Friday, May 25, 2012

“Customer Service” main focus for Ex-Foreign Office Consul taking over as FIFTH Chief Exec at ‘anti-consumer’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

SLCCScottish Legal Complaints Commission appoints latest Chief Executive. THE Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the quango set up by Holyrood msps and the Law Society of Scotland to ‘independently’ regulate crooked Scottish lawyers yet who’s highly remunerated board members have openly branded members of the public “frequent flyers”, “chancers” and demanded consumer groups be excluded from studies into the effects on clients of rogue lawyers has announced the appointment of it’s latest and now FIFTH in FOUR YEARS Chief Executive, Matthew Vickers.

Mr Vickers a former British Consul in the Canary Islands & Madrid, takes up the post on 5 June 2012 replacing Rosemary Agnew who left the legal complaints quango to be Scotland’s new Information Commissioner in charge of Freedom of Information laws.

In an announcement on the SLCC’s website, Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC, who was recently revealed to have met lawyers accused of professional misconduct in meetings where it had been agreed no records would be kept of discussions, said: "The SLCC is delighted to appoint Matthew as our new Chief Executive Officer. Matthew will bring fresh thinking to the SLCC just as we really start to push our performance for the benefit of all our service users - legal practitioners and consumers. In our search, in keeping with our aspirations for the SLCC, we set our sights high and were delighted to be able to select Matthew from an exceptionally strong field of candidates."

Matthew Vickers, who will join the SLCC as Chief Executive Officer on 5 June 2012, said: "Customer service and efficient and effective ways of working have been themes throughout my career, and I hope to help a talented and enthusiastic team build on what the SLCC has already achieved. As the gateway for legal complaints, the SLCC must inspire trust and confidence in the legal complaints system. It's vital that consumers and legal practitioners recognise us as impartial, accessible and independent if we're to continue to do so."

A biography published by the SLCC of Mr Vickers states :

Matthew is forty years old and originally from Merseyside. Matthew studied Modern History at Merton College, Oxford before a Master's in Industrial Relations at the LSE. Matthew later returned to Oxford for doctorate entitled "Civic Image and Civic Patriotism in Liverpool 1880-1914" and joined Safeway on graduate scheme in 1998 working at Ferry Road store in Edinburgh. Matthew moved to McCurrach UK in 2002, made Board Director in 2004 and later joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2009.

On completing doctoral research on the history of Victorian Liverpool, Matthew joined Safeway where he held head office and regional roles specialising in customer care and customer insight. He later joined McCurrach UK, serving on the Operating Board and taking overall responsibility for in-store execution for AG Barr Scottish and Newcastle.

In 2009, Matthew joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as British Consul in the Canary Islands, subsequently moving to take up the role of Consul in Madrid. Last year he was awarded the Foreign Secretary's Award for Service Delivery recognising his significant contribution to improving the support which the FCO offers to Britons abroad.

The latest Chief Executive of the beleaguered SLCC, widely viewed as anti-consumer from it’s failure to prosecute or strike off even a single crooked lawyer since 2008 (an even worse record than the Law Society of Scotland) certainly has a task ahead of him to improve the SLCC’s image if Scots consumers are to be able to trust the SLCC to carry out effective regulation of complaints without the usual inherent bias for lawyers.

One SLCC insider dubbed Mr Vickers “a visiting fireman” amid hopes by some in the organisation he can repair the law quango’s image & functionality.

The post of the SLCC’s Chief Executive has seen considerable controversy over the four year period of the hugely expensive yet under achieving law complaints quango which has burned up at least TWO MILLION POUNDS of taxpayers money and taken a further TWELVE MILLION POUNDS from the legal profession in the form of of complaints levies paid by solicitors, which in turn are recouped from hikes (or spurious additions) in legal fees demanded from clients.

