Sunday, March 01, 2015

TO CATCH A BRIEF: It takes Eleven years for Law Society’s self regulation client ‘safety net’ to catch up with banned solicitor who left trail of destruction, dishonesty & negligence

Jail for banned lawyer John O’Donnell A BANNED SOLICITOR who posed as a colleague to get round a ban on practising law has been found guilty of breach of interdict and jailed for three months - after leaving an ELEVEN year trail of destroyed clients & legal problems across Scotland.

John Gerard O’Donnell (64) – who also appeared in a special BBC Scotland investigation – Lawyers Behaving Badly – was finally sentenced by Lord Stewart at the Court of Session on Friday. However, O’Donnell was freed for a period of two weeks to enable him to decide if he wants to appeal.

The custodial sentence comes after a catalogue of evidence heard during court proceedings revealed many examples where the Law Society of Scotland system of self regulation – lawyers investigating themselves – fails to protect the public.

Among many examples of unacceptable behaviour, the court heard solicitor John O’Donnell took the identity of another solicitor - Colin Davidson - in order to dodge a five year ban imposed by the Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2009 after they found O’Donnell guilty of professional misconduct for a third time.

Despite the ban - O'Donnell started working for a firm on Glasgow's south side - operated by solicitor Colin Davidson. O'Donnell impersonated Mr Davidson, using his name to sign legal documents and posed as Davidson to clients. O’Donnell also gave instructions to an advocate – giving the impression that he was allowed to work as a solicitor.

However, things fell apart in the scam - when John O’Donnell’s real identity was discovered – after a client visited Diary of Injustice and read of media investigations into the solicitor’s murky past.

Representing O’Donnell at the hearing, defence advocate Richard Murphy told Lord Stewart that O'Donnell had suffered in the past from mental illness. He added: "He never intended to return to practice but he ended up doing more than what he intended to do." Mr Murphy also told the court that O'Donnell would never return to practising law, and offered to pay a fine as an alternative to a prison sentence.

However, the judge Lord Stewart said he had no option but to send O'Donnell to prison. Lord Stewart said: "In order to punish Mr O'Donnell and to deter others, the court must impose a custodial sentence.”

One of O’Donnell’s victims – widow Elizabeth Campbell (71) – only discovered O’Donnell was not Colin Davidson after she visited Diary of Injustice law blog and saw his picture along with media investigations into O’Donnell’s decade long trail of client scams.

Mrs Campbell had been referred to John O’Donnell by Gilbert S Anderson – who worked at Hamilton Citizens Advice Bureau - in a position funded by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

Letters obtained by the Sunday Mail newspaper & Diary of Injustice - revealed Anderson sent O’Donnell a handwritten note saying “possibly in my mind a cash for Colin £3000” indicating he hoped O’Donnell would be able to scam fees from the elderly widow.

Diary of Injustice reported on the case involving John O’Donnell & Gilbert Anderson, here : Crooked lawyer impersonates DEAD COLLEAGUE to lure clients in fraud scam. Gilbert Anderson was the subject of further investigations, reported here: BREACH OF TRUST : Citizens Advice investigates taxpayer funded Hamilton CAB lawyer

Clients of O’Donnell discovered his identity on DOI – Lord Stewart. The opinion issued by Lord Stewart during mid-November stated: “Mrs Campbell went to the Hamilton Citizens’ Advice Bureau.  At the time she was “very upset, depressed and undergoing therapy”.  She was referred from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau to Colin Davidson, solicitor, at Davidson Fraser & Co, solicitors, at the Clarkston Road office.  From 29 March 2011 to 6 October 2011 Elizabeth Campbell put her affairs in the hands of Colin Davidson at Davidson Fraser & Co—or so she thought.  On 13 April 2012 Mrs Campbell discovered from an internet website—perhaps the website called “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland” http://petercherbi.blogspot.co.uk/ —that the man she thought was Colin Davidson was in fact John O’Donnell.”

