Non appearance of top Law Society regulation boss in BBC investigation questioned QUESTIONS have been raised as to why Philip Yelland, the little known figure in charge of regulation of Scotland’s solicitors for the past two decades was not allowed to appear on Lawyers Behaving Badly, the recent BBC Scotland investigation on systemic failings in how the Scottish legal profession regulates itself and how lawyers have regularly escaped justice and continue to benefit from publicly funded legal aid.
In response to media enquiries, sources at the Edinburgh HQ of the Law Society of Scotland have confirmed that repeated requests from BBC Scotland for access to the society’s Director of Regulation were refused by Law Society chiefs who were determined there should be no access to, or any appearance by the twenty plus year serving head of regulation in the BBC programme.
Substituting for the Director of Regulation, the Convener of the Law Society’s Regulation Committee, Carole Ford was instead, interviewed on the powerful BBC programme broadcast last week.
However, while Ford’s performance was expectedly praised in some legal quarters, some legal experts, clients, and those who have experienced the ‘alice in wonderland’ world of how the legal profession regulates itself felt the Committee Convener was a poor substitute, and appeared to have little grasp as to the realities of how the system works, and how paying clients are treated by lawyers who regularly cover up for their own colleagues.
While many expected Mr Yelland to be part of the BBC investigation, there are numerous reasons as to why the one person in legal regulation circles who has been involved in many of the controversial and highly public cases involving solicitors escaping penalty for their actions over the past twenty years did not appear on the highly acclaimed undercover investigation by BBC journalist Sam Poling.
The Law Society’s reluctance to allow Mr Yelland’s appearance in the BBC programme may well stem from the unfortunate demise of the Society’s former Chief Executive Douglas Mill, who resigned a few weeks after the Law Society’s Council viewed and debated video footage posted to video sharing website You Tube of Mill’s angry confrontation at a Holyrood Justice Committee hearing with John Swinney, Scotland’s Finance Chief.
During the Justice Committee hearing in 2006 which formed part of the Scottish Parliament’s second, ill-fated attempt to clean up regulation of the legal profession, the former Chief Executive was caught out by the Scottish Parliament’s video coverage of the hearing when he argued with the SNP Finance Chief that the Law Society’s Master Policy, the insurance scheme which protects corrupt lawyers from clients, was fair, and that there was no collusion between figures at the Law Society and the insurers to throw out financial damages claims made by clients.
However, Mr Swinney, a skilled debater himself, trounced the then pugnacious Law Society Chief on all points, leaving the public with little doubt the Master Policy Insurance client compensation scheme run by the Law Society of Scotland is unfair and claims made by clients for damages are clearly subject to concerted and determined manipulation at the highest levels of the Law Society and the legal profession.
The footage featuring Mill's Holyrood confrontation with John Swinney was first posted to the You Tube video sharing website in late December 2007. Mill, who superseded the equally controversial Kenneth Pritchard as Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland in the early 1990’s, then going on to become the Society’s Chief Executive and expected by many to remain in the position for a lengthy period of time, resigned a few weeks later in January 2008.
The confrontation between the former Law Society Boss and Scotland’s now Finance Chief, has since become a warning to how Law Society figures used to a closed world lacking any accountability can quickly stumble in public appearances such as the Holyrood Master Policy clash which made it obvious to all that the Law Society was, and remains determined to hang onto self regulation and the power that comes with it, at any cost.
Fears of BBC questions over claims made by clients against solicitors may also have played a part in the Society’s refusal to allow access to its regulation chief.
Academics heard involvement of Regulation Boss was linked to controversial complaints. A case referred to in a Research Report from the University of Manchester School of Law documented allegations in papers which have never been made public that the Society’s long time Regulation Chief was also allegedly linked to a case of a claim involving the Master Policy, where a respected businessman & family man from Oban committed suicide after he was sent to a law firm who have since been identified in a number of cases where dodgy solicitors have escaped justice and even possible criminal charges for legal aid fraud.
The revelations, appearing in papers studied by Professor Frank Stephen & Dr Angela Melville of the Manchester University of Law School in 2009 who were compiling a report on the Master Policy for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), alleged the businessman from Oban had been sent to a Glasgow law firm to represent him in a court case against his former solicitors.