mkmc slcc openingMasterman meets MacAskill who backed secret payoff for ‘too ill to work’ former Chief Executive. A previous SLCC Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, held the role for less than a year, negotiated a secret, substantial payoff backed personally by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and resigned her position at the SLCC on grounds of “ill health”. Mrs Masterman then returned to work for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) in a “complaints reviewer” role, and was recently accused of whitewashing the circumstances of the death of Baby MacKenzie, which Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper reported on here : Deputy First Minister to look into death of baby McKenzie Wallace after parents complain of ‘whitewash’ report by SPSO investigator Eileen Masterman

The SLCC’s first Chief Executive, Richard Smith, also resigned from the role after disagreements about the way the SLCC was heading as a regulator. Mr Smith was then replaced by another civil servant before Mrs Masterman got the role, then after a few months the job was handed over to Rosemary Agnew. all reported by Diary of Injustice here : The £80K job no-one wants : Lawyers lobby seek FIFTH time unlucky Chief Executive for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission role

MIND YOUR P’s, C’s & D’s – SLCC attempt & name & shame flounders in alphabet soup

As the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission announced it’s latest Chief Executive, a number of bizarre ‘investigation examples’ & ‘determination examples’ using letters of the alphabet to refer to [crooked’ lawyers and consumers who made complaints about their lawyers have been published on the law quango’s website, in an effort to show the public what to expect from the SLCC.

However the ‘examples’ published by the SLCC fail to identify a single solicitor or law firm, in stark contrast to the policy of the Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales to publicly name & shame law firms & lawyers who fail their clients in more fuller & detailed publications of complaints. Complainers are also not identified.

In none of the examples published by the SLCC to-date, some of which are reproduced below, are there any references to any recommendation that a law firm or solicitor should be investigated for prosecution by the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.

All examples featured by the SLCC, appear to show a series of slaps on the wrist for lawyers & law firms who are not required to alert any of their other clients to complaints made against them and poor service they have given to previous clients forced by their predicament to complain to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

A legal insider who drew the SLCC’s case examples to the attention of Diary of Injustice claimed the public should in no way take these examples as being genuine …

Determination Example 3

Mr C complained about the service Mr P provided in relation to divorce matters, ailment and contact with his children. He alleged that Mr P failed to: represent and argue his case properly in court, act on his instructions regarding his ex-wife's failure to comply with a court order for contact, arrange acceptable alternative representation in his absence. At a court hearing he arranged for his ex-wife's (the defender's) solicitor to represent both parties

The Determination Committee considered afresh a wide range of information which included the Firm's file, Mr C's comments, Mr P's comments and the Service Standards.

The Determination Committee did not uphold any element of the complaint. Its view was that Mr P had exercised his professional judgement in relation to the representation and saw no evidence that this was improperly done. The Committee understood that it may have appeared odd to Mr C that his ex-wife's solicitor was instructed to provide alternative representation but this was not inadequate professional service. It is standard and acceptable practice for one party's agents to represent both parties where a case like this was calling in regard to a non-contentious matter, and it was appropriate in this case. There was no substance to the complaint about failure to follow instruction. Not only was Mr C was unable to clarify or provide any evidence of all of the instruction he claimed he gave to Mr P but where instruction was given, records demonstrated it was followed.

Investigation Example 1

Mr C complained about the service Mr P and his Firm provided in relation to his separation. He complained about the way the Firm advised him on costs and subsequently charged him. He alleged they charged nearly double the verbal quote and that they did not tell him when the costs became higher than the limit he was able to pay, even though they had agreed to. The Firm did not respond to his requests for a breakdown of costs for over ten months, they did not take payments from his debit card even though he instructed them to do so and the amounts they charged him differed between invoices without any explanation as to why.

Mr C was also unhappy with the poor communication and delay in dealing with his case. It took five months to draft a document Mr P told him was straightforward, by which time it was out of date. The Firm did not keep him informed or updated as the terms of business letter said they would. Nor did they respond to his complaint about the delay and the fees. At the point Mr C complained to us, the Firm had started to chase him for payment of his fees and although he paid them in full, did not acknowledge receipt.

