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.
67 comments:
Excellent reporting, sounds as if we are in for yet another SLCC cover-up.
Blimey Peter you really landed him in it!
Well done!
To be or not to be ? as in struck off?
Doubtless Irvine and the gang will have had a nice cosy chat with the powers that be about Lockhart to get their stories straight and let him off again.
And the sick part of it all is the Chief Executive of this same useless organisation is trying to become Scotland's new Information Commissioner.
Isn't this just disgusting?
I'd like to hear how many people the SLCC have left in the sh*t all these 3 years they claim to have been looking into complaints.
Must be hundreds probably thousands by now.
Like someone else said in the other story about Agnew you must be one of only a handful of real journalists left sonny
Where did you learn your trade?
How does Irvine justify meeting a lawyer's lobby group and agreeing to no notes of the meeting?
sheesh does this stink or what!
THIS IS FRAUD!
The SLAB cannot claim any kudos in any way shape or form for there so called investigation into this man if all they are going to do is capitulate to the Law Society of Scotland's evil will.
WHY WERE THE POLICE NOT INVOLVED?
WHO IS BLOCKING THE POLICE'S INTERVENTION?
The Law Society of Scotland once again laughing in the face of their duties under the Solicitor (Scotland) Act 1980.
The Law Society of Scotland once again, defeating the ends of Justice.
No doubt they have taken great pleasure over these past FOUR years writing to this Crooked Lawyer's Client Victims, describing to them the 'alledged conduct' of their member.
THE POLICE HAVE TO MOVE IN ON THESE VIPERS, AS THEY ARE SIMPLY WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS, WHO ACT AS IF THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
Jane Irvine should be forced to resign over this.
Scotland has no need for such people who show open contempt for the public they are supposed to serve and represent.
Disgusting!
Our legal system is rotten to the core.
There is absolutely no consequences for Crooked Scottish Lawyers, because the Law Society of Scotland has been made artificially too powerfull.
It has been fill your boots boys for Scottish Lawyers for too long.
What I am amazed at is that there is never any mention of the police's involvement.
It's as if Scottish lawyers live in some gated community somewhere and that Scotland's rule of law does not apply to them!!!
Why is it that you should never play MONOPOLY with a Scottish lawyer and expect to win?
Because they always insist that, as a Scottish lawyer they automatically have right to expect a get out of jail free card at all times?
Even more shocking I've just found out this guy is still working as a lawyer!
Where were the cops when all this was going on?I thought Police were supposed to detect crime instead of it being brought to them on a plate or via the newspapers?
Essentially everyone just sat back while he was doing it,right?
God I wonder how many Lockharts are nipping about on legal aid just now and we dont get to find out about it
The 600 grand will entitle NS Lochkart to a lifetime achievement award from the Law Society of Scotland presented by none other than Phil Yelland
It will be inscribed as
"To the brave lawyer who took over half a million from taxpayers and threatened a 70 year old woman for unpaid bills"
Anonymous said...
To be or not to be ? as in struck off?
Doubtless Irvine and the gang will have had a nice cosy chat with the powers that be about Lockhart to get their stories straight and let him off again.
And the sick part of it all is the Chief Executive of this same useless organisation is trying to become Scotland's new Information Commissioner.
Isn't this just disgusting?
I'd like to hear how many people the SLCC have left in the sh*t all these 3 years they claim to have been looking into complaints.
Must be hundreds probably thousands by now.
24 January 2012 22:20
"Disgusting" doesnt even come close!
SLCC will look very crooekd if they dont prosecute Lockhart
Isnt it odd the size of headlines about crooked lawyers in the papers even those scooping up all the legal aid for themselves yet nothing on bbc scotland news about it?
Jings this must be some deal the Law Society of Scotland secured for tv silence on crooked lawyers!
Peter has a way with words these scoundrels can never beat him.
Good one Peter as always keep them on their toes and tell the world about crooked Scottish lawyers to avoid doing business with.
The Legal Defence Union strike again?
Dear me.Disgusting and even more disgusting any regulator has secret meetings with these scumbags.
Kinda funny you Scots want independence yet your justice and political system allows stuff like this to go on.
