Friday, January 09, 2015

DODGE GUIDE FOR ADVOCATES: ‘Independent’ legal regulator launches guide for Faculty of Advocates - on how to deal with allegations of poor legal services & dodgy court performances

Regulator's guide for advocates written by advocates.. ADVOCATES who face complaints over poor provision of legal services & sub par performances in Scotland’s courts now have a new weapon in dealing with complaints - in the form of a ‘help guide’ on how to deal with dissatisfied clients.

The nine page booklet, issued yesterday by Scotland’s ‘independent’ legal regulator – The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) - was developed with the co-operation and input of the advocates own lobby group - the Faculty of Advocates.

SLCC CEO Matthew Vickers welcomed the guide, saying: “Improving standards of complaint handling and service is an important part of our work. We’re pleased to see the interest shown by members of the Faculty of Advocates in the guide we’ve produced.”

The guide, published below, covers six basic principles of complaints handling and three steps to effective complaint handling.  It also includes an example of a model complaint handling process for Scotland’s highly paid, mega earning advocates.

However the guide’s references to transparency & fairness appear far from the reality of how the legal profession deal with complaints against its own in the environment of self regulation – where on occasion, advocates have used law firms to threaten clients who make complaints about their conduct. In at least one instance known to the media, an advocate even used Police Officers in an attempt to escape a complaint.

The guide states: At the outset, the approach to the complainer should be empathetic and not defensive - a defensive response will usually prove counter-productive. Try to see the complaint from the client's perspective and engage openly, demonstrating an understanding of the issues which the complainer has raised. Bear in mind that it may have been difficult for the complainer to raise the matter by way of a complaint, particularly where they are emotionally involved.

It then goes on to claim: To achieve and maintain credibility it is important that the complaints process is transparent and fair. Complaints should be dealt with in a consistent approach which is, at the same time, proportionate to the complaint. The response to the complaint should be based on the facts surrounding the matter complained of rather than on assumptions. Each individual advocate is responsible for handling any complaint against him or her, but communications may be passed through Counsel's Clerk. Guidance can also be obtained from a Faculty Office Bearer or from the Dean's Secretariat.

A list of ‘dos and don'ts’ to advocates on the run from complaints contain the following suggestions:

• Be alert to any expression of dissatisfaction which should be regarded as a complaint, or at least a potential complaint, and treat it as such. Remember that this could be received by your Clerk or a member of FSL staff dealing with an outstanding fee.

• Engage with the client to understand the issue at hand. Do this through your Clerk if you wish to maintain some distance.

• Be empathetic with the complainer, be aware of the impact which the issue may have had on the complainer, including the emotional impact of bringing the matter to your attention.

• Don't avoid the problem or hope that it will go away; always respond to a complaint.

• Don't delay dealing with the complaint - the last thing you want is an additional complaint about concerns not being dealt with in good time.

Finally, don't ignore complaints from third parties - the SLCC can accept complaints from parties other than a practitioner's own clients and you need to treat these as seriously as a complaint from your own client, although it is important to bear in mind any confidentiality issues

Commenting on the guide, former MSP and now Vice-Dean of Faculty Gordon Jackson QC said: “As the SLCC indicated in its most recent annual report, there are very few complaints about advocates. As a result, it is helpful to have been able to produce a guidance document for those members who may not have had to deal with a complaint," said Gordon Jackson, QC, Vice-Dean of Faculty.

"The Faculty is and always has been committed to promoting the provision by its members of the highest quality legal services. It is important that the public should know that if an advocate receives a complaint, it will be handled properly and in accordance with standards approved by the SLCC. We have therefore been pleased, in the course of revising our complaints and disciplinary procedures, also to have worked very closely with the SLCC to prepare guidance for our members on complaints handling."

Vice Dean Mr Jackson - who once lost a £50K claim for slipping on ice covered pavements on Johnston Terrace in Edinburgh after temporary judge Gordon Reid QC said he had no relevant case against Edinburgh City Council – also sought to reassure the public over how complaints about advocates are handled.