The SLCC investigated this complaint by examining the Firm's files and all the information Mr C sent. We spoke directly with both parties and took into account all they had to say. We found that that Mr C's case was not as straightforward as it appeared to be. There were unavoidable reasons for the delay and although the fees were higher than originally quoted, it was clear the work was both necessary and instructed by Mr C. The SLCC did not uphold the allegations about these aspects of the service.

However, it was apparent that neither Mr P nor his Firm kept Mr C informed. Their communication with him was sporadic, did not answer his questions and contained a lot of jargon that he may not have understood easily. There was no evidence they had answered his complaint. Had they communicated more regularly and effectively with Mr C to help him understand why there were delays and why the matter was more complex than originally thought, they may have avoided the complaint, and would not have caused Mr C the inconvenience of writing to them or of complaining.

We reported these findings to both parties and recommended a settlement that they both accepted. The Firm apologised. It also paid Mr C £550 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication. We did not recommend a rebate of fees because although they were higher that Mr C was expecting, the service and advice provided in relation to his separation were not found to be inadequate.

Investigation Example 3

Mr and Mrs C complained about the way Ms P and her Firm dealt with their house purchase. They were unhappy with her alleged failure to settle on the date they were expecting, 21 October 2010 which they agreed the week before in a telephone call. They called the Firm on 20 October to confirm everything was in order and were told by Ms P that she was not expecting to settle until 22 October. She said that settlement could not take place unless a new disposition was issued and delivered to the purchaser's solicitor for the next day. This was quite late in the working day. Mr and Mrs C decided they wanted settlement to take place on 21 October as planned. Ms P prepared a new disposition which was hand-delivered.

The settlement took place followed by settlement late afternoon on 21 October. This meant Mr and Mrs C could not complete their move and had to pay their removal company for an extra day.

When the SLCC examined the Firm's file and the information that Mr and Mrs C provided, it emerged that the conveyancing was not straightforward. There were problems with the sale of Mr and Mrs C's current property resulting from the completion of remedial works identified by their buyer's survey. We could see that Ms P had raised doubts in her letters about being able to settle on 21 October and had kept Mr and Mrs C informed. Equally, it was evident that she was aware that 21 October was their desired date. The consequence of the uncertainty about the settlement date meant that Ms P was unprepared for settlement on 21 October and as a result settlement was not until late in the afternoon of 21 October.

Our view was that the service was adequate and did not breach any Service Standards. We appreciated it was a stressful time for Mr and Mrs C and that they had done everything they could.; We could also see that the Firm had made strenuous efforts on their behalf and had managed to settle on the day they wanted. We considered very carefully the matter of the extra costs for the removal company, but did not recommend these be compensated as they were not the consequence of inadequate professional service.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, our findings and recommendations were accepted by both parties and no further action was taken.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

Quite the little [if expensive] front company isn't it.

Anonymous said...

I don't know the guy from adam and am prepared to give him a chance but from Foreign Office award winning consul to ceo of failed legal complaints regulator?

Not a career move I 'd make.

Anonymous said...

Yes it's the last chance salon for the SLCC with Vickers coming on board.Just read his own quote "As the gateway for legal complaints, the SLCC must inspire trust and confidence in the legal complaints system. It's vital that consumers and legal practitioners recognise us as impartial, accessible and independent if we're to continue to do so."

Says it all really,if he cant fix the SLCC is dead in the water.

Also noticed no mention of his salary in the Press Release.Why the omission?

Anonymous said...

Matthew Vickers, who will join the SLCC as Chief Executive Officer on 5 June 2012, said: "....It's vital that consumers and legal practitioners recognise us as impartial, accessible and independent if we're to continue to do so."

Aye, there's the rub Matthew, you cannot serve 2 masters.

A Message for Mr Vickers said...

Matthew Vickers, who will join the SLCC as Chief Executive Officer on 5 June 2012, said: "Customer service and efficient and effective ways of working have been themes throughout my career, and I hope to help a talented and enthusiastic team build on what the SLCC has already achieved.
=================================
Mr Vickers, please note the SLCC team are talented and enthusiastic in their role of protecting crooked lawyers. The latter are their customers. These people have been there since 2008 and not a lawyer dealt with. No doubt your tenure at the SLCC like those before you will be short lived. You help any client and the Law Society of Scotland will boil you in oil, you must be taking the job to keep them and that reprobate MacAskill and our grubby MSP's happy. A profession that is terrified of public feedback is one to be avoided at all costs.