However the Glasgow based law firm, who have since represented the First Minister himself and a number of controversial figures in the legal world, did nothing for a period of three years and when it was revealed the same law firm who the Law Society’s Regulation Chief had allegedly recommended to the Oban businessman were also representing the Legal Defence Union, the organisation which represents crooked lawyers against complaints, the unnamed client committed suicide.
Against a background of too-numerous-to-mention cases where involvement of the twenty year plus serving Law Society’s Regulation Boss appears to have played a key part in allowing corrupt solicitors to remain in work, Yelland may well have faced difficult questions over his involvement in one of the key parts of the BBC Scotland report aired last week, that of former solicitor Tom Murray, currently living in Lucca, Italy.
Featured in the Lawyers Behaving Badly documentary, Murray, has appeared before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) on no less than three occasions, (i) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 01/03/2005 (ii) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 25/11/2005 and (iii) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 10/12/2009.
Former solicitor Murray, who said on the BBC programme during secret filming that if he returned to Scotland he could reapply to be a solicitor again, was found guilty of professional misconduct in respect of misrepresentation, deception and misleading clients including his failure to tell his clients he had been barred from practising as a lawyer. The solicitor who was sequestrated in Scotland in 2001 and continues to avoid any moves by the Law Society to take action against him and recover compensation awarded to his clients.
The case of Murray, and the Law Society’s apparently haphazard pursuit of complaints against him clearly provided fertile ground for difficult questions of Yelland, who has personally signed off on many of the communications to clients who were involved with the former solicitor. Diary of Injustice featured an in depth report on the Law Society’s involvement in the Murray case in an earlier article HERE
In a long, rambling statement attacking the BBC Scotland programme, the Law Society of Scotland made no mention as to why Mr Yelland refused to appear, nor did the Society explain why the one man who can be linked to many of the complaints made against Scottish solicitors which have done significant damage to the image of the profession, did not appear or give an account of his charge over regulation of, and standards in Scotland’s legal profession in the past two decades.
Diary of Injustice has reported on the BBC’s investigation into self regulation of the Scottish legal profession in previous articles here: Lawyers Behaving Badly - a window into the world of lawyers regulating themselves
61 comments:
Would have been nice to see him walk off air after being asked about the suicide case..
When I was in business, myself & my colleagues had to be accountable to our clients and apart from it being good manners the law society of scotland are there to protect the public and considering the number of complaints and the mere fact there has been a program made by the BBC this character should have been made to appear on the show.
they seem a very sinister lot and you deffo have the goods on them with your writing!
Obviously he would have looked as empty as the other one the Law Society put up to front their claim to be an effective regulator.
I must say your coverage of this bbc shoot has been very good!
I am not criticising the Lawyers Behaving Badly show but you have helped fill in many of the blanks the Law Society seem to have been worried about being aired on television.
Alas I fear Mr Yelland will no longer be a "little known figure"!
A Lord Gill moment for the Law Society?
Seems transparency is not welcomed by the profession or the judiciary..
Self regulation rewards criminality, they are all professional criminals masquerading as a profession. They can sue clients and clients cannot sue them it is little wonder they are corrupt. How can such an imbalance of power be tolerated?
Your blog is a very frightening indictment of the Scottish legal system.
Funny how lawyers like to dish the dirt on everyone and keep saying how great are but when they have to face questions about their brethren all bets are off and hatches battened down!
Sorry to hear about the guy in Oban I hope his family somehow obtained justice although I am guessing not given what I see you have written about this Legal Defence Union mob.
Self regulation is a safety net to keep lawyers in their jobs who should be in prison. Self regulation by its nature is a criminal doctrine. This system has been designed and stacked against the public. It is out of date, out of order and must end. These criminals cannot keep policing themselves because they will never protect clients. They use them to make their living and dump them.
After the BBC have exposed corruption by the Law Society of Scotland and their SSDT, it is now time for John Swinney MSP to take the bull by the horns to make sure there is a Public Enquiry set up as soon as possible because his colleague Kenny MacAskill, being a self confessed Law Society man, has no appetite to look out for the victims of crooked Scottish lawyers.