Presumably once independence arrives these crooked lawyers will be able to have their clients murdered and get a free pass from the gang at the Crown Office & Scottish Parliarment
Anyone who has tried to report a crooked lawyer to the cops will tell you they are the ones who end up being victimised because Police for all their protests let some of these sly lawyers crawl right up their back ends and enjoy lots of favour for it such as arranging to get clients a custodial on false evidence and then there's the free legal work on someone poor old biddy's house sold to a copper well under market value.You know there's a lot of this going on and its not so hard to find out.
Wherever there are crooked lawyers believe me crooked Police are not far behind.
Wherever there are crooked lawyers believe me crooked Police are not far behind.
25 January 2012 22:19
Truer words never spoken
I wonder where the bent cops are in this one..?Not far away that's for sure!
Yes shocking that anyone from the SLCC goes on to higher positions even though its done sod all for anyone except the lawyers.
CORRUPTION RIGHT AT THE HEART OF SCOTLAND AND ALL THE AUTHORITIES CAN DO IS COVER IT UP AND THREATEN ANYONE WHO EXPOSES IT!
Anonymous said...
Kinda funny you Scots want independence yet your justice and political system allows stuff like this to go on.
Presumably once independence arrives these crooked lawyers will be able to have their clients murdered and get a free pass from the gang at the Crown Office & Scottish Parliarment
25 January 2012 21:51
Its already happened and your spelling of the Scottish PARLIARMENT is SPOT ON
What a report!
the Scottish Legal Aid Board sound just as corrupt as the Law Society!Why did they let this one go and fold the complaint after secretly agreeing with the LDU?
This is taxpayers money as someone else already said so why are these people allowed to get away with what seems to be stealing from the rest of us?
Have you read this one?If the Strathclyde cops and CRU had any honesty they would go after the 600k taken by Lockhart.So what is holding them up doing anything?The Law Society?
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/judge_orders_1m_of_assets_to_be_seized_back_from_criminal_pair_1_2074960
Judge orders £1m of assets to be seized back from criminal pair
By JOHN ROBERTSON
Published on Wednesday 25 January 2012 12:11
PROSECUTORS have won an eight-year battle to seize almost £1 million of assets from two businessmen, after a judge ruled the pair were deeply involved in organised crime.
Sufficient evidence has not been available to put Russell Stirton, 51, and Alexander Anderson, 54, on trial, but Lady Stacey decided they had been major players in drugs, extortion and money-laundering.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh heard that a third party, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was a friend of Anderson, who once had given him £148,000 in cash to buy cars.
The third party would arrive at the garage in a Bentley to pay instalments, and on one occasion had £15,000 in notes in a Sugar Puffs cereal box.
The assets to be confiscated include homes owned by Stirton in Milngavie and by Anderson in Uddingston.
Chief Superintendent Wayne Mawson, of Strathclyde Police, said: “We note with pleasure the successful outcome to this very long-running and often complex case. The Proceeds of Crime Act offers a valuable tool to law enforcement agencies to see that ill-gotten gains do not remain ill-gotten.”
Ruaraidh Macniven, head of the Crown Office’s civil recovery unit, said the cost of pursuing the court action still had to be finalised, but the judgment vindicated the unit’s assessment that the men held property which had been obtained through a variety of serious crimes.
“The CRU does not shy away from difficult and complex cases. Our focus is on both the disruption of crime and depriving criminals of their assets.”
Now read the comments :
olin RB
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 01:55 PM
The legal fees, wages are higher than the amount confiscated This is the case where Lord Gelnnie accused the police and crown office of lying and threw out initial cases Surprise surprise no one got perjury charges brought against them- they just asked another judge So in Scotland you can have your assets taken without being a criminal just on the word of a jealous half educated civil servant and the pro establishment judiciary-the petrol station has already been returned to them for being taken under false premises by Crown before. The Crown case is contradicatory -illegal cash going through it but they need a mortgage- I am no acquantance of criminals but the Crown's case sound bent.
CROWN OFFICE SOUNDS BENT TO ME TOO
Here's another one - the judge Lord Turnbull calls the fishermen GREEDY but no condemnation of GREEDY lawyers stealing MILLIONS from US
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/judge_says_greed_led_skippers_to_land_7m_of_illegal_fish_1_2075662
Judge says ‘greed’ led skippers to land £7m of illegal fish
Published on Wednesday 25 January 2012 12:22
SKIPPERS involved in a multi-million-pound “black fish” scam were greedy criminals, a judge has suggested.