I have followed the creation of the SLCC and looked at crooked lawyer issues since 1999 and I promise you this. The only people fit to regulate this omnipotent legal mafia are clients. Websites like Solicitors from Hell, A Diary of Injustice only they get to the heart of the problem.

The SLCC is just another branch of MSP's protection racket because having rights in Scotland depends on having those in power exercising those rights. The SLCC is a cemerary for client complaints.

Anonymous said...

To be honest Peter I am a regular reader of your blog and no matter who gets the job at the SLCC as you know their hands are tied even if they do not want them to be.

Anything to do with our legal mafia always stinks. All I can say is that any people who work for the SLCC who leak what is happening in this cesspit of evil have a sense of justice. I have no faith in any person who takes the top job in this office structure. We are fortunate we have the Diary of Injustice team on the case.

There are the courts but civil clients can never get to because a civil lawyer is always judged by his friends in an office. What a totally inefficient independent complaints quango, from clients point of view, four Chief Executives and a new one on the way and not a lawyer dealt with. There is a saying, actions speak louder than words" and this quango has a history now, and these people have no intention of protecting the public. A cesspit of lawyer filth. As Plato's wrote 2000 years ago, we can form unions of like minded people to cover our criminality, not an exact quote but that is what he meant.

Welcome new Chief Executive, we expect more of the same, will, you prove us wrong? If the past is indicitive of the future you will dissapear with a golden handshake.

Only clients can regulate lawyer rats in cyberspace.

Anonymous said...

One SLCC insider dubbed Mr Vickers “a visiting fireman” amid hopes by some in the organisation he can repair the law quango’s image & functionality.

He will never extinguish the flames of mistrust, anyone in the know realises that lawyers are the ultimate gutter trash. And they put their sympathisers in office structures that sing their song.

The Scottish Legal Coverup Commission are the result of Cathy Jamieson's Law Society consultation, and she tried to shut down Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, yes Cathy we need Scotland Against Corrupt MSP's. Well Mr Vickers, "a visiting fireman" where do your loyalties lie? We will watch this space, the blog the SLCC witches hated.

Anonymous said...

We expect more of the same, if you want to protect clients Mr Vickers (and I doubt it as you have the job) you will not be there long. A new captain in charge of a rotten ship, but policy is dictated by those from above, Lorna Jack, and our oh so decent justice minister, MacAskill.

The legal profession and policymakers in Scotland share the same bed. The Law Society control everything legal.

Trust no lawyer. You will be away by Christmas Mr Vickers.

Anonymous said...

Not the best choice of words simply because the "customers" of the SLCC are actually the solicitors who pay for it's upkeep.
If Mr Vickers is saying he's going to focus on service for the solicitors then there is nothing in it for clients/consumers in terms of trust or hope etc

Anonymous said...

There is quite a lot about Mr Vickers on the web including pictures of his terms in the Canaries & Spain.I'm surprised someone like this ends up in the SLCC's rent fiddle Stamp Office in Edinburgh?

Also I have to say I am stunned at Masterman's involvement in that case of the little girl who died in the hospital.These people have no purpose other than to keep access to justice out of reach of any victims.Truly shocking stuff.

Anonymous said...

5 Chief Executives in 4 years and they've gone through 14 million just to come up with this pile of abcd crap as a demonstration of how they spend it???
Why does this pile of doggy do still exist?

Anonymous said...

No offence intended but anyone at a so-called regulator investigating complaints about liwyers is not to be trusted!
A simple history lesson on the Law Society is enough to prove it!

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks the Commission is independent must be insane or plain stupid. Pull the plug Mr Vickers, the patient is terminally ill because the only people who trust it are lawyers.

