Ex-FOI Chief Kevin Dunion joins board of dodgy law regulator. SCOTLAND’S ‘independent’ regulator of solicitors, the traditionally anti-client & scandal tainted Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has announced that Mr Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s first Information Commissioner has now joined the SLCC’s board as a ‘non lawyer’ member. Mr Dunion’s appointment is for five years and runs from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2018.
A Press Release issued by the SLCC said it was pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Dunion to it’s board but did not mention the fact that in his previous role as Scottish Information Commissioner, he regularly investigated the SLCC in response to cases brought to his office concerning appeals against the legal regulator’s refusal to disclose information in response to Freedom of Information requests made by journalists. Mr Dunion also found on many occasions the SLCC had unfairly blacked out documents and mistreated the public, journalists and the media with regard to FOI requests.
On one occasion, Mr Dunion’s office ordered the SLCC to disclose a series of previously blacked out bitter quotes made against a member of the public by another lawyer board member who happened to be the husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith. The now former lawyer board member, identified in emails as ‘retired’ solicitor David Smith, had embarked on name calling exercise against financially ruined clients who had made complaints against their solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported the case here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details
Mr Dunion’s office also ordered the SLCC to disclose details of sky high expenses payments made to it’s board members after the SLCC had bizarrely argued payments should be kept secret to protect board members from mental health problems.
The shocking sums of expenses claims paid out to board members, were subsequently revealed at £158K a year, reported by Diary of Injustice here : REVEALED : £158k of board members rocketing payments & expenses claims at ‘duck-out’ law regulator Scottish Legal Complaints Commission
Diary of Injustice journalists also used FOI legislation to investigate the SLCC after more evidence of board members anti-consumer stance emerged with the disclosure of internal emails documenting exchanges between the SLCC’s then Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman and a key lawyer board member Glasgow Divorce solicitor Margaret Scanlan OBE who joked about being too “out on the razzle” the night before, to think, while demanding consumer groups be excluded from key research into the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt Master Insurance Policy.
The incident involving Scanlan, who is no longer on the SLCC’s board, was reported by Diary of Injustice and the Sunday Mail newspaper in 2009 here : HERE and again more recently last October 2012 HERE after Scottish Govt insiders claimed the “Drink fuelled & ‘hate filled’ emails of MacAskill appointees had ruined the credibility” of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
Mr Dunion’s office also ordered the SLCC to disclose a series of bitter quotes made against a member of the public by another lawyer board member who is also the husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith. The now former lawyer board member, identified in emails as ‘retired’ solicitor David Smith had embarked on name calling exercise against financially ruined clients who had made complaints against their solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported the case here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details
Interestingly, in an interview with BBC Newsnight last September 2012, Mr Dunion made references to developments in England & Wales where the UK Government are looking at including the Law Society within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation. It was pointed out the Scottish Government are still dragging their feet on this issue.
Indeed, the Scottish Government have taken a directly opposite approach, with Justice Secretary Kenny Macaskill adopting a hostile position to requests to bring the Law Society of Scotland within the scope of the Scottish version of the Freedom of Information Act. Diary of Injustice reported more on this as long ago as March 2009 here : MacAskill’s ‘no intention to include Law Society in FOI review’ allows lawyers to keep scandals & criminal records hidden from public scrutiny.
It is also hoped Mr Dunion may raise concerns over the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s use of arms length projects to thwart media & public Freedom of Information requests for data gathered during research & survey activities which the regulator uses to justify it’s existence while refusing to release actual evidence of its claims.
The SLCC’s latest attempt at getting round FOI laws was revealed in a recent Diary of Injustice investigation which found the SLCC had instructed paid researchers to retain data and not pass it on directly to the regulator, in an attempt to avoid compliance with requests made under FOI legislation. Diary of Injustice reported on the scandal here : Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'
While Mr Dunion now joins the SLCC as a board member, observers of Scotland's notoriously pro-lawyer complaints regulator will recall that last year, the fourth, & former Chief Executive of the SLCC, Rosemary Agnew, who was rebuked at least FIVE times by Mr Dunion over her handling of FOI requests, succeeded Mr Dunion as the Scottish Information Commissioner, reported by Diary of Injustice, here : SHHH HAPPENED : Scotland’s new Information Commissioner to be Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew, rebuked FIVE TIMES for being ANTI-FOI
HOW FOI OPENS UP SCOTLAND’S LEGAL SYSTEM :
Freedom of Information requests & investigations conducted by Diary of Injustice journalists have contributed to a wider understanding of how the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) operate, where SLAB & Crown Office officials appeared to be more interested in expenses claims & flying high on intercontinental air carriers than pursuing sleazy solicitors who make off with millions of pounds of taxpayer funded legal aid.
Scotland’s Crown Office have also been caught short, awarding themselves HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS in staff bonuses from the top of the organisation down, yet by all accounts failing to enforce the law when it came to instances such as the FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escape justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years , and all because the Lord Advocate’s ‘independent’ Crown Counsel kept saying there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.
