Court of Session's Lord Brodie hears Legal Defence Union boss accused of misconduct in Law Society report. DETAILS of a court case heard in Scotland’s Court of Session have revealed William Macreath aged 60, who is the head of the LEGAL DEFENCE UNION (LDU), a shady lawyer’s lobby group specialising in defending crooked colleagues has been accused of “five findings of inadequate services” and “seven findings of professional misconduct” by an unnamed reporter acting for the Law Society of Scotland. The stinging accusations against the LDU boss, who it was revealed last year had secret meetings with Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) in expensive Edinburgh hotels, are contained in one of four reports carried out by Law Society reporters investigating complaints originally made SEVEN YEARS AGO in 2005 by a fellow solicitor, Miss Norna Crabbe.
Details of the court case and allegations against Mr Macreath who is also a partner in Glasgow law firm Levy MacRae only came to light after the LDU boss petitioned the Court of Session for a Judicial Review against the Law Society of Scotland which in turn resulted in Miss Crabbe asking leave to enter the process and to lodge answers as additional respondent alongside the Council of the Law Society of Scotland in response to the petition filed by Mr Macreath.
Earlier this week, Miss Crabbe’s motion to the court to enable her to enter the case faced bitter opposition from advocate Helen Watts, acting on behalf of Messrs Simpson & Marwick who are representing Mr Macreath. During the debate on the case, the Judge, Lord Brodie who is known not to be a big fan of the media, heard the case had come about after it had taken the Law Society of Scotland no less than four reporters to wade through, investigate and report back on complaints made against Mr Macreath by Miss Crabbe in relation to litigation & legal services provided by Mr Macreath to Miss Crabbe over the dissolution of a firm in which Miss Crabbe had been a partner.
The court was told of how the third reporter who looked into the complaints made against Mr Macreath recommended that all heads of complaint made by Miss Crabbe against the petitioner be dismissed, with the exception of one finding of inadequate professional services upon which the third reporter recommended that no sanction be imposed on the petitioner in respect of that finding.
Miss Crabbe subsequently complained about the terms of the 2009 Report conducted by the third reporter and it was by way of response to Miss Crabbe's complaint about the 2009 Report that the respondent made its remit (which the petitioner avers was of a limited nature) to the fourth reporter.
In what appears to be a complete reversal of the third reporter’s findings, the fourth reporter reported in terms of the 2011 Report. In the 2011 Report the fourth reporter made five findings of inadequate services against the petitioner and seven findings of professional misconduct. The fourth reporter did not make a finding of inadequate professional services in relation to the one head of the complaint which had been upheld by the third reporter.
In response to the allegations, the court heard in Mr Macreath’s pleadings that he made detailed written representations to the respondent about the unfairness of the approach adopted in dealing with Miss Crabbe's complaint which led to the 2011 Report. The petitioner avers that he did not receive a substantive response from the respondents until 10 January 2012 when the respondent wrote to the petitioner advising that it proposed to proceed on the basis of the 2011 Report treating the 2009 Report as a nullity.
Details published by the court reveal Mr Macreath is seeking an interdict ad interim against the Council of the Law Society of Scotland from taking any procedural step to advance the disposal of the complaint by Miss Crabbe pending resolution of the proceedings; reduction of the Law Society’s decision of 10 January 2012 to set aside the 2009 Report and treat it as a nullity; an order by the Court ordaining the Law Society to set aside the terms of the 2011 Report; and an order by the Court ordaining the Law Society to obtain a supplementary report in terms specified at paragraph 14.4 of the petition.
However, after hearing both sides arguments in court, Lord Brodie granted Miss Crabbe’s plea to lodge responses, giving a fourteen day deadline for answers to be received by the court. The full terms of Lord Brodie’s opinion are reprinted below, however it should be noted there does not seem to be any mention of what work if any, the first & second reporters carried out with regard to Miss Crabbe’s complaints.