The High Court in Edinburgh is hearing pleas for leniency by 17 fishing boat masters caught by Operation Sea Dog.
They face heavy fines next month after admitting landing catches of mackerel and herring which were far in excess of EU quotas.
Yesterday it was the turn of Victor Buschini, 51, of Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire, and Hamish Slater, 53, of Fraserburgh – both masters of the Fraserburgh-registered Enterprise.
Their haul of “black fish” was valued at £7.2 million between January 2002 and March 2005.
The hearing prompted an exchange between judge Lord Turnbull and defence QC Gordon Jackson, for Buschini, after the lawyer revealed the fisherman was earning around £160,000 a year.
Lord Turnbull said that even after being caught and subjected to quota deductions to make up for their over-fishing, the skippers were still making “a handsome living”.
“What must it have been like when they were under-declaring? Why was there a need to make that much money?” asked Lord Turnbull.
The judge added: “It doesn’t seem that far from other criminal conduct. I am not suggesting it is as morally reprehensible as all that, but when it comes to it, is it not just greed?”
This is ridiculous nothing has been done about this Lockhart character.Is he still working as a lawyer after all this?
How many more like him are on the go fleecing clients?
Yes this is a good question where are the Police and why is stealing not a criminal offence when a lawyer does it?
End this self regulation menace now Mr Salmond & Cameron.
Fat lot of use the SLCC are my mother sent in a complaint to them and was basically told to bugger off.She was sent so many letters demanding she change parts of her complaint and the wording they tried to put her off so many times I eventually had to write in and sort it all out.Horrible people the lot of them you can just tell they dont want to do a thing for you.
In response to those of you wondering why BBC Scotland appears to be shunning the issue of corruption in the legal profession let me say this to you.
This posting by Peter is amazingly detailed.Although I must admit I have come back to it many times to check up the facts and download the report by SLAB on Mr Lockhart.
If someone on the BBC was able to report this in a 30 minute programme I doubt my mind would absorb it and I honestly doubt I would believe any of it.However here we have Mr Cherbi's full report and all the evidence laid bare for us to see. Completely honest completely supported by the evidence.There is no doubt in my mind what happened and what should happen to Mr Lockhart in this SLCC investigation and any more investigations into him and his kind.
BBC and everyone else and all those lawyer authored blogs just cannot beat this blog for reporting the truth of our sordid legal system.
and where are the Law Society of Scotland in all this?
Yes thats right they covered up the complaint about Lockhart and let the Legal defence Union do their behind the scenes as usual.
Why no protests from the legal fraternity?
Perhaps because there are so many fiddling legal aid on the same scale as Lockhart?
"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"
HOW CAN ANY OF YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT????
MORE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE LEGAL DEFENCE UNION PLEASE
The bio of the Chief Executive of the Legal Defence Union.
Have to wonder how "ethics" fits in with Mr Lockhart's actions against the pensioner and the Legal Aid Board!
http://www4.rgu.ac.uk/abs/staff/page.cfm?pge=11048
Professor David O'Donnell
LL.B. (University of Aberdeen), NP. Solicitor.
Tel: +44 (0)1224 263893
Email: d.o-donnell@rgu.ac.uk
I joined The Robert Gordon University in 2004 having been appointed as Professor in Legal Ethics and Professional Practice. I am a qualified solicitor having spent several years in practice. I am Chief Executive of the Legal Defence Union and also serve on a number of Law Society committees. In 1998 and 2000, I was a visiting professor at the Universities of Maryland and Baltimore.
I have taught on various Law Society of Scotland Post Qualifying Legal Education courses. I have also designed and delivered courses to practising solicitors as part of their Continuous Professional Development requirements. I have delivered in house seminars to larger solicitor firms on recent developments in professional responsibility and legal ethics.
Research Interests
My principal areas of interest are now in the fields of legal ethics and professional responsibility, although I have also published in the fields of property law and conveyancing.
Publications
Refereed Articles
Reduction of a Disposition owing to Error. 1995 (1) Juridical Review p178.
Intervening Insolvency: How can you Know? (co-authored). YEAR Scottish Law and Practice Quarterly Vol. 1 p173.