“…when she first went to 311 Clarkston Road Mrs Campbell met a male who introduced himself as “Colin Davidson”, a male whom she thereafter—and without being corrected—called “Mr Davidson”.  She identified John Gerard O’Donnell in court as the man whom she had known as “Colin Davidson”.  She had “lots” of meetings with the pseudo Davidson; and she has documented specifically meeting him at the office on 29 March, 4 April, 13 April, 21 April, 28 April, 8 June, 5 July, 7 July, 20 July, 21 July and 19 September 2011.  There were moments of Feydeau-like farce, for example when the real Colin Davidson appeared or when Mrs Campbell heard other people, including the secretary, referring to the pseudo Davidson as “John”.  The explanation given to Mrs Campbell by Mr O’Donnell was that it was “a family thing”: he said that some people knew him as John but he was Colin Davidson.”

MOTION TO COVER: QC who represented Law Society was approached at party over O’Donnell deal:

Elaine Motion QC – head of Edinburgh law firm Balfour & Manson who represented the Law Society of Scotland in the Court of Session against John G O’Donnell, also represented the Law Society during hearings against O’Donnell at the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. Prior to one earlier attempt to prosecute O’Donnell at the tribunal, O’Donnell’s lawyer tried to broker a secret deal with the QC at a Law Society Christmas party in 2009.

A ‘limited account’ of the 2009 meeting between QC Elaine Motion & solicitor Steven Gold - who acted for O’Donnell – was documented in the SSDT’s findings relating to a complaint against O’Donnell -published here Council of the Law Society of Scotland v John G O'Donnell

Page three of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland v John G O'Donnell states : “In December 2009, Elaine Motion and Steven Gold, Solicitor were both at a Law Society’s Christmas Drinks Party. They were involved in a conversation with regard to the health and welfare of the Respondent. Mr Gold made representations on behalf of the Respondent to Elaine Motion to the effect that it would be humane and advantageous to everyone involved if a way could be found to allow the Respondent to hand in his practising certificate without having to undergo the ordeal and expense of an appearance before the Tribunal. Elaine Motion was sympathetic to the representations but indicated that she would require to discuss matters with the Law Society of Scotland who would make the decision.

John O’Donnell has featured in numerous media reports relating to 21 negligence claims made against him by clients, and continuing investigations into his conduct for over a decade which the Law Society of Scotland was unable, or unwilling to prevent.

LAWYERS BEHAVING BADLY:

An investigation by BBC’s Lawyers Behaving Badly featured the case of John O’Donnell, and went on to reveal the startling differences in how dishonesty in the Scottish legal profession is treated lightly compared to England & Wales – where dishonesty is automatically a striking off offence.

Alistair Cockburn, Chair, Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. Featured in the investigation was the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) Chairman’s attitude towards solicitors accused of dishonesty in their representation of clients legal affairs. During the programme, it became clear that dishonesty among lawyers in Scotland is treated less severely, compared to how English regulators treat dishonesty.

Sam Poling asks: The Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal hears all serious conduct cases against solicitors. Last year they struck off nine of them. But is this robust enough?

Alistair Cockburn Chairman, Scottish solicitors discipline tribunal replies: It is robust in the sense that it doesn’t just give convictions on the basis that somebody’s brought before us charged by the Law Society.  We are mindful, particularly when reminded of the lay members, of a duty to the public.

One is always concerned when there is deception but you can have a situation where solicitors simply lose their place. They make false representations in order to improve their client’s position, not necessarily their own. And you would take that into account in deciding what the penalty was but there’s no suggestion that such conduct wasn’t deemed to be professional as conduct. 

Sam Poling: So there are levels of dishonesty which sit comfortably with you, satisfactorily with you?

Alistair Cockburn: No it’s not a question of saying sitting comfortably with me.  I’ve told you…

Sam Poling: OK that you would accept?

Alistair Cockburn: No I’d be concerned on any occasion that a solicitor was guilty of any form of dishonesty.  One has to assess the extent to which anyone suffered in consequence of that dishonesty.  You have to take into consideration the likelihood of re-offending and then take a decision.  But you make it sound as if it’s commonplace.  It isn’t.  Normally dishonesty will result in striking-off.

English QC’s agree ‘dishonesty’ is a striking off offence. The SSDT Chairman’s comments on dishonesty compared starkly with the comments of the English QC’s who said dishonesty was undoubtedly a striking off offence.

Andrew Hopper QC: “I cant get my head round borrowing in this context. Somebody explain to me how you can borrow something without anyone knowing about it. That’s just taking.”