He said: “The Faculty is and always has been committed to promoting the provision by its members of the highest quality legal services. It is important that the public should know that if an advocate receives a complaint, it will be handled properly and in accordance with standards approved by the SLCC.”

The guide was formally launched at an event on 8 January at the Faculty of Advocates by the SLCC’s Head of Oversight and the Dean of Faculty.  The guide follows a previous guide for solicitors.  Both guides are available on the SLCC’s website at Guidance and Advice for Practitioners pages.

Have you had a bad experience with an advocate, or made a complaint about an advocate and found the regulation system failed to deal with it? Tell us about it at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

lol @Gordon Jackson ice slip!

Anonymous said...

The best advice to the public is stay away from the legal profession as far as possible. Frequent liars and theives is what they actually are.

Anonymous said...

The how to screw clients guide for Advocates as issued by the SLCC

It doesnt include any advice on extorting money from clients for duff cases known to be well duff before they are even heard.

Anonymous said...

SLCC CEO Matthew Vickers welcomed the guide, saying: “Improving standards of complaint handling and service is an important part of our work. We’re pleased to see the interest shown by members of the Faculty of Advocates in the guide we’ve produced.”
================================================
Improving standards of complaint handling and service is an illusion, all the SLCC do is protect criminals called lawyers. Anyone who believes SLCC bulshit is foolish indeed. The SLCC and Law Society simply make the complaints handling process invisible to the public which is why self regulation is absolutley corrupt. I dont believe lawyer bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Haha what a laugh these dumb ass Scottish lawyers who dress up in pantomime suits and wigs come along and charge you guys the earth for staged laughs in courts headed by another set of jerks in robes!

Hasn't anyone in Scotland got any sense?

If someone came up to me dressed up in all that weird sh*t I'd call the cops and say there is a perv on the loose!so why do the Scots hand over all their cash to these weirdos??

Kinda mad huh when you look at it from the outside!

Anonymous said...

Due to the way the current system is corrupted, is it true that you cannot do anything about your advocate deliberately sabotaging your case in favour of a third party?

Anonymous said...

Who is the legal eagle and the £22K house?

Anonymous said...

At the outset, the approach to the complainer should be empathetic and not defensive - a defensive response will usually prove counter-productive. Try to see the complaint from the client's perspective and engage openly, demonstrating an understanding of the issues which the complainer has raised. Bear in mind that it may have been difficult for the complainer to raise the matter by way of a complaint, particularly where they are emotionally involved.

It then goes on to claim: To achieve and maintain credibility it is important that the complaints process is transparent and fair. Complaints should be dealt with in a consistent approach which is, at the same time, proportionate to the complaint. The response to the complaint should be based on the facts surrounding the matter complained of rather than on assumptions. Each individual advocate is responsible for handling any complaint against him or her, but communications may be passed through Counsel's Clerk. Guidance can also be obtained from a Faculty Office Bearer or from the Dean's Secretariat.
--------------------------------
A crock of S**t. There is no complaints system and these goons are deluding themselves although that is no surprise given they are all probably suffering from Cognitive Dissonance. Complain about any lawyer to the SLCC ot Law Society and see how far you get, bunch of liars they are.

Anonymous said...

This lot like spending money to convince the public they have a chance against a rogue lawyer when the reality is totally different. I wonder how many of your readers agree that there is no complaints system, but the SLCC and Law Society keep hammering the message that the public are protected. They are liars. Their filing systems will be filled with complaints they have never done anything about and they know it but can never admit it.

Anonymous said...

Not much of a guide is it if they wrote it themselves?

Anyway given all you have written about how lawyers beat the system every time I imagine advocates do exactly the same and then some.

Anonymous said...

SLCC CEO Matthew Vickers welcomed the guide, saying: “Improving standards of complaint handling and service is an important part of our work. ============Beggars belief, they do not investigate complaints, never have and never will.