The opinion of Lord Brodie published by the Scottish Courts website is featured here and reprinted below : OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2012] CSOH 81 P47/12 OPINION OF LORD BRODIE in the Petition of WILLIAM COUPERTHWAITE MACREATH Petitioner; for Judicial Review of a decision taken by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland
Introduction
[1] In this application by motion in terms of rule 58.8(2) by Miss Norma Crabbe for leave to enter the process and to lodge answers as additional respondent to the petition, I heard Miss Crabbe in support of her motion and Miss Watts, Advocate, for the petitioner.
[2] Miss Crabbe objected to my hearing Miss Watts on the ground that, contrary to what appears on the Form 23.4 lodged on behalf of the petitioner, written intimation of opposition had not been given to her on the day that the opposition was lodged with the General Department, as required by rule 23.4(4). The relevant timetable of events, according to Miss Crabbe, was that she intimated her intention to enrol the motion by fax on Monday 30 April 2012. She enrolled the motion on Wednesday 2 May. Those acting for the petitioner lodged a form of opposition to motion (Form 23.4) with the General Department on 2 May but only intimated that opposition in writing to Miss Crabbe by way of letter which arrived on Thursday 3 May. The motion came before me on Friday 4 May. While I understood Miss Watts to dispute that there had been a failure to intimate opposition on 2 May, she accepted that she had handed an amended Form 23.4 to Miss Crabbe on the morning of 4 May prior to the motion calling before me. The amended Form 23.4 stated that the motion should be refused on the basis that the applicant was not directly affected by the issues raised in the petition and lacked the necessary interest and standing to justify her participating in the proceedings.
[3] Rather than taking further time to explore the factual dispute, I proceeded on the basis that, as Miss Crabbe claimed, written opposition to her motion had only been intimated to her on 3 May 2012 and that therefore there had been a failure to comply with rule 23.4(4). Rule 2.1 gives power to the Court to relieve a party from the consequences of failure to comply with the Rules of Courts. It is not entirely clear to me that there are necessary consequences of a failure to comply with the requirement to give written notice of opposition on the day of lodging it, at least where the motion is starred, the other party is on notice that the motion is opposed and the other party has attended to make her motion. But, assuming that it was open to me to refuse to hear Miss Watts or to grant the motion irrespective of its merits, I decided that it was entirely inappropriate for me to do so andto the extent that my hearing Miss Watts required me to exercise my powers under rule 2.1, I did so. In my experience at least, a motion such as this is unusual. It did not appear to me free from all difficulty. I welcomed the assistance which might be provided from either side of the bar and Miss Crabbe did not suggest that she had suffered any prejudice from having a shorter rather than longer period of notice of opposition.
The petition
[4] The petitioner is a solicitor. The respondent is the Law Society of Scotland. The petitioner seeks judicial review of a decision taken by the Council of the respondent, acting through its Regulation Department, and intimated by letter dated January 2011, to treat its report dated 28 September 2009, on a complaint against the petitioner (by Miss Crabbe) as a nullity and to proceed on the basis of the report, dated June 2011, on the same subject.
[5] Miss Crabbe is also a solicitor. The petitioner acted on her behalf between 1998 and 2005 in relation to litigation arising out of the dissolution of the firm of which Miss Crabbe had been a partner. Miss Crabbe became dissatisfied with the services provided to her by the petitioner in relation to this matter and in August 2005 intimated the complaint to the respondent which is referred to in the petition. The then statutory provision regulating such complaints was section 33 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Section 33 requires the respondent to investigate a complaint made by any person with an interest and thereafter make a written report to the complainer and the practitioner concerned. It is averred in the petition that the respondent has appointed a series of four separate reporters to deal with Miss Crabbe's complaint. The report dated 28 September 2009 ("the 2009 Report") was a report by the third reporter and the report dated June 2011 ("the 2011 Report") was a report by the fourth reporter.
[6] The 2009 report by the third reporter recommended that all heads of complaint made by Miss Crabbe against the petitioner be dismissed, with the exception of one finding of inadequate professional services. The third reporter recommended that no sanction be imposed on the petitioner in respect of that finding. Miss Crabbe subsequently complained about the terms of the 2009 Report. It was by way of response to Miss Crabbe's complaint about the 2009 Report that the respondent made its remit (which the petitioner avers was of a limited nature) to the fourth reporter. The fourth reporter reported in terms of the 2011 Report. In the 2011 Report the fourth reporter made five findings of inadequate services against the petitioner and seven findings of professional misconduct. The fourth reporter did not make a finding of inadequate professional services in relation to the one head of the complaint which had been upheld by the third reporter.