Andrew Boon Professor of Law, City University, London: “They actually say in the judgement they would have struck him off but the client hadn't complained.”

Andrew Hopper QC “We’re dealing with a case of dishonesty and that affects the reputation of the profession. I would have expected this to result in striking off.”

Andrew Boon, Professor of Law: “The critical thing is the risk factor. If somebody has been dishonest once the likelihood is that they are going to be dishonest again unless they’re stopped.”

As Sam Poling went on to report: “but he [O’Donnell] wasn't stopped. The tribunal simply restricted his license so that he had to work under the supervision of another solicitor.”

If you have poor experiences with the legal profession in Scotland or feel you are the victim of a rogue solicitor, tell the media. Diary of Injustice would like to hear from you. Email us more details via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

39 comments:

  1. He gets 3 months after ruining peoples lives for 11 years and the judge is okay with this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. DOUBLE STANDARDS

    Can someone explain to me how the Law Society of Scotland's Lawyer Elaine Motion can facilitate O'Donnell to continue causing crime against the Scottish Public and then years later can prosecute the same person she was involved with initially to end up giving this man a trivial and pathetic sentence, where after a month he will be back out continuing to cause crime, once again facilitated by the a law Society of Scotland?

    There can be no doubt that the Law Society of Scotland operate as if the law does not exist and routinely help crooked lawyers continue their campaign of harassment against the Scottish People?

    This outcome shows that until the police move in and arrest the criminal element within the Law Society of Scotland then this type of case will continue to happen with untold harm and damage falling on the People of Scotland?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well done all.

    I read the bbc Lawyers behaving badly link and want to ask how the hell do lawyers already found guilty of professional misconduct still receive legal aid money?

    This is NOT ON!

    ReplyDelete
  4. You didn't half rip the guts out of o'Donnell with this one and look at the pile of people involved in protecting him since 2009!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andrew Boon, Professor of Law: “The critical thing is the risk factor. If somebody has been dishonest once the likelihood is that they are going to be dishonest again unless they’re stopped.”

    Not in Scotland.Here lawyers can be dishonest as they like and all they get is a slap on the wrist and a promotion and a Law Society party with mince pies and qc

    ReplyDelete
  6. Absolutely ridiculous it takes eleven years to stop someone and those lame excuses from his lawyer!
    The judge would do better reading the Sunday Mail and your blog instead of listening to the lying Law Society club

    ReplyDelete
  7. The part about the Citizens Advice guy hoping for £3000 for the crooked lawyer is just disgusting.

    “possibly in my mind a cash for Colin £3000”

    Really horrible and I can think of some other words to describe this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why did the State authorities not prosecute this Scottish lawyer in a criminal court and sentence him to 5 or 6 years in jail due to the seriousness of his crimes against the Scottish Public?

    Is it because the State wanted to help the Law Society of Scotland out of a jam, by allowing them to use their own lawyer, who was instrumental in allowing this Scottish lawyer to receive a Law Society sponsored SSDT soft sanction which allowed him to continue his campaign of victim accumulation and more importantly to fill his pockets brim full of cash under false pretences in the process?

    How can this be lawful in Scotland, where even after being caught red-handed, they still manage to give their member the lightest possible treatment and shortest sentence so that it is under the two year determining sentence which now means that after a year this guy could be back to his old tricks again with the help of his friends at the Law Society of Scotland?

    ReplyDelete
  9. there are a few others who should be joining him in jail

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lawyers pretending to be dead lawyers - whatever next!

    Is that Gilbert Anderson still working for Citizens Advice? and was anything done about him?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The ll years were spent covering up for everyone else and the dodgy ssdt dishonesty squad..

    ReplyDelete
  12. 3 months is a sick joke - and effectively translates into 6 weeks if 'good behaviour' is taken into account.

    This for 11 years of misery, untold stress and financial hardship caused to countless trusting members of the Public.

    As for Elaine Motion QC she should never have allowed herself to be party to a discussion with O'Donnell's solicitor at an informal occasion - that alone merits a disciplinary investigation.