The Scottish Government too have come in for exposure, where FOI requests revealed its own Ministers directly intervened with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, demanding the SLCC hand back ONE MILLION POUNDS to lawyers who pled poverty over last year’s complaints levy, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Undue Influence : Freedom of Information reveals how Law Society used Scottish Government Ministers to reduce complaints levy for crooked lawyers. Further requests revealed the Justice Secretary himself even signed off on a secret payoff for the allegedly ‘too sick to ever work again’ now former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman, reported by Diary of Injustice here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers
Last year, the Diary of Injustice team began work on a major investigation into Scotland’s judiciary using Freedom of Information legislation and other investigative resources. Investigations revealed a number of judges who had been secretly prosecuted for criminal offences, one at least involving Benefits Cheating, while other members of the judiciary were apparently involved in dodgy financial & property arrangements and even holding ‘tax efficient’ schemes aimed at mitigating payments of tax on financial gains. Diary of Injustice and the Sunday Mail newspaper reported on these findings here : ALL THE LORD PRESIDENT’S MEN : Benefits cheats, drunk drivers & tax dodgers, yet identities of convicted Scottish judges to remain secret for now
The Diary of Injustice team have also investigated the financial costs of Scotland’s judiciary after our FOI requests forced the publication of JUDGES EXPENSES, allowing the public to peer into the murky world of Scottish judges earning up to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS a year plus expenses, tips & hospitality so far unrecorded. Diary of Injustice first reported on the issue of judicial expenses, here : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates and further reports continued HERE, all brought to you by Freedom of Information legislation & tips from well placed sources.
64 comments:
SO,no chance of him making much of a difference then..unless he resigns and tells us the whole thing is the big charade we've always known it is (thanks to your diligent reporting)
Seems a strange one considering what has gone on in the past and as you say the SLCC are now using fiddles to keep information away from FOI requests.
Do you think he will put an end to this or just have to go along with it?
You have to admire how sweet a move this is for the SLCC - Now they can validate every action they take and every case of complaint they throw out by saying "Oh look we have the former FOI Commissioner on our board so we must be in the right and everyone else is wrong".I can just see secretaries readying the template for the 1000 F*Off letters to be sent out to anyone who troubles them with a complaint.
What next for the SLCC?Will they also take on the former Law Society Chief who said he was going to sue the parliament on human rights law and swore on his dead granny the Master Policy was hunky dory when we all know its a big fiddle?
"It is also hoped Mr Dunion may raise concerns over the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s use of arms length projects to thwart media & public Freedom of Information requests for data gathered during research & survey activities which the regulator uses to justify it’s existence while refusing to release actual evidence of its claims."
I doubt it.I'm sure the Law Society of Scotland has already welcomed him into their little group with open arms.Case closed.
Mr Dunnion has an honourable record as Scotland's first Freedom of Information Commissioner - and I speak as someone who was not always on the receiving end of favourable decisions re my own FOIs.
The question is, will he be a reforming influence or will he be overwhelmed by the inbuilt anti- client bias consistently demonstrated by the SLCC since day one?
Time will tell..............
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/taxpayer-paid-for-information-bosss-farewell.18621905
Taxpayer paid for information boss's farewell
Published on 19 August 2012
Tom Gordon
SCOTLAND'S first freedom of information (FoI) tsar spent thousands of pounds of public money on his own farewell party, according to documents released under the law he championed.
Former Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion, below, has been accused of "self-indulgence" after a freedom of information request showed that his office spent almost £3000 on a reception at the Scottish Parliament to mark the end of his eight years as the country's FoI watchdog.
Another £3000 was spent on a public relations firm to promote a special final report by Dunion.
The outlays were revealed thanks to the very legislation Dunion policed since 2004.
Documents seen by the Sunday Herald show months of planning went into the Holyrood party in January, which was attended by 135 guests, including MSPs, lawyers, bureaucrats and academics.
Under the heading "objective and background", papers from the Information Commissioner's office, state: "The reception is being held to mark the departure of Kevin Dunion [KD] from office.
"It is an opportunity for: KD to thank those who have been part of FoI's journey in Scotland; KD to comment on his special report, launched that day; other commentators to reflect on the impact that Kevin has had on FoI's progress in Scotland; and the importance of the role of the Commissioner."
Invoices charged to the public purse show guests at the two-hour event got through £1361 worth of canapes and £665 worth of drink, including £17 bottles of wine and £7.40 jugs of orange juice. Designer invitations cost £150 and commemorative photographs £150, while £194 was paid for a delivery vehicle between the parliament and the Commission's headquarters in St Andrews.
In addition, Dunion's office spent £2000 with Glasgow-based Real PR – approximately £450 per day – in order to promote his final "special report" on the state of FoI.
