Friday, February 15, 2013

Lawyers FOI secrecy feud with regulator wrecks £10K ‘Complaints Handling Research’ as 75% of solicitors, advocates refuse to disclose client complaint statistics

SLCCLawyers survey boycott & unverifiable data ruins complaints research. COSTLY RESEARCH undertaken by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) into how lawyers & advocates ‘handle’ complaints from their clients has today been labelled “an expensive failure & time wasting exercise” after results revealed a staggering 75% of all Scottish law firms & advocates either “refused”, were “not available” or “terminated” their participation in the research which sought disclosure of key details on how complaints from dissatisfied clients are handled made to them before clients are forced to approach regulators such as the SLCC or Law Society of Scotland.

And while the lack of participation effectively rendered the ‘independent’ SLCC’s research unusable, insiders at the regulator now also believe many law firms fiddled the numbers and simply LIED in what little data was actually handed over by the legal profession, as none of what was submitted can be independently verified or subject to public inspection.

Figures released in the two reports published by the SLCC show that of the total numbers of questionnaires & letters sent out to every law firm & advocate in Scotland by research firm TNS-BMRB who were commissioned by the SLCC to carry out the research, 850 law firms and 350 advocates either refused or for a variety of other reasons, failed to disclose any details on how complaints made by dissatisfied clients are handled.

Although TNS BMRB had undertaken the research in May & June 2012, both reports had curiously remained secret until the SLCC responded to a Freedom of Information request from Diary of Injustice, which can be viewed online in its entirety, here : FOI Release - SLCC Research into complaint numbers & complaints handling by practitioners

Later that same day (31st January) after the documentation was released to Diary of Injustice journalists, the SLCC issued a press release with a short comment from Richard Keen, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. There has so far been no comment from the Law Society of Scotland on the survey or the lack of participation of its members.

Both reports can be viewed on the SLCC’s website HERE & HERE or online here : SLCC Final Report on Complaints Numbers & Complaints Handling amongst Scottish Advocates & here : SLCC Final Report on Complaints Numbers & Complaints Handling amongst Scottish Legal Firms

The mass non-participation of Scotland’s legal profession in the ‘independent’ regulator’s complaints survey comes as no surprise after Diary of Injustice earlier reported on calls by various sections of Scotland’s legal profession to boycott the survey after lawyers groups such as the Scottish Law Agents Society (SLAS) voiced fears that any information handed over to the SLCC would be released to the media via Freedom of Information Requests.

To allay the lawyers concerns over complaints data being released to the public, the ‘independent’ SLCC brokered a sinister deal of secrecy, and ordered research firm TNS BMRB not to hand over any data to the SLCC directly, thus avoiding Freedom of Information and its requirements. The SLCC issued a public statement to the legal profession saying : “While it is the case that the SLCC is subject to Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), it should be noted that information is being ingathered on a confidential basis by the researchers purely for the purpose of statistical analysis by them. Information from individual legal firms, or data that could identify any legal firms or individual practitioners, will not be passed on to the SLCC.”

DOI reported on this highly questionable move on the ‘independent’ SLCC’s deal with lawyers to avoid FOI disclosure of complaints information, here : Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'

TNS BMRB were tasked with securing the following information for their research :

Statistical Information
1. To establish number and type of transactions by practice area, since 2008;
2. To establish number of complaints dealt with since 2008, by practice area;
3. To identify from where complaints originate;
4. To establish the outcome and disposal of complaints.

Complaints handling
1. To identify management information systems in place for complaint record keeping;
2. To establish how lessons learned about complaints handling are captured and cascaded through the firm;
3. To assess how clients and others are informed about how to make a complaint;
4. To determine the type and provider of any training/guidance received on complaint handling;
5. To ascertain the appeal of different options for further support on complaint handling

The SLCC claimed that the research, the first of its kind in Scotland, was intended as an initial fact-finding exercise. As such, it has highlighted scope for further work which the SLCC will undertake as part of its on-going oversight role.

However, the information which made it into the research and the conclusions of both reports unsurprisingly reveal complaints records within the Scottish legal profession are at best, a mess.

More worryingly, if unsurprisingly, analysis of the reports by consumer campaigners reveal a deliberate act of deception on the part of lawyers to avoid accurate reporting of client dissatisfaction with Scottish solicitors & law firms, now rated as among the worst & most expensive in the entire European Union.