Carole Ford's stand in for Phil Yelland did not work very well so easy to conclude the man himself would not have faired much better
What has Philip Yelland got to hide by refusing to speak with the BBC?
Philip Yelland will only be forced into explaining his conduct and the 'close association' the Law Society have with the SSDT and SLCC to a Public Inquiry. Only then will we truly find out how widespread and endemic this corruption goes?
Anonymous said...
Obviously he would have looked as empty as the other one the Law Society put up to front their claim to be an effective regulator.
I must say your coverage of this bbc shoot has been very good!
I am not criticising the Lawyers Behaving Badly show but you have helped fill in many of the blanks the Law Society seem to have been worried about being aired on television.
21 January 2014 21:51
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember in their Press Release the Law Society of Scotland said that they had been working with the BBC over the past few months?
Well, what this means is the Law Society of Scotland has been interfering with, objecting to and obfuscating at every turn to try to water down the central finding of the BBC's thorough Investigation, which is that serious corruption is going on with the Law Society of Scotland at the centre of it?
Very good report on Mr Yelland's absence although today the Law Society appear to be more concernedwith the fact someone has posted recent comments on your blog relating to an alleged investigation of Andrew Penman by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
I have been told the Law Society are asking staff at the SLCC be questioned and the origin of the leak ascertained which would appear to confirm there is a complaint and the SLCC are investigating.
I look forward to reading more on this one as it is very clear this same Mr Penman is one of the solicitors who the Law Society should have acted on decisively when they had the opportunity to do so.
A bit like asking the FSA why it twiddled its thumbs while the RBS and HBOS burned and not getting the man in charge to account for said thumb twiddling.
The FSA's boss at the time Turner had to face the cameras and even the de-knighted Crosby appeared at Westminster so why did Yelland and any explanation of his position/duties manage to escape from reference?
Mr Yelland's absence and his importance should have been included in the show.
No prizes for guessing the name of the Glasgow law firm who the victim was passed onto only to be turned into a case of suicide.Now that I have read your earlier posts about the Master Policy also not surprised the Oban story did not make it to the press.Shocking.
The only reason the Beeb made this programme was because it could no longer be seen to ignore information on this blog and others like it - available for many years - and which has long since provided facts which would justify dozens of such programmes.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the next one.
@ 22 January 2014 14:23
Any information on this should be emailed to Diary of Injustice or passed to a newspaper ...
@ 22 January 2014 15:27
Only so much can be included in an investigative programme with a 30 minute airtime allocation ... and remember it has to be in a presentable format so an audience can understand it .. and this includes people who may not yet have had any contact with solicitors or the justice system on a regulatory or complaints basis ...
'I have been told the Law Society are asking staff at the SLCC be questioned and the origin of the leak ascertained which would appear to confirm there is a complaint and the SLCC are investigating'
So, this is what they men when they said the would work together?
The detail and sheer length (not a criticism) of your latest on Mr Yelland seems to suggest you are correct about the time limit and what subjects made it to air.
At least we have you to turn to for the remainder of the detail and I have to say you fill this role exceptionally well.
Someone said earlier "it is now time for John Swinney MSP to take the bull by the horns to make sure there is a Public Enquiry set up as soon as possible"
Whoever you are you must be joking.
Do you actually read this blog or just punt out a line without thinking about it?
If there is something I have learned from reading this blog over the past few years it is this;
Mr Swinney and the SNP have been in power since 2007.The current mess of the SLCC is down to MacAskill.
So what makes you think the nats will ever hold a fair enquiry on the antics of solicitors regulating themselves when it is clear a certain section of Scottish society is making a tidy profit from ripping off the rest of us in the justice system.
In any case what have public enquiries or royal commissions ever done for Scotland other than hurl millions at lawyers in legal fees and see to it certain judges and civil servants receive ill deserved public honours.
For every multi million pound public enquiry held in Scotland from Piper Alpha to helicopter crashes to negligence in hospitals to deaths in custody or wrongful convictions I guarantee you ten years later there is no evidence whatsoever to show any change for the better or lessons learned in whatever the inquiry concluded.