A photographer, travel expenses, £150 of "props" for a photocall and VAT took the final bill with Real PR to £3086.
Scottish Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone said: "Kevin Dunion was infamous for his self-indulgence during his tenure, not least with the headquarters being based in St Andrews so he could walk to work in the morning.
"It is no surprise that this self-indulgence extended to his final farewell – all of this coming at the taxpayers' expense."
After Dunion left at the end of his second four-year term in February, he was replaced by Rosemary Agnew, the former boss of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who chose not to defend her predecessor's spending by declining to comment on it.
Asked to respond to the criticism, Dunion said: "My special report to Parliament set out a detailed analysis of the state of freedom of information in Scotland and recommended a series of measures to safeguard and strengthen access to information.
"With a modest budget the report received extensive coverage and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has now incorporated some of the recommendations in a Bill to amend the FoI Scotland Act."
Is this good or bad news?
Will Mr Dunion now tell us what the SLCC are really like or will they ask him to withdraw all his decisions against them in the past?
If Mr Dunion takes a flight into Aberdeen he will see (depending on the visibility)a sign in a field at least a kilometer long indicating that it would be wise to steer clear of a north east lawyer.
mmm yummy give someone £212 a day and they will say whatever the SLCC wants about crooked lawyers!
The Law Society of Scotland must by chinking glasses & toasting themselves over this appointment because they think that Mr Dunion's appointment give's the sham that is the SLCC an air of respectability?
However, the Law Society of Scotland will no doubt insist on the rest of the SLCC commissioners to actively and consistently shout down Mr Dunion's advice and counsel at every opportunity, so, it is only a perceived coup until Mr Dunion leaves the SLCC in disgust at the wanton criminality perpetrated as ordinary business in protecting crooked Scottish lawyers?
Eg.Where a notorious crooked lawyer was reported to the SLCC with the client victim providing the SLCC with prime facie documentary evidence of criminal offences having being committed.......?
The client victim duly got the stock SLCC response by letter to say that the complaint was being ruled out as there was no legal justification for the complaint and that the lawyer had no case to answer!!!
However, remember, the client victim had enclosed prime facie evidence, so they knew that this SLCC decision was corrupt (evidentially it was utterly impossible for it to be a mistake, as all the proof of criminal offences committed by the crooked Scottish lawyer was supplied), so after a lengthy series of correspondence with the SLCC, which ranged from deception and mistruths to outright bold lies, this client victim had it confirmed (by letter) that the Law Society of Scotland had colluded with the SLCC in getting the valid complaint thrown out because the crooked lawyer was caught out fair and square and that the crooked lawyers offences also implicated the Law Society of Scotland?
So, there we have it, criminal corruption to keep crooked Scottish lawyers out of jail and to quash any prime facie evidence which could be used by the police against the Law Society of Scotland?
Good luck Mr Dunion, you may wish to look for this file in an audit to read it for yourself?
Mr Dunion’s office also ordered the SLCC to disclose details of sky high expenses payments made to it’s board members after the SLCC had bizarrely argued payments should be kept secret to protect board members from mental health problems.
-----------------------------------
Now Lord President I hope they do not use this bull to excuse you from the register of interests.
Mr Dunion can tell us officially what we already know, there is no complaints system in Scotland that protects lawyers clients. We have dealt with them Mr Dunion that is how we know.
Its beggars belief that Rosemary Agnew goes to work for the Freedom of Information people and now Dunion goes to work for the SLCC. I think our Mr Dunion is another Lord Gill and will be singing the slcc tune on his first day of employment.
This Law Society of Scotland / SLCC / SSDT cabal would make an amazing film script?
Although, nobody would believe that they could get away with cheating the public like this?
Very interesting.
Do you know if Dunino applied himself,was asked to apply or was head hunted by the SLCC/Scottish Government?
I imagine anyone else on the applications list may feel a little unchuffed on hearing who got it and then go on to speculate why.
For readers who are speculating if Mr Dunion may be in a position to speak out on the operation of the SLCC, it should be kept in mind Section 43 (4) the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 makes it a criminal offence for anyone at the SLCC to do so.This clause was insisted upon by the legal profession and Scottish Executive prior to the act passing in the Scottish Parliament in December 2006.
In fact, the wording of the act itself judges anyone who discloses information from the SLCC as being "guilty of a [criminal] offence" before they are even convicted of any offence in a court of law.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2007/5/section/43
Section 43(4) of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 Part 1 Miscellaneous states :
43 Restriction upon disclosure of information: Commission
(4) Any person who ...... knowingly discloses any information obtained when employed by, or acting on behalf of, the Commission is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
So the act judges someone to be a criminal before they are even convicted.I am not surprised to hear this.Clearly the law was written to protect lawyers all along as was this SLCC created to protect lawyers and stop any information getting out on pain of criminal record and possibly a jail sentence.
Anyone who fancies blowing the whistle is automatically a criminal and will not be allowed to live a normal life and never be able to get a job in this country or any other where the Law Society of Scotland menace can hound them and their families.