A Question of Privilege. YEAR Scottish Law and Practice Quarterly Vol. 2 p162.
Security over Moveables: A Long Standing Reform Agenda in Scots Law (co-authored). Zeitschrift fur Europaisches Privatrecht 1997 Vol. 3 p807.
Non Feudal Landholdings in Scotland. (co-authored). YEAR Scottish Law and Practice Quarterly Vol. 3 p31. [This research was funded by a grant from the Scottish Office]
Legal Professional Privilege. R. v. Derby Mags. Court, ex parte B. YEAR Scottish Law and Practice Quarterly Vol. 3 p75.
Non-Refereed articles
Introduction to Computing for the Smaller Practice. (book review). Journal of the Law Society of Scotland 1993. p.177.
A Cautionary Note for Conveyancers. (co-authored). Journal of the Law Society of Scotland 1994. p.205.
Knowles v. Aberdeen Rubber Ltd. (case note and commentary). Scottish Civil Law Reports 1994 p.611.
Time Limits in Letters of Obligation. YEAR Scottish Law Gazette Vol. 62\4. p.127.
Solicitors Standards and Inadequate Professional Services. YEAR Scottish Law Gazette. Vol. 64. P14.
A Further Cautionary Note for Conveyancers. (co-authored). Journal of the Law Society of Scotland 1996. p.255.
Legal Ethics in Practice - Five Problem Cases. Scots Law Times 2001 p33.
The Legal Defence Union- Do you need it? Journal of the Law Society of Scotland March 2003.
A Conflict of Interest. Journal of the Law Society of Scotland November 2003. p.20.
Other Publications
Meston's Succession Opinions W.Green\Sweet & Maxwell. 2000.
Professional Legal Ethics: A Comparative Perspective. Contribution to CEELI Concept Paper Series. (Published by the American Bar Association July 2002).
I read in the paper some more of his clients were demanding investigations what happened to this?
I hope they all complain to the SLCC and publish it too in the papers
not CRiMiNAL?
You decide!
Enough to make any reasonable person to question if their lawyer is the same.Be warned people if your lawyer is on legal aid the odds are he is doing the same to you as Lockhart did to his own clients..
I shudder when I hear the term Independent Regulator. I really believe no matter what profession it is under investigation this trem is meaningless.
The SLCC investigating, that is a joke.
A solicitor from Kilmarnock who took over £1/2 million in legal aid is being investigated by the SLCC after clients made complaints.
====================================
This is like the Heinrich Himmler investigating the SS. The outcome is a foregone conclusion.
A layperon in Hamilton recently got 160 hours for claiming legal aid around £3,500.00 he was not entitled to and this scumbag is being investigated (ha ha) by the SLCC for £600,000.00.
One law for the majority and protection for the organised minority. And the layperson, oh yeah he is really ripping the taxpayer off, Lockhart should be jailed.
Lawyers do not do ethics.
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.
-------------------------------
These lawyers are unethical scum, that is what they are. State protected mendacious scum.
Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew is ‘front runner’ for Scottish Information Commissioner role.
===============================
How would you like to be in Esther Francis shoes Miss Agnew, oh you would want blood then.
David Cameron said there were 4,000 extra NHS doctors, 100,000 more patients treated, and in-patient and outpatient waiting times were lower since the coalition came to power in May 2010.
================================
Hi David. You want to destroy the NHS, you are fooling no one.
Oh and your private companies like Working Links there to get me a job. I am a joiner and I have an honours degree too. The industry I love has been destroyed and at least a few decent employers like Dawn Construction have the decency to reply to my job applications.
You want the private sector to kick start the economy while you politicians line your bank accounts and pay off the structural deficit destroying all our opportunities. You and Clegg, are not suffering just like the scumbags in Edinburgh. Shame on you.
Oh yes David, your wife £600.00 for a pair of shoes. We are in this together. You are as out of touch as the self regulators of this country.
Who cares if this stuff isnt on the bbc or in the hootsmon?