[7] The petitioner avers that he made detailed written representations to the respondent about the unfairness of the approach adopted in dealing with Miss Crabbe's complaint which led to the 2011 Report. The petitioner avers that he did not receive a substantive response from the respondents until 10 January 2012 when the respondent wrote to the petitioner advising that it proposed to proceed on the basis of the 2011 Report treating the 2009 Report as a nullity.
[8] In these circumstances the petitioner seeks interdict ad interim against the respondent from taking any procedural step to advance the disposal of the complaint by Miss Crabbe pending resolution of the proceedings; reduction of the respondent's decision of 10 January 2012 to set aside the 2009 Report and treat it as a nullity; an order by the Court ordaining the respondent to set aside the terms of the 2011 Report; and an order by the Court ordaining the respondent to obtain a supplementary report in terms specified at paragraph 14.4 of the petition.
Rule of Court 58.8(2)
[9] Rule 58.8(2) provides as follows:
"Any person not specified in the first order made under Rule 58.7 as a person on whom service requires to be made, and who is directly affected by any issue raised, may apply by motion for leave to enter the process; and if the motion is granted, the provisions of this chapter shall apply to that person as they apply to a person specified in the first order".
Discussion
[10] It was Miss Watts's submission on behalf of the petitioner that Miss Crabbe was not a person "directly affected" by any issue raised in the petition. The petition would not resolve Miss Crabbe's complaint against the petitioner. To the extent that Miss Crabbe's patrimonial interests had been adversely affected by the petitioner's conduct of her affairs then her remedy was an action for damages. Moreover, it was not in the interests of expedient determination of the petition that Miss Crabbe should be allowed to participate. A two day first hearing had been fixed in the petition for 14 and 15 June 2012. It was likely that that hearing would have to be discharged if Miss Crabbe were to be added as a party.
[11] Miss Crabbe and Miss Watts were agreed that authoritative guidance as to what is meant by "directly affected" for the purposes of Rule 58.8(2) is to be found in the judgment of Lord Reed in AXA General Insurance Ltd v The Lord Advocate 2011 SLT 1061 at paras.170 to 175. In that passage, Lord Reed explains that the traditional analysis in terms of title and interest as a requisite for locus standi in a private law context, as set out in D & J Nicol v Dundee Harbour Trustees 1915 SC (HL) 712, is inappropriate where what is in issue are questions of public law, which is likely to be the case with an exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction. At para.174 of his judgment in AXA Lord Reed considers the terms of Rule 58.8(2). He explains that stipulation in the rule that a person must be directly affected by any issue raised, is no more than a reflection of the pre-existing requirement that a person must have sufficient interest. It is no more restrictive than that.
[12] There may be instances where having made a complaint to a regulatory authority the complainer should be taken to have surrendered any private interest in the matter to that authority but on the admittedly fairly superficial understanding of the scheme under the 1990 Act which I was able to glean from the parties' necessarily brief submissions, I do not see this to be such a case. It would appear from the petitioner's averments that the respondent involved Miss Crabbe in the complaints process. It entertained Miss Crabbe's complaint about the 2009 Report. It invited her to submit material which she claimed had not been considered by the third reporter. The petitioner complains of lack of procedural fairness on the part of the respondent in its consideration of the complaint. It is at the very least arguable that just as the petitioner had an expectation of procedural fairness, so did Miss Crabbe. The petitioner complains of delay on the part of the respondent. So did Miss Crabbe when she came to address me. It may be that, in contrast to the petitioner, Miss Crabbe has no direct patrimonial interest in the outcome of the complaint, but I consider that I am entitled to have regard to her interest in being vindicated in the event of her complaint being upheld just as the petitioner has an interest (additional to any purely patrimonial interest) in being vindicated by the complaint being dismissed, either in whole or in part. Depending on the outcome of the complaint, I would expect parties to consider that they had "won" or "lost" to a greater or lesser extent. The terms of the operative reporter's report may not be determinative of the complaint but any final decision will have to be based on that report, hence the petitioner's wish for the 2011 Report to be set aside in favour of the 2009 Report with any further report being limited to an identification of the documentation which was not available to the third reporter and a decision on the significance, if any, of such additional documentation. If it is clear that the petitioner has an interest in setting aside the 2011 Report in favour of the 2009 Report, then, conversely, I would see Miss Crabbe as having an interest, albeit perhaps not a patrimonial interest, in the 2011 Report remaining as the operative report.