Critics who have viewed & studied both the report into law firms & advocates have raised serious doubts over the accuracy of information handed over to the research firm by Scottish lawyers & advocates, highlighting the fact there is absolutely no way to authenticate any of the data handed over to the researchers in interviews or questionnaires.

One senior spokesperson for a Scottish consumer group said she believed “much of the material was probably fabricated by law firms who were told not to reveal accurate complaints data to the SLCC or their researchers.”

Speaking about its piece of expensive, unverifiable research, David Buchanan Cook, the SLCC’s Head of Oversight issued a vague public statement claiming: “While the reports show that complaint levels are low, they are increasing. Complaints have a direct impact on any business, so it's surprising that more practitioners don't take simple steps to listen and to put matters right. The reports show that in a quarter of complaints resolved a simple apology was all that was needed yet a large number of practitioners faced with a complaint do nothing at all. In these cases both the complainer and the practitioner lose out.”

Mr Buchanan Cook continued “The reports do highlight that it can be more challenging for smaller firms and sole practitioners to deal with complaints in terms of resources, processes and experience. We will be working with both the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates to draw up best practice guidance later this year to help. We will also be using the reports to identify where we can help the profession to improve complaint handling. The public has a right to expect complaints to be listened to and where something has gone wrong, the practitioner should put it right. It's not just a question of fairness- it's good business sense too.”

The SLCC refused to answer questions on the low participation rate of the survey and offered no comment on the legal profession’s call to boycott the SLCC’s research, which will be met out of its 2011-2012 budget. However, a legal insider at the SLCC admitted “lawyers had been expected to lie in their responses to the research”, now branded “an expensive failure & time wasting exercise”.

With the Law Society of Scotland apparently refusing to issue a press statement on the research, Richard Keen QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates was wheeled out to provide some backup to the beleaguered SLCC. Mr Keen said : “The Faculty of Advocates takes its responsibility for complaints handling extremely seriously and notes from the report that the level of complaints to new cases is "undoubtedly low." The Faculty will study the report and engage with the SLCC in taking forward a number of broad themes that have been identified.”

It should be noted that clients & consumers were completely shut out of this SLCC research project, as Diary of Injustice earlier reported here : Consumers ‘locked out of debate’ as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission carries out yet more research on how solicitors handle complaints

58 comments:

Anonymous said...

No fooling you is there!
Anyway where is all this money coming from so the SLCC can do these knock off surveys to promote the profession?
That is why it was done in the first place,am I correct?
They probably thought if they got some decent numbers they would be able to hold them up and say there are few complaints and everything is fine.What a lot of rubbish and £10K cost to who?You can be sure lawyers will empty their clients wallets to pay for this one (again)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...from the last report VICTORIANA

This is a very interesting blog and I have to say even though you are writing about events in Scotland the information here is very much relevant here in the U.S. [YES INDEED] and probably many other countries [YES DOMINATION BY SELF REGULATION. YOU ARE CORRECT MY FRIEND THEY ARE UNACCOUNTABLE AND THEREFORE CORRUPT]. For example the register of interests idea should be made compulsory for all judicial members and their co-workers.[YOU ARE RIGHT BUT EVEN IF THAT HAPPENED THE JUDICIARY WOULD WANT TO POLICE IT].

Keep up the good work Mister Diary of Injustice in Scotland! [AND PLEASE TELL YOUR FRIENDS IN THE UNITED STATES TOO].

Anonymous said...

I just clicked on one of your links (The FOI response) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7OEJQMmJZNW92M3M/edit?pli=1 to find a set of documents with Rosemary Agnew's name on them.

She is the current Scottish Information Commissioner?

Well if there was and seems to have been an agreement with the SLCC to avoid handling the data to escape Freedom of Information requests then what has Rosemary Agnew as Scottish Information Commissioner got to say about this? and more to the point why is her name even associated with the SLCC's activities to avoid FOI?

Surely this is not the kind of conduct an independent regulator such as the SLCC presents itself to be is expected to engage in?

Surely Mrs Agnew must now come out and condemn the SLCC's attempt to keep complaints information from the public (even if it is probably fabricated).

This really beggars belief and all allowed to happen at the expense of clients.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone ever expect liwyers to tell the truth when asked about complaints?!

Anonymous said...

