from the post of ­Information Commissioner he has held since 2003. Tomorrow, he will present a special report to the Scottish ­Parliament on his time in the job, and will urge the Government to “safeguard and strengthen” openness from public bodies.

Yesterday, he told the Record he was confident Scotland had “made a success” of freedom of information since 2005. He added said: “Public awareness of Freedom of Information is at an all-time high. Public authorities are responding to requests and information is being disclosed which would otherwise have remained secret. “We know much more about contracts and expenses, deaths in hospitals and local crime rates because of FoI. “Of course, there are disputes and failings which is why the free right of appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner is so important.”

He said most appeals were from members of the public, adding: “In the majority of my decisions I have found, at least in part, that the appeal was justified.”

TIP FORCED TO DISCLOSE

A WOMAN tipped to be Scotland's new anti-secrecy tsar has had a string of rulings made against her by the man she could replace.

Rosemary Agnew, who heads the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is one of six people interviewed to be the next Information Commissioner. But Kevin Dunion has slapped down the SLCC eight times - five since Agnew took over as Chief Executive in October 2010.

Legal Reform campaigner Peter Cherbi, who had several requests knocked back by the SLCC, cast doubt over her suitability. He said : "How someone like that could be put in charge of openness is beyond me, unless they want to shut down openness and accountability."

Agnew did not respond to requests for a comment.