Oil rig accidents will happen,helicopters do crash(often,and mostly due to sloppy maintenance or some director not wanting to pay for a replacement part @ £12.50+VAT which may have saved 15 people),unnecessary deaths happen in hospitals every day due to negligence or whatever,deaths in custody happen all the time,and the courts are full of wrongful convictions because the judges are far too cosy with prosecutors and then someone else will say "Oh we need a public enquiry" at a cost of another few million will eventually conclude lessons should be learned etc and then it all happens over again.
Throwing public money at an enquiry just to delay headlines or the forced changes that come with headlines in the press is just a ploy to deflect blame away from politicians in office at the time and a way for the justice system to ingratiate itself to the wider world in some 2 year long enquiry ending in a 2000 page report which hardly anyone bothers to read and changes nothing.
You all know what I am saying is the truth and as far as I am concerned anyone who says otherwise is just a complete fantasist.
The SLCC,Penman and the Law Society must be hammering the comments section today after all that was posted earlier!
From what I have heard of the BBC this programme of theirs has hit the mark in some quarters hence all the shouting from the Law Society SLCC and SLAB
Ford was praised in legal circles by who?
According to one of her own chums at the LSoS she make a complete hash of it.
The Law Society of Scotland's self justifying propaganda that everything they do is done properly has now got a very hollow ring to it now that the BBC have shone the light of truth on the Law Society's wicked ways.
One of the areas of concern for the police to investigate hundreds of cases are the notorious Law Society of Scotland 'Sifting Panels', which they used as another tool of the Law Society of Scotland to rule out valid complaints against crooked lawyers?
In other words, these Sifting Panels were used as a false way to justify them getting rid of valid complaints against crooked lawyers, which they could not otherwise do?
Thereby, reducing the number of and seriousness of complaints made by the Client Victim against the crooked Scottish lawyer?
This filtering process is unlawful and typical of how far from the law of the land that the Law Society of Scotland have been allowed to distance themselves from and because they are never scrutinised, the result of this over the years is that they end up making their own rules/laws to suit their own agenda?
I doubt the Law Society are calling for any of the remaining SLCC staff to be questioned as none there will leak much other than leaking back to the Law Society which was common enough when I was there and then tried to put the blame on others if information slipped out.This is one of the reasons Cherbi's blog is banned from all but one pc in the SLCC office to prevent anyone getting ideas about telling all.
I believe you already know about the ban as the information was released to you some time back.
Wonder if they monitor us at home too?What say folks?Do we live in an SNP run Police state or what!
Poor Law Society and all those trying to keep it a secret about crooked lawyers.Now the beeb did the reporting its all over the airwaves and hopefully people will start to listen they should avoid Scottish lawyers like the plague!
Strange how they can charge and prosecute crooked lawyers in England but not in Scotland look at this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543437/Lawyer-stole-210-000-making-beneficiary-clients-wills-stealing-money-estates.html
Lawyer 'made himself the beneficiary of vulnerable clients' wills in plan to steal £210,000 from their estates'
Keith Webber, 67, gained trust of four 'vulnerable' clients, court hears
He allegedly wrote himself into a will and obtained cash 'gifts' from them
Victims include his own sister-in-law and her husband, prosecutors claim
Webber denies fraud, forgery and theft at Bristol Crown Court
By Kieran Corcoran 21 January 2014
A crooked probate lawyer stole £210,000 by writing himself into his clients' wills, charging inflating fees and convincing them to give him large cash 'gifts', a court heard.
Keith Webber, 67, gained the trust of four 'elderly and vulnerable people' - including his own sister-in-law - who made him sole executor of their wills and trusted him implicitly.
But he then used a variety of methods to steal their money, including exaggerating his fees and persuading them to sign over assets into his name, Bristol Crown Court heard.
Prosecutors claim that in one case he made himself the main beneficiary of a will, and in another continued taking his client's money even after she had died.
For one ploy he turned against his own family to empty his sister-in-law’s account, while on another he claimed to be in a relationship with his victim to avert suspicion, a jury was told.