"many law firms fiddled the numbers and simply LIED in what little data was actually handed over by the legal profession, as none of what was submitted can be independently verified or subject to public inspection."

EXACTLY

What good are the reports if the evidence they compiled them from is not available to the public or press?

What a joke!

Anonymous said...

The truth is simple, there is no complaints system to deal with corrupt lawyers. That is why they are all corrupt. Get real for these people honesty means fewer £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££'s

If you trust them you take great risks. If murders were investigated the way corrupt lawyers are there would be many more corpses. They are corrupt bastards.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I just do not understand!

Why do the police not go in and arrest these crooks? Answer the Crown Office control the Police.

If they did so, they would be lauded by the public and their job would be safe for life and at the same time they would be ridding Scotland of the cancer in her bones? Chief Police officers must agree with the lawyers.

If Gill is refusing to be part of the solution then he is most definitely part of the problem? Gill does not care about judicial crimes, he is a lawyer and his belief is that lawyers are important and the public unimportant. The Police can only deal with Gill and his network if they break the chain of command. As long as these creeps who dominate by secrecy and control the Police their power remains intact.

Here is the truth. Lawyers are a confederacy of deceivers whose aim is not to provide legal services, but in fact to dominate and abuse the public as they see fit, and then dominate the complaints system to crush the public who dare to complain. If justice was the main criterion lawyers and their sympathizers would not be allowed within the complaints process. They are an organized crime gang.

Anonymous said...

75% of solicitors, advocates refuse to disclose client complaint statistics. They are saying STAY AWAY FROM US LAWYERS THE UTTER SCUM OF HUMANITY.

GOING PAST LAWYERS OFFICES I THINK THAT IS WHERE HEAVILY PROTECTED SCUM ROB CLIENTS IN SECRECY. THEY WOULD NOT GET ME IN THEIR OFFICES FOR LEGAL ADVICE WITH A HORSE AND CHAINS. YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE TRUSTING A LAWYER AND HERE IT IS IN LAY MANS TERMS, THERE IS NO COMPLAINTS SYSTEM TO PROTECT YOU.

Anonymous said...

I imagine the interviewers are savvy enough to know these lawyers are "Lying Thieving Bastards" and anything they say is therefore to be taken as a lie.After all this is what lawyers present themselves to the world as - born liars.If in doubt lie,isnt this the case Mr Yelland and co at the Law Society who put everyone through sheer hell for years and get away with it in the name of protecting lawyers!

Anonymous said...

This makes it twice in a week a report has only been published after Diary of Injustice did some foi'ing!You must know how to get at them Peter,very good keep it up mate!

Anonymous said...

Mr Keen said : “The Faculty of Advocates takes its responsibility for complaints handling extremely seriously and notes from the report that the level of complaints to new cases is "undoubtedly low." The Faculty will study the report and engage with the SLCC in taking forward a number of broad themes that have been identified.”
---------------------------------
More bullshit spin.

Anonymous said...

“While the reports show that complaint levels are low, they are increasing. Complaints have a direct impact on any business [MOST BUSINESSES HAVE OPEN COMPLAINTS SYSTEMS eg A CUSTOMER IN A SHOP], so it's surprising that more practitioners don't take simple steps to listen and to put matters right. [THEY DON'T HAVE TO WITH A SECRET SYSTEM] The reports show that in a quarter of complaints resolved a simple apology was all that was needed yet a large number of practitioners faced with a complaint do nothing at all. In these cases both the complainer and the practitioner lose out.” [RUBBISH LOOK AT MR GORDON OF PERTH, ONLY CLIENTS LOSE OUT].

Anonymous said...

There is no complaints system, don't be so gullible to fall for that one.

Anonymous said...

Scottish Law Agents Society?

Who are this mob?

A law society within a law society?

How can anyone have confidence in a regulator who avoids freedom of information in such an up front crooked deal with crooks?

Anonymous said...

75% of solicitors, advocates refuse to disclose client complaint statistics. So just like Lord Brian Gill they don't want us to know anything which is a revelation as to how corrupt they really are. Gill is no reformer, he is as anti client as the rest your last report proved that. How people can trust these mendacious self protecting maggots is beyond me but sometimes the public have no choice.

Anonymous said...