I cannot see Mr Dunion risking his reputation,several other positions and his latest bag on the SLCC at £212 a day for a criminal record. Expect to hear little more from Mr Dunion.
We might have known the legal architects of this act had a built in gagging order. Speaks for itself really. So if Mr Dunion speaks out he will be "guilty of a [criminal] offence" before they are even convicted of any offence in a court of law.
==================================
So basically by the act Mr Dunion would be a criminal before he was sent to trial. Beggars belief. The facts are that the criminals are the architects and the politicians who passed such a pernicious piece of legislation. But it screams one truth, we the SLCC are a criminal gang masquerading as a complaints handler. Clauses like this reek of the systemic corruption that is the legal profession in Scotland.
So they figure he is better on the inside where the clause will silence him.
Just shocking really
Surprised to be honest,with all those rulings in your favour on the Info Commissioner's website and now he goes and joins the very organisation he found against.
Add to that the SLCC are purposely evading FOI legislation by having someone else hold the information for them and still he signs up.You couldn't make it up really!
If the SLCC were being honest about it from the start they would have mentioned he had found against them many times but as you can see there is no mention in their press release of it so it's dishonesty all the way.Little wonder no one has any confidence in any public body,regulator or what have you these days.They are all liars or twist the facts in one way or another for their own ends.
http://scottishlegalcomplaints.com/news/2013/non-lawyer-member-appointed-to-the-scottish-legal-complaints-commission.aspx
Non Lawyer Member Appointed to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission
17/04/2013
We are pleased to announce the appointment of Kevin Dunion as a non lawyer member to the SLCC.
The SLCC is the single gateway for complaints against legal practitioners operating in Scotland. It investigates and resolves complaints about inadequate professional service; refers conduct complaints to the relevant professional body and provides oversight of complaint handling across the profession. The SLCC also promotes and advises on good complaint handling and makes recommendations to promote good legal practice in Scotland.
Kevin Dunion is Honorary Professor in the School of Law, University of Dundee where he is Director of the Centre for Freedom of Information. He brings considerable experience of dealing with disputes and appeals. During his time in post as the first Scottish Information Commissioner, he issued over 1500 formal determinations on appeals made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Last year he was appointed by the President of the World Bank as a member of the Bank's Access to Information Appeals Board.
The appointment will be for five years and runs from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2018.
The appointment is regulated by the Public Appointments Commissioner for Scotland.
"It is also hoped Mr Dunion may raise concerns over the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s use of arms length projects to thwart media & public Freedom of Information requests for data gathered during research & survey activities which the regulator uses to justify it’s existence while refusing to release actual evidence of its claims."
So if this is the case and I read your link it seems true will Mr Dunion call for an investigation into the SLCC dodging FOI?
Also will he call for the Law Society of Scotland to be included in FOI?
Hmm he's already there if his job runs from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2018
So why did they wait over a month to announce it?Too controversial?I'd like to believe he will do some good and change it for the better but now I've read the comments and that Herald story I'm not so sure.
Must be something to hide,something we are not being told (as usual)
Anonymous said...
Its beggars belief that Rosemary Agnew goes to work for the Freedom of Information people and now Dunion goes to work for the SLCC. I think our Mr Dunion is another Lord Gill and will be singing the slcc tune on his first day of employment.
aye it's a bit of a croc as they say!
18 April 2013 19:41
How do they get away with saying someone is guilty until it has been proven in a court?
This lot must be a real bunch of sharks even worse than the crooked judges!
The SLCC will not be cleaned up I can assure you.
Plans to close 10 sheriff courts around the country in a bid to save money have been approved by the Scottish government.
The changes, proposed by the Scottish Court Service, will also see seven justice of the peace courts closed, with business transferred elsewhere.
The number of courts hearing sheriff and jury cases across Scotland will be reduced as well.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the reforms were "justified".
================================
Kenny MacAskill so silent like Salmond on the Register of Interests for our Oligarchical Judges, sitting on their benches when no one knows whether they are honest or not, and have been prosecuted for benefit fraud in secret courts. Salmond and MacAskill need kicked out of politics.
Interesting comments however I think many of you may be missing something pretty obvious.
If Dunion was recruited or went into this with a can do attitude instead of the usual take the money and shut up routine the SLCC may well be changed for the better.
I realise there is a bit of a cloud around their new Chair re the hospital trust incident but with people like Dunion on the board,if the SLCC continues to protect the legal profession instead of actually doing something for clients then reputations will be lost even more so than before.
Having said all that,and having poured through your copious links and well researched investigations into the legal system,it may have been better to scrap the SLCC and start again with a new organisation not linked to the Law Society and obviously with no lawyers on it rather than this messy arrangement where it seems fairly clear the lawyers are running the show at the SLCC.