Webber denies four counts of fraud by abuse of position, one of forgery and another of theft at Bristol Crown Court.
Rupert Lowe, prosecuting, said: 'These elderly and vulnerable people trusted him because he was a very professional and proper person and they believed he was honest.
'But instead of looking after their affairs he actually found ways to help himself to their money. He would persuade, or deceive, them into making him large gifts, tens of thousands of pounds.
'Sometimes it would be in the form of exaggerated fees from his work, sometimes it the form of generous gifts which they suddenly wanted to make.
'He would also have them sign assets over to him, he would hang on to money from accounts he would receive and pocket money due to them.
'After their deaths he would continue to charge, grossly inflated fees from so-called work. In one case he altered the main beneficiary of a will so he would inherit all her money.
'He engaged in acts of dishonesty and deceiving exploitation on elderly and vulnerable people to enrich himself.'
The court heard how Webber ran a business known as Will Power, later changed to KEW Wills, where he managed wills and powers of attorney.
But it was claimed that he abused his powers with a number of clients, including his sister-in-law, Esther Larn, her husband David, and two women, Audrey Jarvis and Vera Costan.
Webber’s alleged deception began in September 2009 when Mr and Mrs Larn moved to his home town of Chard, Somerset, to live in sheltered accommodation.
The court was told that within six months Webber had convinced his sister-in-law to revoke any powers another sister, Margaret, had over the couple, and give them to him.
As a result Webber gained complete control over their estate and all monetary matters.
It was claimed he would use the couple’s bank account to write large cheques payable to his wife Joan - Esther’s sister - in order to make them look like gifts.
At one point the couple were allegedly tricked into handing over £36,000, before another £25,404 was taken to cover Webber's 'fees'.
Mr Lowe told the court that a will written in 2009 only listed 'clothes' being due to Mr Webber, with his wife in line to inherit a quarter of their estate.
But by the end of 2010, when both had died, Webber had stolen more than £77,000 from them and inflated his wife’s claim to half of the estate, the jury was told.
'It is not often you get given gifts of over £36,000 when they had only wanted to leave him clothes just a year before,' Mr Lowe told the jury.
He added: 'The fees represented a continuation of his abuse of his position.
'Once you add that to the petrol he was claiming, and the £36,000 of ‘gifts’, that is already over £68,000 in a 13 month period.
'It works out at £4,700 a month, it is a cash cow for Mr Webber.'
Webber even continued to steal after the couple’s deaths, withdrawing money from their accounts with their debit cards just hours after widower Mr Larn passed away.
The court also heard that Webber abused another client, Audrey Jarvis, and made regular trips to see her in Surbiton, Surrey.
Prosecuters said he encouraged her to sign over a power of attorney, then wrote 'quite substantial cheques' to himself totalling £11,500, it is claimed.
When questioned about the motive for this money he claimed the pair were 'spiritually close' and, despite his embarrassment, she had insisted he took them as gifts.
Webber began to empty Mrs Jarvis’s bank accounts, cashed in her £35,000 Prudential policy, her £32,000 Friend’s Life policy and £25,000 of Premium Bonds, prosecutors claim.
The court heard that when Webber realised Mrs Jarvis was dying he rang up her bank and asked for £1,000 to be transferred to him, in a 'last throw of the dice'.
Mr Lowe said: 'Audrey is about to die so this is the last throw of the dice for Mr Webber as far as his power of attorney is concerned. He helps himself to as much as he possibly can.'
Webber denies Fraud by abuse of position in relation to power of attorney between September 20 2009 and October 2010 and fraud by abuse of position as sole executor of a will between October 9 2010 and March 2011 in relation to David and Esther Larn.
He also denies fraud by abuse of position in relation to power of attorney between July 13 2011 and October 20 2011, and fraud by abuse of position as sole executor of a will between October 2010 March 2011 in relation to Audrey Jarvis.
He pleaded not guilty to forgery of a will between December 3 2012 and March 6 2012, and theft on February 14 2012, of Vera Costan.
The trial continues.
Yes it is interesting how often this guy's name crops up in complaints about lawyers that seem to get nowhere
should have been called lawyers behaving like robbers
Also first time I have read this Manchester Uni report on the Master Policy,could have done with this awhile back so thanks.