United Kingdom High Court Judge: Justice Tugendhat, ordered Rick Kordowski’s website to be shut down because he decided that UK lawyers should NOT be ‘publicly humiliated’ – even if allegations of lawyer incompetence, negligence and dishonesty are actually TRUE!
===============================
NO ACCIDENT HE IS ACTING LIKE LORD GILL IN THE PROFESSIONS INTEREST.


Anonymous said...

The Law Society hate a Diary of Injustice in Scotland because Peter and the DOI team are telling us the truth. Tell everyone you know to read this blog for their own good.

DOI your usual thorough effort, great journalism.

Catch me if you can said...

Yes I did lie on my questionnaire and neither you or the SLCC can do anything about it.
Neither the SLCC or any client have the right to know how my firm handle complaints.If clients are dissatisfied with us and refuse to see sense they are within their current rights to go to the SLCC and make a complaint to them.We are within our rights to defend ourselves against any complaints or troublemakers.

Anonymous said...

We keep being told the country is broke and there's no money yet this bunch of twits are handing over £10K of our money to do research they cant possibly verify and then it turns out most of the lawyers refused to take part.They should all be arrested for wasting the taxpayers money!

Anonymous said...

Very good write up.
Where are the rest of the press on this one?

Surely a dodgy survey designed to promote the legal profession and then falls through because the greedy tossers dont want to share their info deserves to be ripped apart?

Anonymous said...

My boss has been watching your blog for nearly three weeks to see if you were going to publish this report!We are probably going to be moaned at all next week but I don't care as he hasn't paid our salaries in two months and the Law Society has not taken any action even after one of my colleagues alerted them to our "cash flow problems"

Anonymous said...

Try this one for size:

A Doctor is negligent, and allows your family member to die.

You engage lawyers to sue the Doctor & the local Health Authority for negligence.

But unbeknown to you, your lawyer is insured by the same insurers, who insure the Health Authority, and possibly even the Doctor ... How about that ?

This conflict of interest insures that even when patients have died no damages are payable.

Medical consultants have Legal Privilege as expert witnesses (this means they cannot be sued for giving an expert opinion).

If a doctor has been negligent and killed a patient is the Medical Consultant expert witness going to blame that doctor?

Your litigation lawyer is insured by the same company as these doctors.

They will milk legal aid, a cover up will then happen and the negligent doctor is in the clear and so are the insurers.

I hope no one ends up in this position because in my opinion these people are simply evil.

THIS SET UP WILL BE THE SAME INTERNATIONALLY.

Anonymous said...

SO YOU WANT TO SUE A SO CALLED PROFESSIONAL? IMPOSSIBLE READ ON.

Although the same applies if you go up against many other professionals - who are insured by the same insurers, Marsh, Royal Sun Alliance, let us say you want to sue your lawyer.

If you try and sue a lawyer, you will find your lawyers are insured by Marsh & RSA, your crooked lawyer and their lawyers will be insured both by Marsh & RSA, the Sheriff or Judge in your case is a subscribing member of the Law Society of Scotland and this is also be insured by Marsh & RSA, and several of the Scottish Courts Service staff, as well as the Auditor of the Court, have similar insurance arrangements.

I think anyone would agree there is a problem in that - a client is fighting a system where everyone except the client, pays into the same insurance arrangement the client is trying to claim against.

There is certainly a conflict of interest, which time & again, prevents negligence claims against crooked lawyers from ever getting a fair hearing.

How can a member of the public go into court when everyone except themselves is insured by the same insurers and ALL except themselves will benefit if their claim & case are dismissed !!

Most people would call that a fit-up.

Lawyers will take cases on because they make money from Legal Aid but you will NEVER GET TO COURT.

Try complaining to the Law Society, SLCC a waste of time.

I know I have been there. this is what they don't want you to know.

Anonymous said...

So there we have it, judges are paranoid about keeping their outside interests hidden, solicitors have a lot to hide in relation to client complaints figures, and the SLCC - our so called 'independent regulator'- is pleased to do everything it can to help them.

Small wonder really given the very bad PR the Scottish legal profession deservedly received following Diary of Injustice obtaining a copy of the EU Report showing that not only do Scottish lawyers claim a hugely disproportionate amount of legal aid funds but they are left virtually free to abuse the process.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Mr Keen said : “The Faculty of Advocates takes its responsibility for complaints handling extremely seriously and notes from the report that the level of complaints to new cases is "undoubtedly low." The Faculty will study the report and engage with the SLCC in taking forward a number of broad themes that have been identified.”