Can Dunion do better?Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a few months and see.And in spite of that Section 43 gagging clause in the lpla act I expect Mr Dunion to speak out when things are not going correctly.He has made a living and a reputation out of speaking out for years so why stop now?
If someone is automatically a criminal then automatically we do not live in a democracy. Democracy means put someone in front of a court of law with open proceedings not secrecy which is endemic in this profession because strip away the veneer and an organized crime gang emerges. He cannot be a criminal before he is tried in a public court.
"Better having him in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in, Lyndon B Johnson.
I agree with the last comment as in it is better to scrap the SLCC and start again.However the Law Society will not allow this because if the SLCC is scrapped and we get a truly independent regulator then the Law Society has lost control of the show which is bad for them and something they will never allow to happen.
Anonymous said...
So the act judges someone to be a criminal before they are even convicted.I am not surprised to hear this.Clearly the law was written to protect lawyers all along as was this SLCC created to protect lawyers and stop any information getting out on pain of criminal record and possibly a jail sentence.
Anyone who fancies blowing the whistle is automatically a criminal and will not be allowed to live a normal life and never be able to get a job in this country or any other where the Law Society of Scotland menace can hound them and their families.
I cannot see Mr Dunion risking his reputation,several other positions and his latest bag on the SLCC at £212 a day for a criminal record. Expect to hear little more from Mr Dunion.
18 April 2013 21:48
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further PROOF that the SLCC is a SHAM organisation that was invented as a fraud to allow the Law Society of Scotland to continue to let their crooked lawyers off SCOT-FREE so that they can continue to harm & rob their clients?
This puts the SLCC on a par with being the same as MI5 or MI6, this is incredible?
Anonymous said...
Plans to close 10 sheriff courts around the country in a bid to save money have been approved by the Scottish government.
The changes, proposed by the Scottish Court Service, will also see seven justice of the peace courts closed, with business transferred elsewhere.
The number of courts hearing sheriff and jury cases across Scotland will be reduced as well.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the reforms were "justified".
================================
Kenny MacAskill so silent like Salmond on the Register of Interests for our Oligarchical Judges, sitting on their benches when no one knows whether they are honest or not, and have been prosecuted for benefit fraud in secret courts. Salmond and MacAskill need kicked out of politics.
19 April 2013 11:28
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Would it not be prudent to go through all of the Scottish judges names and check through the Court Rolls lists to find out where and when these crooked Judges appeared before the Courts, which will likely identify these crooked Scottish judges, unless that is they have been tried in a secret emptied court and that the Court Rolls lists have been doctored to protect their identities, which I am sure would be a criminal act?
Anonymous said...
How do they get away with saying someone is guilty until it has been proven in a court?
This lot must be a real bunch of sharks even worse than the crooked judges!
19 April 2013 00:28
Ddddddddddddddddicks
Who in their right minds would insist on such an unlawful clause in the legislation, such is their pernicious desperation to conceal their criminality?
YES, the Law Society of Scotland?
Haters of the People of Scotland?
Anonymous said...
Interesting comments however I think many of you may be missing something pretty obvious.
If Dunion was recruited or went into this with a can do attitude instead of the usual take the money and shut up routine the SLCC may well be changed for the better.
I realise there is a bit of a cloud around their new Chair re the hospital trust incident but with people like Dunion on the board,if the SLCC continues to protect the legal profession instead of actually doing something for clients then reputations will be lost even more so than before.
Having said all that,and having poured through your copious links and well researched investigations into the legal system,it may have been better to scrap the SLCC and start again with a new organisation not linked to the Law Society and obviously with no lawyers on it rather than this messy arrangement where it seems fairly clear the lawyers are running the show at the SLCC.
Can Dunion do better?Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a few months and see.And in spite of that Section 43 gagging clause in the lpla act I expect Mr Dunion to speak out when things are not going correctly.He has made a living and a reputation out of speaking out for years so why stop now?
19 April 2013 12:09
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is the type of Scottish decency 'naivety that these criminals calculatingly depend upon to sell their sickly corrupt agenda....?
Mr Dunion may have the opportunity to resign and speak out if the SLCC did not inform him of this draconian & unlawful clause in the legislation in advance of him signing up, which may also be an infringement of human rights legislation?
http://www.bentjudges.com/
The people exposed on this site are not fit to be anywhere near a justice system. They F##K lives up and keep working or are let out of jail by their judicial brothers.
Mr Dunion is just a single voice in a pit of carefully chosen vipers?
Now, had he been the SLCC's new Chief Executive then you might say that he could effect change but this would be forgetting the FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH..........that the SLCC was set up to allow the Law Society of Scotland to continue to have a monopoly and full control of what happens to the regulation of their crooked membership?
So, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the SLCC to change or 'get better' because it's whole agenda (as Agents for the Law Society of Scotland) is to HAMMER victims of crooked Scottish lawyers for having the temerity to think that they had the 'RIGHT' for Justice in Scotland?