[13] Were it to be suggested (and Miss Watts did not so suggest), I would not be satisfied that it would be an answer to Miss Crabbe's wish to participate that her interests can be adequately protected by the respondent's opposition to the petition. It may be that the respondent will take and maintain all relevant points available in answer to the petition but Miss Crabbe has no guarantee that that will be so. It may be that with a view to the economical conduct of the litigation, Miss Crabbe will not choose to add anything to what is put forward on behalf of the respondent, but she cannot know in advance whether the points which are to be insisted upon on behalf of the respondent and the way in which the proceedings are conducted will exactly coincide with her view of her interests.
[14] Miss Watts argued that it was not in the interests of the expedient determination of the petition that Miss Crabbe be allowed to participate. Miss Watts envisaged that the hearing fixed for 14 and 15 June 2012 would have to be discharged. I am not satisfied that this is necessarily so but were it to be so I do not see it as a consideration which could prevent a directly affected person being granted leave to enter the process.
Decision
[15] I shall therefore grant Miss Crabbe leave to enter the process. Miss Crabbe sought leave to lodge answers and I would grant leave for her to do so, ordaining that these be lodged within 14 days of the date of the interlocutor granting leave. [16] I reserve all questions of expenses.
LEGAL DEFENCE UNION – DEFENDING CROOKED LAWYERS, ACTING AGAINST CLIENTS :
The LEGAL DEFENCE UNION (LDU) is a small, yet powerful organisation which regularly represents crooked lawyers against investigations of client complaints which are carried out by the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). It is now well known the LDU regularly intervene in cases and make submissions to both the Law Society & SLCC on solicitors behalf while the clients who have made the complaints are routinely refused access to the LDU’s submissions, dubbed by some complaints insiders as “more often than not, threatening & intimidatory”.
A report into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy carried out by the University of Manchester Law School in 2009 for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was handed documents linking the Legal Defence Union to suicides of clients who had complained about their solicitors. Details of the cases were referred to in the report, which can be read in an article by Diary of Injustice here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'
Investigation revealed Legal Defence Union rushed to aid £600K dodgy legal aid claims lawyer. Diary of Injustice conducted an in depth investigation into dealings between the Legal Defence Union and the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), revealing James McCann, a solicitor acting for the LDU brokered a deal between SLAB and the Law Society to deter action on complaints filed by SLAB against sole practitioner Niels S Lockhart, a solicitor who SLAB accused of making inflated claims for legal aid work after raking in SIX HUNDRED & SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND POUNDS of legal aid funds between April 2002 to March 2005.
Diary of Injustice reported on the secret deal struck between the Legal Defence Union, Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland to get Niels Lockhart off the hook from potentially being struck off, in an earlier article, here : One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case
The secret SLAB report on Niels S Lockhart, obtained in 2011 by Diary of Injustice under Freedom of Information laws, can be viewed online here : SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD S31 COMPLAINT REPORT TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND : NIELS S LOCKHART
Legal Defence Union boss secretly met SLCC Chair Jane Irvine in no notes meetings at posh Edinburgh hotel. A further investigation carried out by Diary of Injustice into dealings between the Legal Defence Union and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission revealed a series of secret off the record meetings at the plush Balmoral hotel in Edinburgh between Jane Irvine, the Chair of the SLCC and William Macreath, despite the fact Mr Macreath was under investigation by the Law Society of Scotland at the same time over complaints filed by solicitor Miss Crabbe. That report can be read here : Investigation reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's links, secret 'off the record' dealings with lawyers lobby group Legal Defence Union
Documents obtained from the SLCC under Freedom of Information disclosures revealed Mr Macreath and the SLCC Chair exchanged correspondence and letters agreeing that no notes of their meetings would be kept. The FOI disclosures can be viewed online or downloaded here : Legal Defence Union & Law Care involvement in complaints to SLCC & here : FOI Disclosure : Involvement & meetings between Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Legal Defence Union
The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was asked for their reaction over the allegations against Mr Macreath and what impact it may have on any discussions held between the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine and the LDU Boss. No response has been received at time of publication.