I wanted to know if my solictor is bent and I found out by going online Googling the twat's name and found him here so I've dodged a bullet and didnt need to shell out for some rag or sit through 30 minutes of guff about news no one wants to hear about on the telly
So they dont want Peter and they dont want to know about lawyers or plumbers or anyone else ripping off people so be it.Don't buy the flaming newspaper then if there's no news in it for you and dont bother watching claptrap on teh telly with some presenter too busy hawking themselves to you on camera.Next time you go through your supermarket just look at the piles of papers unsold growing by the day and you know why dont you its because no one gives a flaming damn about some presenter's nose job or affair any more we want some real news damn it!Anyways most people go online these days to find out the news without some made up lawyer pretending to be a bloody journalist writing a story about how bloody great lawyers are and we should all be using them.Avoid buying your news when there are others like Peter who have sheds more credibility and purpose than anyone paid to sit back and throw crap at us instead of what we should be reading!
rant over!
Anonymous said...
Kinda funny you Scots want independence yet your justice and political system allows stuff like this to go on.
I do not.
All the best.
Anonymous said...
THIS IS FRAUD!
The SLAB cannot claim any kudos in any way shape or form for there so called investigation into this man if all they are going to do is capitulate to the Law Society of Scotland's evil will.
WHY WERE THE POLICE NOT INVOLVED?
=============================
Yes it is fraud but even if the Police did intervene the procurator fiscal decides whether a case goes to court.
And the procurator fiscal is a member of the Law Society of Scotland
Imagine the following scenario, assuming of course you have never dealt with a lawyer.
You are the friend of a woman who lost her parents when she was eighteen and you helped her through their early deaths.
Thirty years later she finds out you were being paid out of a trust fund left by her parents. How would she react?
In my view you would not be her friend as your motive would have been maximising your financial gain. A true friend would have helped her without financial reward. How could you convince her you helped her for friendship alone? In this situation it can be argued you are immoral because you could not refute the possible legitimate accusation you helped her for the money.
I am not having a go at anyone except lawyers.
Trusting a lawyer is an illusion.
You are the client of a lawyer who you rightly think represents your interests. But you do not realise the lawyer you believe is on your side is actually against you. You are seeking damages for being wronged in some way. Your lawyer has taken on your case but for you to get damages his insurers will have to pay your damages because the chances are all parties share the same insurers.
Then there is the further illusion because you think the Law Societies or SLCC will help you. No the real world is that lawyers use you as a tool to make money while all of the time stabbing you in the back.
There is a vast difference between what you think lawyers are and what they actually are.
The Legal Aid Board should also be making complaints to the SLCC.Do you know if they have?Surely the SLCC will have to question SLAB about their involvement in all this and get to the truth if it has any credibility as a regulator?
Why is Jane Irvine meeting with LDU who helped Lockhart get off the hook?
Its all so corrupt!
I sympathise with clients who have had their lives ripped apart by lawyers who are simply predators who think the public are tools to make money from. Shutting web sites has been a catalyst to the formation of new networks of dissent. What Desmond Hudson wants is for lawyers to be trusted with people's assets, health, their kids legal affairs when they grow up, and all behind the dreaded doors of the Law Societies of the UK. Self Regulation is against the Human Rights Act if it can crush dissent. Furthermore the fact they want to crush dissent tells us something about the way they have treated the public for decades.
Desmond Hudson that lump of meat between your ears needs reprogrammed. Your lawyers have a monopoly on the legal services market and your Law Societies are burial grounds for client complaints. No more Hudson, you days for tormenting innocent people are numbered.
Trust no lawyer especially one who states that "web sites are a danger to the public". All you nice people out there trust us, we have been scorched by crooked lawyers, we know what they will do to you for MONEY. What we know Desmond wants to keep secret.
The Law Society, SLCC have one function only, PROTECTING LAWYERS.
It does not matter that they are meant to protect the public, they never will. They think lawyers are important and we are not, so the only solution is clients regulating lawyers. If the SLCC and Law Societies protected us there would be no dissent.
THE POLICE HAVE TO MOVE IN ON THESE VIPERS, AS THEY ARE SIMPLY WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS, WHO ACT AS IF THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
================================
They are above the law.
Well all I see on bbc today is a load of guff about Stephen Hester's annual bonus - just to deflect from the rest of the country' problems of course.
How about someone do these f*cking lawyers for stealing all the millions each year in legal aid?
If its not ok for some banker to get a bonus its bloody obvious its not ok for lawyers to go around stealing the same amounts in legal aid!