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Has anyone been unfortunate enough to have dealt with their complaints manager Mr Brownridge who after writing and explaining to him in great detail just how your advocate ruined your case, he writes back saying its not quite clear what your complaint is???????

This lot are so bad that we refer to them as the Faculty of Fuckwits.

Anonymous said...

If you try and sue a lawyer, you will find your lawyers are insured by Marsh & RSA, your crooked lawyer and their lawyers will be insured both by Marsh & RSA, the Sheriff or Judge in your case is a subscribing member of the Law Society of Scotland and this is also be insured by Marsh & RSA, and several of the Scottish Courts Service staff, as well as the Auditor of the Court, have similar insurance arrangements.
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Lord Gill it is not only Victorian, as the above demonstrates it is totally corrupt. Do you have shares in RSA?

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are corrupt because they all know the public do not have a complaints system. Flaw Society, Scottish Legal Coverup Commission, Scottish Solicitors Defense Tribunal
are all against the public.

You have no complaints system to protect you, this is why 75% are definite liars and the others will be the same. They want to be allowed to ruin you, crush your complaint and get more clients.

Anonymous said...

Do we really need a £10,000 report to tell us lawyers are lying thieving bastards and cover up all complaints about themselves?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I just clicked on one of your links (The FOI response) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7OEJQMmJZNW92M3M/edit?pli=1 to find a set of documents with Rosemary Agnew's name on them.

She is the current Scottish Information Commissioner?

Well if there was and seems to have been an agreement with the SLCC to avoid handling the data to escape Freedom of Information requests then what has Rosemary Agnew as Scottish Information Commissioner got to say about this? and more to the point why is her name even associated with the SLCC's activities to avoid FOI?

Surely this is not the kind of conduct an independent regulator such as the SLCC presents itself to be is expected to engage in?

Surely Mrs Agnew must now come out and condemn the SLCC's attempt to keep complaints information from the public (even if it is probably fabricated).

This really beggars belief and all allowed to happen at the expense of clients.

15 February 2013 14:39

Probably the reason no one else has touched the story so far

Anonymous said...

rent a quote Keen is wheeled out to legitimise this duff research paper

why nothing from the Law Society ? are they too embarrassed most lawyers stayed away and covered up ?

Anonymous said...

So publication is withheld of another report for several months and then released on New Year's Eve when the world and his wife were on holiday and occupied by other things.

Need one say more?

Anonymous said...

Catch me if you can said...

Yes I did lie on my questionnaire and neither you or the SLCC can do anything about it.

Neither the SLCC or any client have the right to know how my firm handle complaints. If clients are dissatisfied with us and refuse to see sense they are within their current rights to go to the SLCC and make a complaint to them.We are within our rights to defend ourselves against any complaints or troublemakers.
===============================
Another brainwashed idiot.

Anonymous said...

Another case of judicial bias.


Part-time judges granted a £2bn pension payday... by fellow judges

More than 8,000 sitting and thousands more retired part-time judges will be entitled to a public-sector pension for the first time after the decision by Supreme Court judges


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279901/Part-time-judges-granted-2bn-pension-payday--fellow-judges.html#ixzz2L9tcfzmY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Anonymous said...

A group that attract this much dissent and crush web sites who expose their crimes by calling the [true posts] "harassment" must be a rotten criminal gang. If people's complaints were taken seriously Judge Tugendhat would not have had to take draconian measures against freedom of expression. Lawyers want their own [freedom to ruin and get away with it], and this is a form of tyranny. Trust no lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Well pointed out as usual Peter - Any regulator doing secret deals with info to stop the media or public getting at the truth is not a regulator at all - it is a shower of crooks!

Anonymous said...

I thought that this tarnished organisation had shut months ago?

What the hell is going on?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
I just clicked on one of your links (The FOI response) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7OEJQMmJZNW92M3M/edit?pli=1 to find a set of documents with Rosemary Agnew's name on them.

She is the current Scottish Information Commissioner?

Well if there was and seems to have been an agreement with the SLCC to avoid handling the data to escape Freedom of Information requests then what has Rosemary Agnew as Scottish Information Commissioner got to say about this? and more to the point why is her name even associated with the SLCC's activities to avoid FOI?

Surely this is not the kind of conduct an independent regulator such as the SLCC presents itself to be is expected to engage in?