45 comments:
It takes the Law Society 4 reporters in 7 years to investigate complaints made by one lawyer against another lawyer?
The public dont stand a chance with this crowd!
Here is another example of what happens when even a lawyer comes up against Edinburgh's legal mafia - former employees of Ross Harper please take note.
I take my hat off to Ms. Crabbe who - no doubt despite the best efforts of the LDU, their friends at the Law Society of Scotland and the SLCC - has persevered and managed to get this far.
Clearly no-one can expect a fair hearing when the cash cow run by the disgraced insurer Marsh, namely the Master Policy, is expected to honour its terms.
Nice one for the weekend.I wonder why the LSoS have not issued a statement about this case?
Construction Case Darlington Borough Council V Wiltshire Northern Limited.
A bank entered into a contract with Wiltshire Northern Ltd to build office accomodation. To get to the point here when the building was complete it was sold to Darlington Borough Council. There was no contract between the Council and Wiltshire so the council had no legal remedy to get serious problems with the building rectified.
The Court ruled the Bank had to sue Wiltshire Northern Ltd and pass the damages to the third party the Council. This case established the need for contractural relations to be established between builders and end users by providing collateral warranties. Where an I going with this?
Well if government or business is involved the Courts will provide a legal remedy, but there is no balance of power between individual clients and law firms. Joe Bloggs cannot get to court because he needs a lawyer to act against a lawyer. This is the reason the legal profession are so corrupt. So called investigations are so one sided that clients have no chance. This profession are above the law. The question is the only people I see able and willing to expose this corruption are campainers themselves. The so called independent SLCC having meetings with the LDU is proof (but we do not need that) the SLCC is MacAskill's baby to protect the profession "he owes a great debt to". The Law Society of Scotland is Scotland's Government, they control everything, no seperation between members of the Judiciary and elected representatives of the public. That is why the courts are blocked to lawyers victims and Salmond and all MSP's want to keep it that way.
I expect whoever put that up on the courts website will be flogged heavily.
I was told today that there is a story in the Hamilton Advertiser about Ross Harper and the Hamilton Law Firm Scullion Solicitors are becoming involved in this. One for you to check out Peter although I would not be surprised if you already know given you and your teams sharp eye in all matters legal.
Please all keep up the good work.
Irvine will have known he was under investigation at the time of their meetings.There's no excuse for her not to as she's supposedly been dealing with complaints against lawyers since early 2000s and half the SLCC staff are over from the Law Society probably around the time when Macreath was reported in 2005.
A resigning matter for Irvine considering the tone of those letters and the agreement not to take notes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-18122149
Hunt Kidd solicitors in Newcastle jailed for £1m theft
Two solicitors who stole more than £1m from clients at a Newcastle firm have been given jail terms.
Kenneth Hunt and Barbara Gayton had earlier pleaded guilty to fraud by abuse of position.
Hunt, 65, of Longhoughton, near Alnwick in Northumberland, was jailed for four years, and Gayton, 53, of Broadwell Court in South Gosforth, for two.
The pair took a total of £1,049,103 between October 2008 and October 2009, while senior partners at Hunt Kidd.
The company, on Pilgrim Street, was closed in November 2009, following a related investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Lord Brodie "The petitioner complains of lack of procedural fairness on the part of the respondent in its consideration of the complaint. It is at the very least arguable that just as the petitioner had an expectation of procedural fairness, so did Miss Crabbe."
I wish some judge would say this when a client tries to get into court.
I know all about the legal defence union unlike some of the thick idiots running to a lawyer at the drop of a hat.The Law Society gave me a report saying they were going to prosecute my lawyer and just like your complaint about Penman it was all turned on its head by a man from the LDU appearing before the Complaints Committee.