So, this appointment is a sop, a bit of window dressing and it is the final, last desperate chance for the Law Society of Scotland to prevent this unlawful department the SLCC from being SHUT-DOWN?
Everything about this appointment stinks, is symptomatic of desperation and a continuation of the deception of the Scottish People?
Well if Kevin Dunion has gone in to clean out the rot he has one heck of a job to do and will face all the wrath of the legal fraternity if he tries to make this regulator a pro consumer one instead of the lawyer love-in it has been since it started how many years ago now?
Not sure one voice within the slcc can make any difference and I dont expect it to happen.
Bureaucracy or a system of bureaus where no one is accountable for what is being done and its impossible to identify culprits. Oh Law Society this is you, self regulation in action. Even Lord President Gill wants everything hush hush.
Bureaucracy is domination, this is why you should tell everyone what these people are fellow clients, warn your family, friends, anyone who will listen. Do you all know what I find disturbing? The BBC and other broadcasters keep this hush hush too. When you report a lawyer through the official channels you pass control of your complain to them. This is fatal, and perhaps this is why they have appointed Mr Dunion. If thousands of ruined clients printed leaflets naming and shaming law firms in their areas they lose control of their complaints system. THEY DON'T WANT THIS. Don't batter your head off a concrete wall, go public anyway you can, that's my advice. The NHS and Law Society taught me that, bureaucracy is domination, inside the office they control the outcome, outside your free, spread the word.
Mr Dunion’s office also ordered the SLCC to disclose details of sky high expenses payments made to it’s board members after the SLCC had bizarrely argued payments should be kept secret to protect board members from mental health problems.
=================================
This appointment is good because Mr Dunion will not change his spots. Being a man of principle as has demonstrated he will deal with these issues.
Mr Dunion an academic wrote "dissent renews politics" indeed where dissent is forbidden there is no politics. I feel Mr Dunion has been appointed because the truth about the protection of crooked lawyers is getting more widespread. I was asked in South Lanarkshire if I needed a lawyer, and I said to the man I was ruined by one, have you heard of a Diary of Injustice? He said no, I said oh there is another cow frown past. Mr Dunion has done good work before as FOI Commissioner, give him a chance I say.
Mr Dunion where there is secret there can be no justice.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22223466
"A Dunfermline solicitor is facing jail after being caught trying to smuggle drugs and phones into a prison".
Another one, how foolish to risk his career, but I warn you all, the civil lawyers you report to the Law society and Commission will get away with it. That is why they are scandal tainted. The solution for them is simple, clean up your act or go down the tubes.
MacAskill I don't like you, you are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard as far as clients are concerned. Lawyers are loyal to lawyers not clients who are just a means to "save justice" by being tools to get more legal aid, without monitoring of professional service.
We love receiving complaints from clients because we can bury them.
That is what self regulation was engineered for.
Scottish Legal Commission, one word too many they don't deal with complaints,
Congratulations Kevin, you have just joined the most corrupt quango on the planet. You expose these criminals for the mendacious crooks they are the the Law Society rack awaits.
The trouble with this outfit is simple. To clean it up you need to drive the lawyers out, not Dunion in.
Lawyers investigating lawyers means no investigation. Hardly a paradox, just simple legal engineering. How any fucker expects to get a lawyer to ruin a lawyer for that same fucker is beyond me. Oh they did not call us fuckers, what was it they said, oh yes frequent flyers and chancer's.
Take my advice don't be one of their chancer's and you will avoid their fuckers.
In spite of that Section 43 gagging clause in the lpla act I expect Mr Dunion to speak out when things are not going correctly.
Well someone has to because if these lawyers keep ruining people and nothing is done many people will draw the correct conclusion that lawyers ruin their clients because they know they will never be reprimanded. What did one write, "catch me if you can". A right asshole.
You will note that the appointments of the SLCC Board Chairman & Mr Dunion were made at the same time?
So, presumably if they had wanted Mr Dunion to be the Chairman (and he was agreeable) then they had that option?
The SLCC Chair has a media massaging mandate (remember the propaganda from Jane Irvine), whereas the lay members of the SLCC board are strictly muted?
There are 9 SLCC Board members, three of which are Scottish lawyers, so, Mr Dunion's views & advice can only ever effect a 1/9th perspective where he can be easily controlled and voted over?
Can't see any genuine point in Mr Dunion being there other than them still trying to sell the Scottish Public a sick pup?
"The Law Society are a professional organization and are not covered in the Freedom of Information Act. There is no intention to include them in the review." Well MacAskill you wrote the exact same to me in a letter years ago. And the reason that this exemption clause exists is because the Law Society and everything to do with lawyers means that,
There is no complaints system to protect the public from corrupt lawyers. Lawyers "borrow without consent" even the SSDT phrasology {if I have spelled that correctly} stinks.