Get yourself a nice payoff just like the witches you replaced. You will never gain public trust in this Quango, it is an embryo of the Law Society and it gets more repugnant with the passing of time. Kenny MaTrashkill it is his baby.

Anonymous said...

I am sure that those who appointed Mr Vickers left him in no doubt that solicitors best interests are to be protected above all others.

We should I suppose be grateful to Mr. McAskill for his contemptible and deeply disturbing response to a Supreme Court decision from London that displeased him;

"he who pays the piper calls the tune"

And you Mr Vickers will not be allowed to forget that!

Anonymous said...

Jobs at SLCC

We pride ourselves on the professionalism and expertise of our people, who ensure that every complaint is given the most appropriate attention. (YES THE LAWYER IS PROTECTED).

With clear personal and organisational goals, competitive terms and conditions and regular feedback from our staff, we recruit and retain excellent people who handle complaints fairly, quickly and amicably. (THIS NUTTER BELIEVES THIS B******T).

Our people are committed, well-trained, continuously developed and excellent communicators. Their individual strengths and combined experience means that together, they make a great team. (YES WHO SPECIALISE IN COVER UPS).

The SLCC is an Equal Opportunities Employer and we welcome applications from all sectors of the community.(EQUALITY WELL THERE IS NO EQUALITY BETWEEN CLIENTS AND LAWYERS).

So if anyone wants to work for this den of corruption who "deal with complaints quickly and amicably" by throwing the complaint in the bin, please apply.

To use their own jargon I put it to the SLCC, they were set up with the remit not to investigate complaints before October 2008 and have done nothing to protect clients since. These people are liars, fraudsters and criminals. I would rather print and distribute 1000 leaflets stating my lawyers name and what he or she did. At least that way it would be public, not hidden behind doors where the legal profession want to keep it. I apologize to anyone at the SLCC who leaks information, but the rest are lawyer lovers.

Mr Vickers will give the public more of the same. The SLCC should have been called The Law Society of Scotland 2. He has got the job because he knows what is expected of him, protecting crooked lawyers.

Anonymous said...

http://scottishlegalcomplaints.com/how-to-complain.aspx

The above link tells you how to complain to Mr Vickers Commission.

DON'T BOTHER YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME.

Anonymous said...

Put simply he wouldn't have got the job if is face didn't fit with the Law Society and the membership who are funding the SLCC and his salary via ripping off clients.

Glad I dont earn a living that way.It'd make me puke.

Anonymous said...

This must be part of Irvine & her board's attempts at getting obe's/mbe's for their great work wasting taxpayers money and protecting bent lawyers for the past 4 years.According to one of her former employees she was expecting a gong by now.

Anonymous said...

SLCC WEB SITE STATES


Useful Links

Related Bodies

- Law Society of Scotland

- The Faculty of Advocates

- Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman

- Association of Commercial Attorneys

- Conveyancing & Executry Practitioners


Other Sites

- Citizens Advice Scotland

- Office of Fair Trading

- British and Irish Ombudsman Association

- Asian Ombudsman Association

- Scottish Legal Aid Board

- Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

- Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal

- Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

- Judiciary of Scotland

- Scottish Government

- Scottish Government Justice Department

- Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

- Consumer Focus Scotland

- Scottish Mediation Register

- LawCare

They control the above but they fail to mention

http://petercherbi.blogspot.co.uk/

CLEARLY THEY DO NOT WANT THE TRUTH TO GET OUT.

Anonymous said...

Like someone from the FO is going to fix the crooked SLCC these people live in some kind of alternate reality good riddance when they scrap it and if Irvine gets a medal out of all this we should scrap the entire honours system asap

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Put simply he wouldn't have got the job if is face didn't fit with the Law Society and the membership who are funding the SLCC and his salary via ripping off clients.

Glad I dont earn a living that way. It'd make me puke.