Surely Mrs Agnew must now come out and condemn the SLCC's attempt to keep complaints information from the public (even if it is probably fabricated).

This really beggars belief and all allowed to happen at the expense of clients.

15 February 2013 14:39
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

C'mon my friend......join up the dots.......Why do you think that our Rosemary was parachuted into the Freedom of Information Officer's job from the terminally wounded and discredited SLCC?

The clue?

Remember, as head of the SLCC our Rosemary defied the former FOI Commissioner multiple times to protect her employers at the Law Society of Scotland?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Did anyone ever expect liwyers to tell the truth when asked about complaints?!

15 February 2013 14:49
--------------------------------

After all Scottish lawyers are professional liars, right?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I just clicked on one of your links (The FOI response) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7OEJQMmJZNW92M3M/edit?pli=1 to find a set of documents with Rosemary Agnew's name on them.

She is the current Scottish Information Commissioner?

Well if there was and seems to have been an agreement with the SLCC to avoid handling the data to escape Freedom of Information requests then what has Rosemary Agnew as Scottish Information Commissioner got to say about this? and more to the point why is her name even associated with the SLCC's activities to avoid FOI?

Surely this is not the kind of conduct an independent regulator such as the SLCC presents itself to be is expected to engage in?

Surely Mrs Agnew must now come out and condemn the SLCC's attempt to keep complaints information from the public (even if it is probably fabricated).

This really beggars belief and all allowed to happen at the expense of clients.

15 February 2013 14:39
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Sir, may I respectfully point out some implausible assumptions you seem to have inadvertently made regarding the SLCC......?

They are neither INDEPENDENT, nor are they a REGULATOR OF SCOTTISH LAWYERS?

Who remain criminals at large as they are considered to be above the law?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...

I just do not understand!

Why do the police not go in and arrest these crooks? Answer the Crown Office control the Police.

If they did so, they would be lauded by the public and their job would be safe for life and at the same time they would be ridding Scotland of the cancer in her bones? Chief Police officers must agree with the lawyers.

If Gill is refusing to be part of the solution then he is most definitely part of the problem? Gill does not care about judicial crimes, he is a lawyer and his belief is that lawyers are important and the public unimportant. The Police can only deal with Gill and his network if they break the chain of command. As long as these creeps who dominate by secrecy and control the Police their power remains intact.

Here is the truth. Lawyers are a confederacy of deceivers whose aim is not to provide legal services, but in fact to dominate and abuse the public as they see fit, and then dominate the complaints system to crush the public who dare to complain. If justice was the main criterion lawyers and their sympathizers would not be allowed within the complaints process. They are an organized crime gang.

15 February 2013 16:12
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Here here

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I imagine the interviewers are savvy enough to know these lawyers are "Lying Thieving Bastards" and anything they say is therefore to be taken as a lie.After all this is what lawyers present themselves to the world as - born liars.If in doubt lie,isnt this the case Mr Yelland and co at the Law Society who put everyone through sheer hell for years and get away with it in the name of protecting lawyers!

15 February 2013 16:31
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

It is cruel to tease a Scottish lawyer by asking them a question that does not compute.....the reality is, those at Castle Greyscull forgot what the difference between truth and lies was a loooooooooong time ago?

Anonymous said...

http://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/finding_item.asp?LTfindingID=541


Edinburgh 23 October 2012; The Tribunal having considered the Appeal by Cameron Fyfe, Drummond Miller, Solicitors, 65 Bath Street, Glasgow (“the Appellant”) against a finding of Inadequate Professional Service by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland (“the Law Society”) in relation to Mr A (“the Lay Complainer”) in respect of a complaint by the Lay Complainer against the former firm of Ross Harper and a Direction that: (1) the fees and VAT to which the former firm was entitled shall be nil; (2) the firm be required to refund all fees and VAT paid by the Lay Complainer; and (3) the firm be required to pay the sum of £1500 compensation to the Lay Complainer; Find that the service provided to the Lay Complainer in respect of both issues 1 and 2 did amount to an Inadequate Professional Service; Refuse the Appeal and Confirm the Determination and Direction made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland in respect of both issues; Find the Appellant liable in the expenses of the Law Society and of the Tribunal including the expenses of the Clerk, chargeable on a time and line basis as the same maybe taxed by the Auditor of the Court of Session on an agent and client, client paying basis in terms of Chapter Three of the last published Law Society’s Table of Fees for general business with a unit rate of £14.00; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Appellant.