MacAskill kills off FOI clients because he knows there is no complaints system, and he wants that keps secret. Reporting a lawyer to SLCC Law Society or any other lawyer, or lawyer sympathiser bureaucracy means you stay ruined, wake up folks self regulation was designed to legally rob YOU.
There is no complaints system, as Mr Yelland won't tell you, eh Phil.
They thought, we need a new front for the Law Society of Scotland, the public are catching on what we are doing. So the SLCC came into being and they thought those dumb clients will think they have a complaints system now.
Oh no we don't the SLCC turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, such as starving out clients, they should be serving jail sentences for this but of course the people the SLCC were really set up to protect control access to the courts and the Sheriffs and High Court Judges are all in on the act too.
Once more I say there is no complaints system folks, do not expect fairness from the SLCC or it's parent the Law Society of Scotland. The names of these bureaucracies are corruption, client oppressors and lawyer protectors. If it were not the case the parent would have prosecuted Penman for ruining the Cherbi family. I bet they wish they had now. Great work DOI, I always look forward to your next report.
If Dunion was recruited or went into this with a can do attitude instead of the usual take the money and shut up routine the SLCC may well be changed for the better.
##################################
They will have to change because if they don't their collective reputations as so called regulators will be damaged further, but those in the know realized long ago lawyers coverup lawyers crimes. This is what self regulation was designed to do, protect each other and ruin people for profit. Lawyers primarily take on clients to earn money, clients are a means to obtain money and the lawyer gets paid whether the client wins or not. The fact that they are referred to as "thorns in the flesh" a statement from the top man at the Law Society of Scotland [who resigned] about clients who complain about lawyers says a lot about the self regulating cultural attitudes to clients.
I would reject representation from a Scottish lawyer if they provided it free of charge. The wise among us don't trust any of them because we know from experience what they are and what they are capable of. Never again will I go to a member of Scotland's legal profession, never. I have barred myself from being represented simply because I know they are mendacious criminals, because they know there is no complaints system that will touch them.
Competence. A lawyer must be competent in the area(s) of law required to represent each client. [NO HE DOES NOT BECAUSE SELF REGULATION WILL SAVE HIM]. If a lawyer not possess the knowledge or skills required to represent you, he or she should not take your case or should retain competent co-counsel to work on your case with them.
Diligence. Lawyers are required to represent each client with reasonable diligence. [LAW SOCIETY SAVES THEM].
Confidentiality. Certain confidential information you give to your lawyer should be kept confidential. Not all information is confidential, however, and there are exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality.
[LAW SOCIETY SAVES THEM].
Avoiding conflicts of interest. A lawyer may not represent parties with conflicting interests, former spouses or competing businesses for example, without written consent from all parties. This written consent must indicate awareness of the conflict, [HA HA, I WILL TELL THE JOKES, RSA INSURE ALL LAWYERS, LAW SOCIETY, SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION, BUSINESS, DOCTORS, ACCOUNTANTS, MEDICAL CONSULTANTS, BANKS, GOVERNMENTS] and waive the other party's right to a lawyer without a conflict. [INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS ARE A STITCH UP, YOU WILL BE CLAIMING AGAINST RSA IN MANY CASES BUT THEY KEEP THESE FACTS HUSH, HUSH].
Safeguarding property. Any property transferred to an lawyer must be kept in a safe place,[JOKE TIME AGAIN] separate from his or her own. This includes funds, which should be kept in separate trust fund accounts. [THERE ARE A LOT OF SHOULD BE'S HERE BUT THE REALITY IS THAT IT IS NONSENSE LAWYERS CHECK YOUR LAWYERS CASE HANDLING WHICH PUTS THEM IN THE COVER UP DRIVING SEAT]. WHE ENFORCES THE SHOULD BE'S?
SELF REGULATION = NO COMPLAINTS SYSTEM. NO ENFORCEMENT OF SHOULD BE'S. LICENCED TO ROB YOU.
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/News/1012510.aspx#.UXQOUkq8XTo
Lawyers' stress levels rising, survey finds
19 April 2013
Three quarters of legal professionals are more stressed now than five years ago, according to a survey by the support charity LawCare. [THERE IS NO CLIENTCARE CHARITY, TRY BEING ONE WITH YOUR COMPLAINT NEVER RESOLVED].
The research, carried out via SurveyMonkey, had over 1,000 responses from solicitors, barristers and legal executives across Britain and Ireland. Of these, 57.6% were solicitors in England & Wales, and 14.7% solicitors in Scotland.
Out of the total, 74.7% said that they were more stressed than five years ago. [THAT'S NICE]. The main causes of stress given were being overloaded with work; poor management, including lack of appreciation; and feeling isolated or unsupported. [CLIENTS ARE THE SAME BUT LAWYERS DON'T CARE]. Other reasons stated included having unattainable targets, long hours, poor pay, and job insecurity. [PERHAPS SOMETHING TO DO WITH CLIENTS CATCHING ON WHAT LAWYERS REALLY ARE].