I agree if there is one thing I hate it is injustice. These Law Society SLCC boffins are pleased to dish out injustice. I would gas the bastards, no mercy. Call me evil, I am not I am have just been adjusted by the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

Relax everyone - the one good thing about it is we know from the outset anyone in these kind of regulation jobs serve their paymasters.Like the FSA & banks the SLCC & Law Society/Lawyers is just as corrupt and always will be.

No one should expect anything of the change at the SLCC although 5 Chief Executives in five years is quite a laughing stock!

Anonymous said...

The perfect analogy to this is Mr Vickers as the 1st Officer of the Titanic.

When the Titanic hit the iceberg the 1st Officer deposed the Captain for hitting the iceberg and so he took over control?

The SLCC (Edinburgh Supper Club) is a dead duck.

Imagine knowing that you would be appointed CEO of this organisation full in the knowledge that it is totally corrupt and in danger of being over-run with Police, investigating those in charge? Knowing that it is now just a matter of time before the doors are closed for good and that in a matter of weeks, when nobody is using this 'service' that you were to get a Royal Golden Handshake for doing so...?

Nice one Mr Vickers. Take the cash and pass GO.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
There is quite a lot about Mr Vickers on the web including pictures of his terms in the Canaries & Spain.I'm surprised someone like this ends up in the SLCC's rent fiddle Stamp Office in Edinburgh?

Also I have to say I am stunned at Masterman's involvement in that case of the little girl who died in the hospital.These people have no purpose other than to keep access to justice out of reach of any victims.Truly shocking stuff.

25 May 2012 22:55
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It is completely irrelevant who is in charge of the SLCC.

You cannot put a new head on a sticking rotting festering corpse and expect it to do the Highland Fling!

An organising that was set up to punish the victims of crooked Scottish lawyers is doomed to failure?

It is criminal the way that this Act came into being and those at the Law Society of Scotland and Lawyer Civil Servants should be caught and tried?

As far as Masterman is concerned, she should be caught and imprisoned for willfully acting contrary to the Public Interest?

If so, it would be interesting if she would squeal against her paymasters at the Law Society of Scotland?

Anonymous said...

"an exceptionally strong field of candidates" says Jane Irvine - all seeking to get their teeth into a dodgy regulator dealing with complaints against lawyers

What does this tell us about these kind of people?

Anonymous said...

Is this appointment not akin to giving Luke Donald a set of plastic kids golf clubs to play in the British Open?

Anonymous said...

What a rubbish career move this is for Mr Vickers......?

At least he knows where he will be sent to on his next appointment......to Coventry?

Anonymous said...

Are the rumours true about the quality of the candidates for this job...?

Donald Duck?

Worzel Gummage?

Billy the Fish? &

Iain the Worm?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Yes it's the last chance salon for the SLCC with Vickers coming on board.Just read his own quote "As the gateway for legal complaints, the SLCC must inspire trust and confidence in the legal complaints system. It's vital that consumers and legal practitioners recognise us as impartial, accessible and independent if we're to continue to do so."

Says it all really,if he cant fix the SLCC is dead in the water.

Also noticed no mention of his salary in the Press Release.Why the omission?

25 May 2012 16:08
!!!!!!!!'!!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trust, Confidence, Independence, Accessibility & Impartiality are exactly the areas that the SLCC portrays the opposite of?

The SLCC are a sham organisation who's role is to keep Scotland's crooked lawyers from jail and to allow them to act in a manner where they are above the law?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
One SLCC insider dubbed Mr Vickers “a visiting fireman” amid hopes by some in the organisation he can repair the law quango’s image & functionality.

He will never extinguish the flames of mistrust, anyone in the know realises that lawyers are the ultimate gutter trash. And they put their sympathisers in office structures that sing their song.

The Scottish Legal Coverup Commission are the result of Cathy Jamieson's Law Society consultation, and she tried to shut down Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, yes Cathy we need Scotland Against Corrupt MSP's. Well Mr Vickers, "a visiting fireman" where do your loyalties lie? We will watch this space, the blog the SLCC witches hated.

25 May 2012 20:16
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I don't know about a visiting fireman, more like a visiting sewer cleaner?

Anonymous said...