So how many times have crooked lawyers been in at the SLCC for a nice lunch with Jane & the board?
Enough to make us ALL sick!
"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"
================================
Hamilton Advertiser Thursday January 12th page 19.
A Stonehouse man who falsely claimed Legal Aid approx £3500.00 found guilty at Airdrie Sheriff Court sentenced to 150 hours community service.
Lawyers taking £600,000.00 of Legal Aid not even charged, and allowed to keep working
for unsuspecting clients by the Law Society of Scotland. Did they face a public court. NO.
Another case of political difference in the administration Scottish justice. Your judicial pals are looking after you Lockhart. He took 171 times more money than the man in the Hamilton Advertiser, a bent justice system indeed. Lockhart would be in a care home before he worked off his community service.
must be a dangerous job/life exposing all these criminals have they ever tried to kill you or threaten you?
One thing I dont see in your reporting is any condemnation of Lockhart and the legal aid robbery by the Justice Minister MacAskill.If he does not condemn it he must condone it.Is Lockhart and the LDU another bunch Mr MacAskill is proud to be associated with?
Scottish lawyers are a creepy crooked bunch best stayed away from.
I wouldnt worry too much about whats on bbc these days like on Reporting Scotland I've turned it off due to the independence bs and the obsessive detail about the lad who was murdered.
Anonymous said...
must be a dangerous job/life exposing all these criminals have they ever tried to kill you or threaten you?
27 January 2012 21:38
Make no mistake about it when the establishment feels threatened they kill.I wouldn't be surprised if they already tried it against Peter or are planning to. £600K is easily worth murdering for and there's probably a lot more £££ of legal aid theft going on we dont know about yet maybe millions definitely work killing for.
Very complete report something you'll never see in a paper especially this report from legal aid.
Keep up the good work!
One thing I dont see in your reporting is any condemnation of Lockhart and the legal aid robbery by the Justice Minister MacAskill.
===============================
Correct MacAskill does not regard Lockhart's conduct as criminal, he suffers from the same disease all self regulators suffer from, an inability to recognise wrongdoing in the their own profession. Oh you see him on TV with people cleaning out ditches, he regards them as criminals but lawyers, well MacAskill said "Scotland owes a great debt to the legal profession". Another politician not fit for his office.
Anonymous said...
"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.
--------------------------------
You are a brave man Mr Lockhart treating an old lady like this. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A VULNERABLE OLD LADY TRUSTS A LAWYER. SHE COULD HAVE BEEN DRIVEN TO SUICIDE BY THIS LLB BULLY WHO LIKE HIS COLLEAGUES IS HUMAN FILTH, THE IMPORTANT PEOPLE ARE THE LEAST POWERFUL. IT IS LITTLE WONDER THE LAW SOCIETY HAS CAUSED CLIENT SUICIDES WHEN WE SEE THE WAY THIS LADY HAS BEEN TREATED. THIS IS A FORM OF TERRORISM IN MY OPINION.
In my case, the Law Society of Scotland wrote to me, asking for my permission to contact the SLAB about my case, after the SLAB wrote to me telling me that my lawyer had broken the law.
I smelled arat, so I refused them permission to contact the SLAB about my case.
THEY THEN CONTACTED THE SLAB ABOUT MY CASE ANYWAY!
THEN THEY WROTE TO ME SAYING THAT THE SLAB WERE WRONG! AND THAT MY LAWYER WAS ENTITLED TO RIP ME OFF!
WHERE ARE THE POLICE?
The Law Society of Scotland and the SLCC colluded to ensure that a crooked lawyer was not prosecuted.
The complainant who complained to the Law Society of Scotland first and then to the SLCC is now to receive a payout, for keeping her mouth shut about this criminal activity, as it would shut down both organisations if it was known to the public and because this collusion was to prevent a bigger scandal from being exposed.
This guy is still working as a lawyer.
Why are the Law Society of Scotland allowing people like Lockhart to continue working as lawyers?
How many more people like Lockhart are working as lawyers?
This piece of work was my lawyer too and also claimed legal aid did nothing the usual how do I complain about him?
2 February 2012 22:11
You can make a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
However, before you do, email us at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com and get some media coverage to help your complaint progress through the system and protect other consumers at the same time.
Post a Comment