I cant write everything about what happened in this comment box but I will email you copies of my complaint and the letters to/from the Law Society so you can see for yourself what happened in my case.
http://scullionlaw.com/about-us/rossharper
Local law firm Scullion Law Limited bucks the trend with landmark acquisition
Burgeoning South Lanarkshire Law Firm Scullion Law have confirmed their acquisition of key departments at Ross Harper Solicitors, the iconic Glasgow-based legal practice closed by judicial factors at the beginning of May.
The award-winning Scullion Law have acquired the criminal, property and part of the family law department from Ross Harper Solicitors following the decision to cease trading.
The acquired departments will be integrated into the 2010 Law Firm of the Year's pre-exiting criminal, property and family law departments; it is the latest development at Scullion Law to demonstrate their determination to grow during a notoriously difficult period for the profession.
Managing Partner Nicholas Scullion stated "the loss of Ross Harper to the legal profession is of course a blow to the Scottish legal market, but it is also a heavy blow for the clients who are directly affected by the loss; with Scullion Law's commitment to providing superlative legal service we wish to assure Ross Harper's client base that they are very much in capable hands. For all of our clients we are focused on action - not words."
With alternative business structure proposals set to reshape the legal profession, Scullion Law has embraced change with a philosophy of flexibility and ambition.
The Ross Harper acquisition reflects the latest effort by the Firm to stand tall while contemporaries batten down. Last year saw the Hamilton-based firm open a branch in Motherwell, acquire a local competitor and add to their growing staff numbers while 2012 has seen staff member Valerie Troop recognised as 2012 paralegal of the year.
Interesting opinion from Lord Brodie however one has to wonder if an ordinary client would ever be able to secure such a favourable hearing in a Scottish court involving a case against a lawyer.I think not.
The Dark Actors betray themselves?
How do you manage to do all these investigations and get this kind of info?
Very readable whoever you are and great to see someone giving lawyers the press they really deserve instead of all this rubbish about fighting for good (actually it's all about money in their pockets!)
Why did the Law Society end up using four reporters on Miss Crabbe's complaint?
We need to know the full facts of what happened in this case and the court should be publishing everything not just a commentary akin to a football match.The complaints must now be published in full!
LDU has become too big for it's boots,now a liability in the eyes of many at LSoS,probably all due in no small part to a certain law journalist's efforts over the years.
An extraordinary insight into the inner workings of the Scots legal world and very worrying too for if this is how they treat each other the rest of us have little chance of honesty from our solicitors.
If lawyers cared for clients the way they care about money they would be the most respected profession on earth. Enough said.
Good to see that Bill Macreath is finally being properly investigated...pity it took a lawyer to have matters concerning his (mis)conduct taken seriously.
NEXT.....
QC Pettifoggery - A Song About Scottish Corruption & Our Very Naughty Lawyers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZi6CCi3CAc
A musical education on insurance policies and taxation. Enjoy
Re The Northumberland fraud case;
...Hunt, 65, of Longhoughton, near Alnwick in Northumberland, was jailed for four years - SO HE WILL BE OUT IN 2 AT MOST
...and Gayton, 53, of Broadwell Court in South Gosforth, for two - SO 1 YEAR MAX FOR A £! MILLION POUND FRAUD not bad - if they weren't lawyers the Court would lock them up and throw away the key.
I see the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity has died. When I read what Dr Jim Swire www.lockerbietruth.com writes I am in no doubt Megrahi was innocent. MacAskill has a lot to answer for.
I'll lay odds on none of Scotland's newspapers or media organisations reporting this one..anyway good thing the courts have published it.These reports done by the Law Society on the complaint against Macreath should be published asap
Anonymous said...
I know all about the legal defence union unlike some of the thick idiots running to a lawyer at the drop of a hat.The Law Society gave me a report saying they were going to prosecute my lawyer and just like your complaint about Penman it was all turned on its head by a man from the LDU appearing before the Complaints Committee.
I cant write everything about what happened in this comment box but I will email you copies of my complaint and the letters to/from the Law Society so you can see for yourself what happened in my case.
18 May 2012 19:19
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Why not go to the Police and ask them to investigate?