Amused to learn of the censorship of your blog at the SLCC.
Are the poor dears worried they will be put off thwarting complaints against their colleagues?
Any word yet on who will be in charge of the Public Inquiry?
Anonymous said...
I doubt the Law Society are calling for any of the remaining SLCC staff to be questioned as none there will leak much other than leaking back to the Law Society which was common enough when I was there and then tried to put the blame on others if information slipped out.This is one of the reasons Cherbi's blog is banned from all but one pc in the SLCC office to prevent anyone getting ideas about telling all.
I believe you already know about the ban as the information was released to you some time back.
Wonder if they monitor us at home too?What say folks?Do we live in an SNP run Police state or what!
22 January 2014 21:29
//////////////////////////////////////
As they say, the truth is now out and try as they might the Law Society of Scotland cannot fool the Scottish Public anymore?
It is only a matter of time before Law Society of Scotland staff at Drumsheugh Gardens and the SLCC who have a conscience and cannot sleep at night because of what they know, whistleblow on them to say enough is enough this is not acceptable in Scotland?
The only television interviews with the Law Society's Director of Regulation are of him saying that the Law Society are doing a great job?
Now that the truth has been courageously revealed by the BBC, that corruption is endemic at the Law Society of Scotland, I am sure that the Police will be very interested about the consistent lies been told to deceive the Scottish Public from the point of view of securing a conviction?
If you look at the Law Society of Scotland's Management Team
http://www.lawscot.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are/senior-management-team
You will see that Philip Yelland is the only continuous member of the Law Society of Scotland for the past 24 years and has seen off all other Office Holders in that time?
Therefore, it could be said that Philip Yelland IS the Law Society of Scotland and that having been there for such a long time in the same Regulation role that he has been instrumental in moulding the Law Society of Scotland into it's present state?
My God, to be worrying when that fateful chap is coming to your door?
Anonymous said...
From what I have heard of the BBC this programme of theirs has hit the mark in some quarters hence all the shouting from the Law Society SLCC and SLAB
22 January 2014 19:23
%%%%%%%%%%
Not so much touching a nerve, more like exposing a festering sore?
Given what you have wrote, I would say the biggest mistake the Law Society made on the programme was refusal to allow Mr Yelland to be interviewed.
As someone else said this is a Lord Gill moment for the Law Society.Far too much to hide and possibly far too much to protect.
Will the Law Society of Scotland be broken apart now or will this wait until after the Public Enquiry?
It would be interesting to see the nature of the threats made against the BBC, which moderated the scope and degree of exposure of the Law Society's criminal conduct in the Lawyers Behaving Badly Investigation?
Does the Law Society of Scotland perpetrate this corruption on their own or do they get anyone to act on their behalf (so that they can try to argue their way out of it if they get caught in the act - which is exactly what the BBC Team have done in this instance?)
Anonymous said...
When I was in business, myself & my colleagues had to be accountable to our clients and apart from it being good manners the law society of scotland are there to protect the public and considering the number of complaints and the mere fact there has been a program made by the BBC this character should have been made to appear on the show.
21 January 2014 20:50
()))()()()()()()())),)(),),)(),)()()(
We are not talking about a normal organisation. This is an organisation which views the Scottish Public as the enemy and have allowed known guilty crooked Scottish lawyers to continue taking advantage of the Scottish Public, when they should have been locked away in jail to protect the Scottish Public?
They have been allowed for many years to completely disregard the law and have embarked upon a Cash-Grab at the expense of the Scottish Public?
Many of these criminals remain at large and continue to be involved in crime and they are being facilitated in these endeavours by a criminal element within the Law Society of Scotland?
The sooner the Law Society give up the criminals they are harbouring the better, so that the guilty parties are put in jail where they belong?
The comedy Douglas Mill was caught criticising the BBC Programme: Lawyers Behaving Badly for wait for it......wasting public money by investigating crooked Scottish Lawyers and the corrupt Scottish Regulatory Bodies, apparently in a vain attempt to somehow stick up for his old friends who are on a trip to the jail, this time without a 'get out of jail free card'?