Work environment was said to be stressful for 70%. [WONDERFUL]. Almost half, at 45%, believed there was insufficient support, although 45% said their workplace was friendly.[WELL THE LAW SOCIETY AND SCOTTISH LEGAL COVERUP COMMISSION AIN'T FRIENDLY, PURE HOSTILE IN FACT. LAWYERS TRY GETTING YOUR SALARIES FROZEN FOR MONTHS, LIKE THE MAN IN PERTH GOT HIS BENEFITS FROZEN TO STARVE HIM OUT, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE WHAT STRESS IT. I CALL IT POETIC JUSTICE].
Two thirds (66%) also said they would be concerned about reporting feelings of stress to their employer. [Oh yes they with think your weak] and the more people you ruin the more difficult it will be to get clients. Lovely Jubbly.
If clients try and expose crooked lawyers outside the complaints system this quango will need to clean up its act. If many ruined clients catch on there are other ways of exposing corrupt lawyers these crooks are finished. I have said before when you complain to them the control passes to them to a large extent. If clients realize they will get nowhere through the so called complaints channels they may seek an alternative legal route.
Self regulation cannot work unless people complain to the Law Society or SLCC, I keep stating this point. Playing into their hands helps them not you the client. Hand out posters, leaflets, tell your friends and work colleagues to read A Diary of Injustice, warn people by any legal means. By all means complain to the Law Society and Commission first if you want but expose them publicly if they don't help you. When all roads leading to Rome close find another way. Your welfare and bank balance are more important to you than your lawyers, and I am not patronizing people but find another way and help yourselves.
If there are any people left who would report their crooked Scottish lawyer or the Law Society of Scotland to the corrupt SLCC, then I wonder, if they copied their complaint to Mr Dunion if the SLCC would intercept his private & confidential mail sent to him at the SLCC?
I wonder what the SLCC will say to Mr Dunion when he asks to carry out his own review of previous dodgy decisions made by the SLCC to let crooked Scottish lawyers off Scot-Free?
Probably along the lines of we no longer have these files stored in our possession?
In other words, F**K OFF ?
Given that Mr Dunion's character is proven to be above reproach, is it likely that the 'YES' men co-opted onto the SLCC Board will go on strike?
WHAT!
I thought that this disreputable organisation had been shut down already?
Anonymous said...
If Dunion was recruited or went into this with a can do attitude instead of the usual take the money and shut up routine the SLCC may well be changed for the better.
##################################
They will have to change because if they don't their collective reputations as so called regulators will be damaged further, but those in the know realized long ago lawyers coverup lawyers crimes. This is what self regulation was designed to do, protect each other and ruin people for profit. Lawyers primarily take on clients to earn money, clients are a means to obtain money and the lawyer gets paid whether the client wins or not. The fact that they are referred to as "thorns in the flesh" a statement from the top man at the Law Society of Scotland [who resigned] about clients who complain about lawyers says a lot about the self regulating cultural attitudes to clients.
I would reject representation from a Scottish lawyer if they provided it free of charge. The wise among us don't trust any of them because we know from experience what they are and what they are capable of. Never again will I go to a member of Scotland's legal profession, never. I have barred myself from being represented simply because I know they are mendacious criminals, because they know there is no complaints system that will touch them.
21 April 2013 12:22
Wiiicccckkkeeedddddddd
A truer word has never been spoken?
Incidentally, if you go for a quick look at The Firm Magazine website you will see the same person (of the thorns in our flesh infamy) overtly admitting that Scottish lawyers were happily defrauding their clients by stealing the interest component of client's account balance and that this was the norm!!!!!?
Excuse me Mr Plod, this one is for you?
How many £Millions were creamed off this way?
Actually I heard about Dunion going onto the SLCC over a month ago although it was kept quiet at the time. Pity really as we in the profession just as much as some of your regulars were hoping your countless exposure of SLCC mishaps had killed off this idiotic quango dreamed up by even bigger idiots who wanted their three minutes of fame.I'm sure you agree it would be best for all if the SLCC were to be scrapped.
Anonymous said...
Actually I heard about Dunion going onto the SLCC over a month ago although it was kept quiet at the time. Pity really as we in the profession just as much as some of your regulars were hoping your countless exposure of SLCC mishaps had killed off this idiotic quango dreamed up by even bigger idiots who wanted their three minutes of fame.I'm sure you agree it would be best for all if the SLCC were to be scrapped.
23 April 2013 10:37
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RESPECT!
That is the kind of constructive criticism from a good Scottish lawyer against the Law Society of Scotland we need?
Great to see this seriously endangered species is still clinging on....?
Do you think Mr Dunion would act upon Prime facie evidence sent to him at the SLCC, marked private & confidential, that showed that the Law Society of Scotland & the SLCC have perverted the course of justice by colluding to make sure that an infamous Scottish crooked lawyer's criminal offences are swept under the carpet, so that they are kept out of jail?
Post a Comment