Ask for a crime number (not an incident number) and as a witness ask to be kept informed of the progress of their investigations?
The Law Society are bound by legislation which they routinely flout. Get the police onto them to make them squirm?
So what is the story on this Norma Crabbe and why did the firm she was a partner in dissolve?
Next hearing will be just as interesting if it is published.
I want to know why multiple Law Society of Scotland Reporters were involved?
Could it be that the Law Society of Scotland have intimidated and threatened the Reporters into capitulating and putting in a sop Report?
The Law Society (told) the so called 'independent' Reporter to change her Report in my complaint to the Law Society about my crooked lawyer in order that a massive claim on their Guarantee Fund could not succeed?
The Law Society of Scotland are a criminal organisation operating as if they do not have to abide by the laws of the land?
It may be Jane Irvine's clandestine meeting with the LDU man was for Jane Irvine to ask her paymasters at the Law Society of Scotland to mark the card of Ms Crabbe, to the benefit of the LDU man?
Anonymous said...
I know all about the legal defence union unlike some of the thick idiots running to a lawyer at the drop of a hat. The Law Society gave me a report saying they were going to prosecute my lawyer and just like your complaint about Penman it was all turned on its head by a man from the LDU appearing before the Complaints Committee.
================================
You are 100% correct it is a dangerous thing going to a lawyer. All of the structures are there to protect them, no laws apply to these people.
I wonder how Jane Irvine feels now this one is out in the open?
Agreeing to secret meetings with solicitors who are being investigated and accused [even] by the Law Society isn't a very good confidence building exercise for someone who claims to be regulating complaints against the legal profession.
All parts of the business of Ross Harper, the law firm that ceased trading early last month due to financial difficulties, have now been transferred to other legal practices.
Accountant Ian Mitchell was confirmed by the Court of Session as judicial factor to the firm, as it was announced that Glasgow firm Thompson & Brown will take over Ross Harper's personal injury and other civil litigation files.
The appointment was confirmed after time expired with no appeal being taken by any of the four former partners against their suspension from practice.
Mitchells Roberton, also based in Glasgow, have acquired Ross Harper's executry practice, and Hamilton firm Scullion & Co are taking on the criminal business. Scullion & Co have also acquired the right to use the Ross Harper trading name.
This Scottish legal system, are any of it's lawyers honest?
I'm amazed this is actually on the courts website.I wonder how many protests they have received about it?After all the public are the last to be informed of just about everything happening in the courts just in case it gives someone an idea they actually have rights against the thugs of vested interests..
So did Irvine give a comment or not?Seems to me she's in a sticky wicket here and glad she's been caught out.Lifting 300 quid a day since 2008 for complaints against lawyers (what a joke) and winding up meeting accused lawyers in secret no notes encounters at the Balmoral hotel should be a sacking matter never mind resignation.But it's good we get this kind of news because it shows us all exactly what complaints about lawyers is - a game of ruined lives and lots of money for those doing the complaints fiddling like Irvine and the rest of the SLCC/Law Society/courts rabble.
Anonymous said...
This Scottish legal system, are any of it's lawyers honest?
21 May 2012 16:43
Doubt it after reading this website!
Thank goodness someone has the guts to report this disgraceful series of events - as usual the mainstream media stay quiet or bend the knee and publish a piece of window dressing praising the miscreants.
No wonder the Scotsman's circulation has fallen off a cliff.
Why didnt this Norma Crabbe complain about Macreath via the SLCC?
A few more matters could be added to the list of complaints re William Macreath's IPS.
http://todsmurrayvarakin.com/the-case/
Good linkage back to Irvine and the meetings.Can you find out any more about this Norma Crabbe and what happened to her company,why Macreath was representing her etc?
I wonder if any further hearings will be reported by the courts after this one got out?Any news on possible censorship going on in this case?Will the judge stand for it or are they merely puppets on the proverbial string?
Levy & McRae’s Bill McReath was Arakin Ltd’s law agent in the early defence of Tods Murray –v- Arakin Ltd. back in 1996 (this case is still ongoing 16 years later!). Tods Murray raised this action at a time when the “reporter” working for the Law Society in respect of Arakin’s complaint was asking to see Tods Murray’s files, and was enquiring why Tods Murray hadn’t sent their files for taxation by the auditor as promised, whereupon the summons was raised by Tods Murray with the “coincidental” benefit of interrupting that investigation.