Alistair Cockburn
Chairman

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Mr Keen said : “The Faculty of Advocates takes its responsibility for complaints handling extremely seriously and notes from the report that the level of complaints to new cases is "undoubtedly low." The Faculty will study the report and engage with the SLCC in taking forward a number of broad themes that have been identified.”
---------------------------------
More bullshit spin.

15 February 2013 17:57
????????????????????

This response is COMEDY GOLD, trying to pass off low numbers of reported cases of client victims to the SLCC as 'evidence' that there is nothing to find here, please move along....when the reality is that client victims are not reporting their crooked Scottish lawyer to the SLCC because they have finally realised that the SLCC is nothing other than an attempted 'trick' on the People of Scotland to make them 'think' that the MSP's were bringing in legislation that was finally going to curtain Scotland's crooked lawyers when all the SLCC was instituted to do was to try to CHANGE THE PERCEPTION of the Scottish Public, so that they would think that they were getting justice?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
There is no complaints system, don't be so gullible to fall for that one.

15 February 2013 18:05
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The SLCC is nothing other than a punishment of the Scottish People for having the temerity to think that they could end Scottish lawyers being above the law?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
75% of solicitors, advocates refuse to disclose client complaint statistics. So just like Lord Brian Gill they don't want us to know anything which is a revelation as to how corrupt they really are. Gill is no reformer, he is as anti client as the rest your last report proved that. How people can trust these mendacious self protecting maggots is beyond me but sometimes the public have no choice.

15 February 2013 18:28
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()();(

The reason Scotland has so many crooked Scottish lawyers is precisely because there has been ZERO regulation of Scottish lawyers for far too long and there is no incentive for a Scottish lawyer to obey the law or indeed have any care at all for their clients best interests?

They view their clients as CASH TREES, to be pruned of £50 pound notes as and when they see fit and consider their clients money to be their right of enrichment?

When a Scottish lawyer IS forced into the SSDT (Scottish Lawyers Lunch Club) or the SLCC (the Scottish lawyers supper club) say for example stealing their clients money then they get told they were 'BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENT' are let off to continue business as usual?

Quite possibly the most corrupt small country in the world?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The Law Society hate a Diary of Injustice in Scotland because Peter and the DOI team are telling us the truth. Tell everyone you know to read this blog for their own good.

DOI your usual thorough effort, great journalism.

15 February 2013 19:16
--------------------------------

C'mon People forward this website onto everyone in your FaceBook list and post it on every single notice board you can find?

The truth will out?

Anonymous said...

Catch me if you can said...
Yes I did lie on my questionnaire and neither you or the SLCC can do anything about it.
Neither the SLCC or any client have the right to know how my firm handle complaints.If clients are dissatisfied with us and refuse to see sense they are within their current rights to go to the SLCC and make a complaint to them.We are within our rights to defend ourselves against any complaints or troublemakers.

15 February 2013 19:23
//////////////////////////////////////////

Awe, poor spoiled brat....

And it just so happens that the SLCC is run and operated by the Law Society of Scotland?

How convenient?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
My boss has been watching your blog for nearly three weeks to see if you were going to publish this report!We are probably going to be moaned at all next week but I don't care as he hasn't paid our salaries in two months and the Law Society has not taken any action even after one of my colleagues alerted them to our "cash flow problems"

15 February 2013 21:38
::::::::::::(:;:(:):):)/)-(-(:;:(:):£

Name and shame the ££ucker?

The one thing you can be sure of is that the partners of the firm will be getting paid in full, to leave the rest of you unpaid & if they are on their buffers then you can also be sure that they will have committed fraud by stealing from their clients?

Oh, for your boss (Borrowing Without Consent)!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Try this one for size:

A Doctor is negligent, and allows your family member to die.

You engage lawyers to sue the Doctor & the local Health Authority for negligence.

But unbeknown to you, your lawyer is insured by the same insurers, who insure the Health Authority, and possibly even the Doctor ... How about that ?

This conflict of interest insures that even when patients have died no damages are payable.

Medical consultants have Legal Privilege as expert witnesses (this means they cannot be sued for giving an expert opinion).

If a doctor has been negligent and killed a patient is the Medical Consultant expert witness going to blame that doctor?

Your litigation lawyer is insured by the same company as these doctors.