Anonymous said...

"It is important that the public should know that if an advocate receives a complaint, it will be handled properly and in accordance with standards approved by the SLCC.”

The SLCC? Standards? - who does Mr Jackson think he's kidding!

Anonymous said...

Finally, don't ignore complaints from third parties - the SLCC can accept complaints from parties other than a practitioner's own clients and you need to treat these as seriously as a complaint from your own client, although it is important to bear in mind any confidentiality issues.
----------------------------------
Yes right SLCC you take complaints seriously by burying them. How many readers have had their complaint taken seriously by the SLCC or the Law Society. These zoomers believe their own lies that is how out of touch the are.
Confidentiality issues, that is right they do not release the names of rogue lawyers. The SLCC is the Law Society, these bums are kidding noone but themselves.

Anonymous said...

Most advocates are as slippery as lawyers so there is no surprise they deal with complaints the same way the lawyers deal with them - as in bin time or let's extract as much as we can get from clients before dumping them.

Anonymous said...

Been there done that put a complaint in to the SLCC about advocate after Faculty of Advocates stood up for him and then our solicitor left us in the lurch after we found out he tried to stop our complaint about our advocate going ahead so our solicitor stood up for the advocate and we never told our solicitor we made a complaint.
Complaints are fixed from start to finish and so is the slcc.

Anonymous said...

To achieve and maintain credibility it is important that the complaints process is transparent and fair.
==================================
Crazy fucker who wrote this. Where are psychiatric services? They are clearly deluded. Transparency and self regulation are mutually exclusive. Legal services in Scotland is based on cooercion. People are forced to trust these scumbags and their protection racket because it is a monopoly for lawyers and a monopoly on controlling the complaints process.
They are as transparent as the Judges and are truly a law unto themselves.

Anonymous said...

• Be alert to any expression of dissatisfaction which should be regarded as a complaint, or at least a potential complaint, and treat it as such. Remember that this could be received by your Clerk or a member of FSL staff dealing with an outstanding fee.

• Engage with the client to understand the issue at hand. Do this through your Clerk if you wish to maintain some distance.

• Be empathetic with the complainer, be aware of the impact which the issue may have had on the complainer, including the emotional impact of bringing the matter to your attention.

Who but a lawyer comes up with this unbelievable junk??

Hands up anyone who believes advocates are going to empathise with clients after they screwed them over or ruined their case!

Just completely UNbelievable!

Good thing you published it because now we know how they are going to treat us!

Anonymous said...

When my case was lost, I spoke to my Counsel in the corridor outside and he said, 'I was not minded to argue the case in your favour as it competed with the court's interest and I serve the court first, not you'


Flabbergasted!

Anonymous said...

My lawyer told me any complaint about the advocate had to go through him then found out it was all a pack of lies just to delay and now the slcc refused to look at it

Anonymous said...

It is a matter of record that the so called 'pro bono' unit of the faculty of advocates - aka the free representation unit - received 5 requests for assistance with appeals to the supreme court and described this as "burdensome".

Some workload!

No surprise then that no party litigant has ever managed to present their case to the supreme court in London.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

When my case was lost, I spoke to my Counsel in the corridor outside and he said, 'I was not minded to argue the case in your favour as it competed with the court's interest and I serve the court first, not you'

Flabbergasted!
----------------------------------
The court is a business controlled by business interests and why not when there is no complaints system against these legalized theives. Nothing any client would say would surprise me.

Anonymous said...

Realistically what are the chances of having a complaint against an advocate properly investigated if the lawyers already control the entire process?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
At the outset, the approach to the complainer should be empathetic and not defensive - a defensive response will usually prove counter-productive. Try to see the complaint from the client's perspective and engage openly, demonstrating an understanding of the issues which the complainer has raised. Bear in mind that it may have been difficult for the complainer to raise the matter by way of a complaint, particularly where they are emotionally involved.