Yes indeed - MacAskill's "He who pays the piper" comes to mind - clear evidence of how the SNP view the justice system as in no more than a means to an end for those within it ripping people off and getting away with it.He should know,he was a high street solicitor himself and not a very good one from what I've heard.

Portland Search Engine Optimization said...

You've got an amazing blog! I'd like to follow you:-) More power to you!

Anonymous said...

If this is the SLCC's attempt at naming & shaming it falls flat on it's behind.You were right to link it to the latest Chief Exec story and puts the ball squarely in his court to properly out the rogues in the profession just as is happening in England.
Good work as always.

Anonymous said...

Fifth Chief Executive fifth puppet sums this one up very well..

Anonymous said...

Good one Peter before the hootsmon get stuck into a glowing portrayal of Mr Vickers and all the good he will do at the SLCC (much like their glowing portrayal of Eileen Masterman and then Rosemary Agnew hahaha

Anonymous said...

I wonder how the Law Society of Scotland found him?

Anonymous said...

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20722989&postID=4338957191902872183

Bowing to Murdoch turned politics rotten, says Clegg as he launches attack on senior Tories.
===============================
Well Nick Clegg you are right and Cameron with his first class honours degree knows the Political Theorist John Rawls who was concerned about the links big business had on undermining the democratic process. Elected representatives of the people siding with big business interests and shaping policy in their interests instead of the people who voted for them.

Vince Cable speaks of the nuclear option of bringing down the cabinet. You men are not fools, you knew the way this works before the local election results. Strange how you want to go down this road now, the next election should be 2015, so you are wrecking the coalition government out of self interest not for those who voted you in.

You must think the electorate are fools, by your actions you are heading for political suicide and you know it.

Anonymous said...

Remember Douglas Mill the man who was against criticism of lawyers, he called it "lawyer bashing". Well Mill if Peter Cherbi had done to you what your buddy Penman did to Peter's family you would want Peter Hung, Drawn and Quartered.

We are dealing with immature people indeed who expect clients to be ripped off and they expect us to accept it. It is called legalised robbery MIll. You clearly are an overgrown child because it is fine for Peter's family and thousands of other victims, but you Mill consider the criticism of lawyers like the Church used blasphemy laws.

You see Mr Vickers we are dealing with grown up children who reject principles of justice and universality. I have no doubt you are the same as Mill, if the case were otherwise you would never have got the top SLCC job. Just remember Inspector Cherbi and the Diary of Injustice Team are on the case. I am no prophet but you will dissapear later with a golden handshake and not a lawyer prosecuted. They will be the remit you signed up to.

Anonymous said...

Even if this guy is the real deal and wants to clean up the SLCC he has no chance with the likes of Irvine & I dare say the rest of them holding secret meetings with the boss of the LDU,Law Society etc

SLCC just a joke,has neither the trust of solicitors or clients.Shut it down and surcharge the past & present board members for the wasted millions.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Yes indeed - MacAskill's "He who pays the piper" comes to mind - clear evidence of how the SNP view the justice system as in no more than a means to an end for those within it ripping people off and getting away with it.
==============================
Well MacAskill people should tell their kids lawyers are bad evil robbers, so that future generations do not pay the price for dealing with scum like you Kenny. I would jail you and weld the door shut.

Anonymous said...

The examples given by the SLCC in this article give the impression that they are seeking to insinuate (by choosing these examples) that the crooked Scottish lawyer's Client is somehow a vexatious trouble-maker or is someone who is insidious?

It is clear from these same examples that there is a weighting towards the crooked Scottish Lawyer?

I wonder, does the crooked Scottish solicitors Client get to see what their crooked lawyer says about them and their case to the SLCC?

I would imagine not?

Anonymous said...

Who is going to pay for the lost £ Millions once the SLCC shuts in the coming weeks?

It should be compulsory purchased straight from the Law Society of Scotland's bank account?

Anonymous said...

A man on holiday sees an old man distressed and in floods of tears. Inconsolable.

He approaches the old man and asks him what is wrong?

The old man bursts into more tears...