They will milk legal aid, a cover up will then happen and the negligent doctor is in the clear and so are the insurers.

I hope no one ends up in this position because in my opinion these people are simply evil.

THIS SET UP WILL BE THE SAME INTERNATIONALLY.

15 February 2013 21:47
."'c,CDC,c,McCain,c,c,mc

A sweet deal?

Anonymous said...

I do not understand how the Law Society's SLCC can still be operating?

I thought that their doorway was bricked up months ago, due to the fraud they are perpetrating against the Scottish People?

Anonymous said...

Is there only one guy left at the SLCC?

Anonymous said...

'Lawyers FOI secrecy feud with regulator'

Phoney bone of contention, if I ever heard one?

Anonymous said...

And where are the expressions from Which Magazine and Consumer Focus Scotland regarding this and your previous report?

As usual another deafening silence from both who are clearly a waste of space.

Anonymous said...

Given the way the SLCC handled this how can we trust any complaints statistics or info they release?

For all we know complaints could be nearly 4000 a year and they are just massaging the figures and anyway if you think about it there are nearly 10,000 solicitors in Scotland so the Law Society always say and we hardly ever hear about them from the SLCC or anyone else except this blog!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
http://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/finding_item.asp?LTfindingID=541


Edinburgh 23 October 2012; The Tribunal having considered the Appeal by Cameron Fyfe, Drummond Miller, Solicitors, 65 Bath Street, Glasgow (“the Appellant”) against a finding of Inadequate Professional Service by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland (“the Law Society”) in relation to Mr A (“the Lay Complainer”) in respect of a complaint by the Lay Complainer against the former firm of Ross Harper and a Direction that: (1) the fees and VAT to which the former firm was entitled shall be nil; (2) the firm be required to refund all fees and VAT paid by the Lay Complainer; and (3) the firm be required to pay the sum of £1500 compensation to the Lay Complainer; Find that the service provided to the Lay Complainer in respect of both issues 1 and 2 did amount to an Inadequate Professional Service; Refuse the Appeal and Confirm the Determination and Direction made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland in respect of both issues; Find the Appellant liable in the expenses of the Law Society and of the Tribunal including the expenses of the Clerk, chargeable on a time and line basis as the same maybe taxed by the Auditor of the Court of Session on an agent and client, client paying basis in terms of Chapter Three of the last published Law Society’s Table of Fees for general business with a unit rate of £14.00; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Appellant.

Alistair Cockburn
Chairman

17 February 2013 22:23
---------------------------------

CROOK?

Anonymous said...

Is it true that when Scotland was asked to put forward an honest judge to serve as a member of the International Court, they had to decline the invitation?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Given the way the SLCC handled this how can we trust any complaints statistics or info they release?

For all we know complaints could be nearly 4000 a year and they are just massaging the figures and anyway if you think about it there are nearly 10,000 solicitors in Scotland so the Law Society always say and we hardly ever hear about them from the SLCC or anyone else except this blog!

18 February 2013 10:37
/////////////(//(////(/(///(/(////////

The truth is that the numbers of dodgy lawyers reported to the SLCC could be measured in the dozens such is the mistrust of the SLCC?

Anonymous said...

Catch me if you can said...

Yes I did lie on my questionnaire and neither you or the SLCC can do anything about it.

Neither the SLCC or any client have the right to know how my firm handle complaints. If clients are dissatisfied with us and refuse to see sense they are within their current rights to go to the SLCC and make a complaint to them. We are within our rights to defend ourselves against any complaints or troublemakers.
=================================
You are a nutter, and you just cannot get into your thick skulls this bad Kharma will come back on you. Here is how to deal with this type of p**k folks. I would print 1000 leaflets, "bloggs solicitors Falkirk stealing mortgage money" as long as its true. If enough clients do that are you going to take hundreds to court?

The way to expose lawyers is to bypass your Law Society, SLCC. You creeps can only self regulate if your clients play into your creepy self protecting complaints system. 1000 leaflets in the town your lawyer works in folks, this is how you take the smug arrogant expression off your lawyers face. Don't report your lawyers because you will participate in the inevitable coverup if you do. Reporting your lawyer is like framing yourself. They want you to complain to them. THAT GIVES THEM THE CONTROL.

Adios lawyers, Catch clients distributing leaflets where you work, if you can. W****rs.