It then goes on to claim: To achieve and maintain credibility it is important that the complaints process is transparent and fair. Complaints should be dealt with in a consistent approach which is, at the same time, proportionate to the complaint. The response to the complaint should be based on the facts surrounding the matter complained of rather than on assumptions. Each individual advocate is responsible for handling any complaint against him or her, but communications may be passed through Counsel's Clerk. Guidance can also be obtained from a Faculty Office Bearer or from the Dean's Secretariat.
--------------------------------
A crock of S**t. There is no complaints system and these goons are deluding themselves although that is no surprise given they are all probably suffering from Cognitive Dissonance. Complain about any lawyer to the SLCC ot Law Society and see how far you get, bunch of liars they are.

10 January 2015 at 11:29
===========================

The clue is in the use of words people..

They laugh to themselves at our expense about them using the word 'Complainer', when every other jurisdiction uses the word 'Complainant'

Just goes to show the utter contempt they have for the Client that they refer to them as 'Complainers' or 'frequent flyers' or 'thorns in our sides'

Make no mistake, the SLCC is the Law Society of Scotland and Matthew Vickers is a fully paid up Law Society of Scotland stooge?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Finally, don't ignore complaints from third parties - the SLCC can accept complaints from parties other than a practitioner's own clients and you need to treat these as seriously as a complaint from your own client, although it is important to bear in mind any confidentiality issues.
----------------------------------
Yes right SLCC you take complaints seriously by burying them. How many readers have had their complaint taken seriously by the SLCC or the Law Society. These zoomers believe their own lies that is how out of touch the are.
Confidentiality issues, that is right they do not release the names of rogue lawyers. The SLCC is the Law Society, these bums are kidding noone but themselves.

11 January 2015 at 13:23
------------------------------------------

The Hierarchy of Responsibilities of Scottish Advocates

A Scottish Advocate's:

First Duty is to the Court

Second Duty is to the Faculty of Advocates

Third Duty is to the Edinburgh Agents (Instructing Solicitor)

Fourth Duty is to his opposing Advocate

Fifth Duty is to Your lawyer

Six Duty is to YOU.


So, you can see that complaints against Scottish Advocates are totally pointless, as your Scottish Advocate can act against your case and against your best interests if those interests compete with any of the interests of those higher up the hierarchy?

In short, a Scottish court has no interest whatsoever in your rights or best interests, it is only interested in partial self interest and if your complaint has an aspect of it concerning these partial self interests then you have zero chance of success even if you have a prime facie case with 100% evidence not in dispute?

Therefore this tripe from the SLCC (Law Society of Scotland) is unlawful propaganda designed to influence the Public's perception to believe that there is a complaints process, when of course there is none and the LALP Act 2007 was designed so that the Law Society of Scotland's power base is preserved so that they could continue to keep crooked lawyers continuing to cheat and steal from the Scottish Public with impunity, instead of being locked up in jail?

Anonymous said...

Prior to Christmas I was summoned to attend a consultation with my Legal Team in Edinburgh. It was a turbulent consultation with my Counsel denying what was said by them at previous consultations and generally being awkward?

The Consultation ended and we departed the office and prepared to go our separate ways into the night?

I wished my Counsel a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and got this astonishing reply?

'You cannot talk to me directly unless it is through your lawyer and your lawyers Edinburgh Agent (lawyer)?


Good to see that Scottish Advocates are full of festive spirit and good will to all men?

Anonymous said...

Can you please clarify something that is hard for me to understand?

Why is it in Scotland that when you need to go to court you go to a lawyer and then your lawyer HAS to go to another lawyer (called an Edinburgh Agent) who then gets a Scottish Counsel to handle your case?

Why the extra lawyer?

Is this just a job for the boys scam so that they can empty your bank account or is it to deliberately add another level of Scottish lawyer so that when your case is messed up it is made more difficult to identify which one of them is liable?

Or both?