At no time did McReath or Levy McRae tell Arakin that he was part of the LDU. Surely that was a relevant conflict of interest that he needed to declare to his client?
At no time did McReath advise Arakin (as he should have) that their defence should be to seek dismissal due to personal bar (the Pursuer’s being breach of their undertaking to Arakin to have their fees taxed by the auditor of court) and an absence of any VAT invoices for the £70,000 already paid surplus to the fee notes rendered, for a general plea of dismissal for want of relevancy and specification.
McReath ignored the fact that no solicitor can press for his fees to be paid without taxation of the account (Begg chapter XIII). At the outset he simply advised Arakin to move a motion for Tods Murray to produce & lodge their “accounts” for them to be ‘taxed’ by the Auditor of Court, and advised Arakin to provide a bank guarantee of £275,000 for release from arrestments and inhibitions when there were no VAT invoices outstanding as £70,000 had been paid in excess of invoices (and was thus awaiting an invoice). If you want to know more go to: http://todsmurrayvarakin.com/the-case/
So, McReath took a fortune (tens of thousands) in fees for his firm whilst obviating his client’s defences, then subsequently he withdrew from acting.
In my personal view - Bill McReath was the Master Policy’s secret fifth columnist in the Arakin camp giving bad advice which favoured Tods Murray (insured by the same Master Policy, as is compulsory for all lawyers in Scotland). Does anyone else see the built-in automatic conflict of interest inherent in the Master Policy?
So it looks like the court is having to do the work of the Law Society & SLCC.What use is having either in that case?
How can someone in Irvine's position be allowed to have secret strategy meetings and to be able to have such meetings without declaring them & not having the meeting minuted.
The SLCC is not a trustworthy organisation with this double dealing going on.
Irvine is clearly acting against the Public Interest and as such should be arrested?
Does Jane Irvine get bonus payments for willfully acting against the Public Interest?
Surely by now there must be ZERO people reporting their crooked lawyer to the crooked SLCC?
Therefore, what are these SLCC crooks being paid for?
No doubt the corruptible Jane Irvine will pronounce the drop off the cliff numbers of disaffected and frustrated former clients of crooked Scottish lawyers reporting to the corrupt SLCC is somehow down to her and the 'success' of the SLCC & that the infamously crooked Scottish lawyers have become totally trustworthy overnight?
Nearly a month later the Scotsman decide to run it although no mention of secret meetings with Irvine and dodgy LDU dealings on behalf of bent lawyers (the latter wont be good for their almost exclusively lawyer only readership these days) http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/solicitor-set-to-gets-personal-as-judge-rules-in-favour-of-complainant-1-2336530
What is the chance that this matter is dealt with an out of Court settlement?
Surely the Law Society of Scotland Regulation department is not interfering with the disciplinary process in order to achieve a particular result towards one of its 'favourite' Scottish Lawyers, who it is happy to do favours for in lieu of the LDU favours in protecting crooked Scottish lawyers from going to jail?
Surely not as such an interference would have the former Chief of the Law Society of Scotland, Douglas Mill's granny spinning in her grave like a turkey on a high powered rotisserie?
Surely not as this would be confirmation that the suspicion of many is that the Law Society of Scotland are bold liar criminals, who are above the law in Scotland?
Surely not as this would mean that together with many other examples the Law Societyof Scotland routinely seek to defeat the ends of Justice for their own benefit and for the benefit of those solicitors who will do favours for the Law Society of Scotland in their pursuit for money and power?
Surely not........?
This will certainly be a case to follow with interest.........if it is allowed to be heard in an open Court?
The question of why it took 4 reporters to finally acknowledge wrongdoing on the part of William MacReath might be answered by the indisputable cosy,friendship between him and Philip Yelland ,head of the complaints dept within the Law Society. There is no doubt he was being protected and would have succeeded had it not been for the dogged determination of Miss Crabbe . Corruption ? Should it be investigated ? Start there !
Post a Comment