Do you think he means that the BBC Investigation programme was a waste of public money but that the £Millions of pounds defrauded from the public by crooked Scottish lawyers over the years is not a waste of money?
Or maybe he means that the £Millions of pounds ripped away from the Scottish Public is money that these crooked Scottish lawyers deserve to take?
Not to mention the untold damage, stress and suicide meted out to the victims of crooked Scottish lawyers?
But then again, it is not possible for a normal thinking person to get inside the head of a Scottish lawyer?
Yelland v Cherbi live on bbc now I would pay to see that one!
I wonder how Yelland would do under interrogation by someone as good at the regulation thing as YOU!
Having searched for Thomas Hugh Murray's name on the SSDT'S search page, it is revealed that there WAS a Conduct complaint made against him on behalf of his victim but that the Law Society of Scotland withdrew the complaint against Thomas Hugh Murray?
This is highly irregular and maybe the police should look into the reasons surrounding the Law Society's decision not to prosecute their member?
There is maybe more to this than has been revealed by the BBC?
Of course, there is the obvious parallel with Lord Lucan who fled justice to a foreign land to evade the authorities but there is another notorious character imagined in a film recently, which may also be ironically accurate?
I wonder how many suicides have there been as a result of letting crooked Scottish lawyers off Scot Free?
This may be something that those responsible at the Law Society or working for the Law Society should reflect upon, before handing themselves into the nearest police station?
Anonymous said...
I wonder how many suicides have there been as a result of letting crooked Scottish lawyers off Scot Free?
This may be something that those responsible at the Law Society or working for the Law Society should reflect upon, before handing themselves into the nearest police station?
28 January 2014 23:40
-------------------------------
Was the phrase 'Scot-Free' coined by someone from Scotland who's crooked Scottish lawyer was saved by their self serving system?
The fact that Philip Yelland has not made any statement since the BBC's fantastic exposure of blatant corruption, does this suggest that Philip Yelland is in serious trouble and is up to his chin in the smelly stuff?
Especially, as Director of Regulation he is ultimately responsible under law?
Any news on when the Public Inquiry is going to start?
One area the Public Inquiry will be interested in is the notorious unlawful Law Society of Scotland 'Sifting Panel'?
This unlawful 'Sifting Panel' is a commonly used tool to get-rid-of serious complaints against their crooked Scottish lawyer's, which they have not managed to get-rid-of any other way?
Could this be why Philip Yelland is in hiding?
All the Public Inquiry will have to do is to compare the Decisions reached by the so-called 'Sifting Panel' (if indeed it ever existed) against the law in order to find out the truth (i.e. decisions were made-up to let the crooked Scottish lawyer off Scot Free)?
Was Carole Ford informed of this scam or have they been keeping her in the dark?
With the first cold snap of the Winter approaching all of the victims of crooked Scottish lawyers should make their way round to the Lair of the Sith in Drumsheugh Gardens, for they are sure to get some radiating heat off of their shredder which must be glowing-red by this time?
Two Scottish lawyers were rowing with each other in the queue at Greggs today?
One was adamant that Alex Salmond should order an immediate Public Enquiry?
Whilst the other lawyer was insistent that the police should be called in to catch the culprits?
You would think that after the BBC's revelations about Scottish Regulatory corruption that they now know who to go after for an easy prosecution, which would be music to the ears of the thousands of long-suffering victims of crooked Scottish lawyers?
Remember that behind the Law Society of Scotland's protection of known crooked Scottish lawyers is their desperation to protect their own bank funds, to make sure valid Client claims which would automatically follow against their Guarantee Fund and the Master Policy are snuffed-out?
Ergo, the Law Society of Scotland have been ruining members of the Public's right to justice and their right to receive compensation for the damage caused by their crooked Scottish lawyer?
Top marks to the BBC for exposing this corruption
The Law Society of Scotland have now been exposed by the State Broadcaster for being the criminal organisation that they are?
I was walking past Drumsheugh Gardens earlier today and it looks like the police have a couple of undercover cop cars staking-out the joint, obviously looking out for Public Enemy No. 1 for a quick arrest?
Post a Comment