After about an hour of painful crying the old man confesses to the caring holiday maker...

"you see, I used to be well loved and admired in this town when I worked for twenty years building fishing boats for the town's fishing fleet. They called me Luigi the boatbuilder."

"Then for twenty years I made beautiful wooden furniture for the towns people, which people loved and they called me Luigi the carpenter.", he continued, sobbing through his tears....

"Then, as I got older and less fit, with my bones all gnarled through the years of heavy manual work, I became the town's only baker. For twenty years I got up at 3am every morning to bake beautiful bread and all manner of pastries and cookies for all of the towns people. I became known far and wide as the finest baker in the land....Luigi the baker, they used to call me..."

Sob sob sob sniffle...

Oh my, said the tourist you seem to have had such a wonderful working life and have obviously been so highly regarded your whole career by the towns folk. Firstly as a boatbuilder, then as a carpenter and latterly as a fine baker.

Why on earth are you sad?

The old man, burdened and haunched over with grief turned to the tourist with a clenched fist and pointed 1 finger in the air......

"Just one sheep" he said, "Just ONE sheep........."


In just a few weeks, Mr Vickers may reflect upon his close association with poor Luigi....Just one bad decision in your career can tarnish everything that has gone before.....?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Remember Douglas Mill the man who was against criticism of lawyers, he called it "lawyer bashing". Well Mill if Peter Cherbi had done to you what your buddy Penman did to Peter's family you would want Peter Hung, Drawn and Quartered.
===============================
Not a cheep out of Douglas Mill, and it is because he knows I am right and he is an immature selfish lawyer. So criticising Drew Penman is "lawyer bashing" Mill. Perhaps you have bashed your head or more likely you are a selfish little man who has left clients ruined to save your buddies.

I would simply jail you and weld the door shut you vile little man.

Anonymous said...

I wish I knew about your website before I had to go to the SLCC about my lawyer.All they have done is shuffle paper and after 6 months still no further forward.Now I am left with no lawyer to take my case on because this bunch of fools have made sure it looks like original lawyer is going to get away with what he did to me.

Anonymous said...

Speaks volumes of the power grip of the Scots legal elite over the majority of the printed media the only one able to be as forthright in coverage of their antics and this SLCC establishment quango is this blog and the campaigner/campaigners behind it.Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

In an announcement on the SLCC’s website, Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC, who was recently revealed to have met lawyers accused of professional misconduct in meetings where it had been agreed no records would be kept of discussions, said: blah blah blah Jane.

Read this it is because of people like you A Diary of Injustice, and other web sites were born. We know it is impossible to get justice from any existing office system against a lawyer. You can issue all the B******t you like but we know the reality, the SLCC is a rotten facade of the Law Society of Scotland, an organisation responsible for intollerable suffering. You lawyers sleep at night because you are evil, that is the only explanation that fits.

I read the names Irvine, Masterman, Agnew, and all of the other infamous cover up specialists and Vickers will join the list soon. Welcome to the Rat Pit Vickers, no doubt you will be a clone of your predecessors, with a golden handshake for cover ups too.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know which business is taking over the lease of the building when the SLCC vacate the premises?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I wish I knew about your website before I had to go to the SLCC about my lawyer.All they have done is shuffle paper and after 6 months still no further forward.Now I am left with no lawyer to take my case on because this bunch of fools have made sure it looks like original lawyer is going to get away with what he did to me.

30 May 2012 20:05
===========================================

Please, if you go straight to the police about your lawyer and report to them that you have been defrauded by a sham organisation called the SLCC?

You can insist that the police give you a crime number (make sure that they do NOT give you an incident number. this is not the same thing and means that they are fobbing you off)?

Keep regularly asking (once a week?) how their investigation coming along until you get the result of their investigation?

God speed...

Anonymous said...

Once Scotland becomes an Independent country in a few years time with the Queen as the head of State, do you think that Jane Irvine will be charged with treason for being an enemy of the People of Scotland?

Anonymous said...

Someone from the FO switched to this?lol!