    All this just proves what DOI and others have long said of the Scottish justice system....it is rotten to the core.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Quite a lot of detail here how did he manage to get away with it for so long?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Self regulation means looking after your pals. I would not report any lawyer to the SLCC or Law Society because they are far worse than the O'Donnells of this corrupt so called legal world.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Representing O’Donnell at the hearing, defence advocate Richard Murphy told Lord Stewart that O'Donnell had suffered in the past from mental illness. He added: "He never intended to return to practice but he ended up doing more than what he intended to do." Mr Murphy also told the court that O'Donnell would never return to practising law, and offered to pay a fine as an alternative to a prison sentence.
    ====================================
    A lawyer's mental illness always augments his bank balance. They all have mental illness when the S**t hits the fan.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Who would have thought it?

    If you happen to live in Scotland and forced into hiring a Scottish lawyer, you are treated like a Second-Class-Citizen by the Law Society of Scotland, their cronies at the SLCC & SSDT as well as the Scottish State Regime as compared to the the rest of the UK Regulators?

    What have the People of Scotland done to deserve such a biased and self-serving coven of crooks?

    ReplyDelete
  17. He was jailed and then freed to give him time to decide on an appeal???
    What a crap justice system in Scotland!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. You are correct- much better to tell the newspapers about a rogue lawyer then make a complaint to the Law Society

    ReplyDelete
  19. Another Law Society of Scotland 'keep it in-house' prosecution to end up in a soft sanction for their colleague, instead of prosecution by the police and criminal court like an ordinary class member of the public?

    ReplyDelete
  20. wonder how the judge felt about having to read out she found it on your blog haha .. good one Peter you are now part of court history (again!)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anyone who has ever been to a hearing of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal will know the entire process is false.It is just a performance for the legal profession who use it as an excuse to say they have a regulation process.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Let me begin by saying I work for a Citizens Advice Bureau based in Scotland.

    I accept the need for you to report on Gilbert Anderson's part in the O'Donnell case.
    However I would like to make it clear to your readers there are many of us in CAB who do not have relationships with lawyers or the legal profession at large.
    Mr Anderson's position at Hamilton CAB is part of a scheme funded by the Scottish Legal Aid Board as you are well aware.
    However there are some of us within CAB who were of the opinion accepting funds from Scottish Legal Aid would always lead to trouble and the wrong people behind a desk.As you can see it has.
    Unfortunately there are those with responsibility for funding who are quite happy with this arrangement despite the interference it has brought to CAB offices and CAS (Citizens Advice Scotland).
    The Legal Aid funding has also been used to politicise Citizens Advice.I am sure you will be aware of this.Some have raised this point only to be silenced.
    The Legal Aid funding has also allowed local law firms and bar associations to treat our offices as an extension of their law firm's branding.
    Some CAB offices on the East cost are now little more than secretarial outpost for local law firms and their partners who breeze in and out of CAB with lists of clients to go after.
    You are probably going to ask me if referral fees are being paid by solicitors to individuals in CAS/CAB.
    The answer is Yes.
    Just last week an elderly couple visited our office and asked why they received an invitation from a local law firm to attend their office after being given the impression Citizens Advice were assisting with their case.
    I did not speak to the couple personally.
    After the couple left with a reassurance' which was in fact a lie our manager took us aside one by one and warned us not to admit our office has a connection with a certain law firm and any inquiries of a similar nature must be handled by the manager directly.
    I am sure you will know what to do with this information.You may publish this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ 4 March 2015 at 14:51

    Thanks for the feedback.

    DOI is aware of and has been looking into certain links between local CAB offices and law firms along the lines you describe.

    Please contact DOI or colleagues in the media with more information on your concerns ...

    ReplyDelete
  24. What a relief to see someone from Citizens Advice speaking up at last!

    ReplyDelete
  25. The only way to avoid these crooks is not to use lawyers>I havent bothered using a lawyer once and I am still alive to tell the tale so follow my example and do same!Why throw money at a thief in an office when you can put it to better use yourself!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous said...
    Lawyers pretending to be dead lawyers - whatever next!

    Is that Gilbert Anderson still working for Citizens Advice? and was anything done about him?

    2 March 2015 at 11:23
    ----------------------------------
    Maybe something to do with the Law Society of Scotland sending in their own lawyer Elaine Motion to try to sweep this whole sorry scandal under the carpet, so that all of the participants in the crime get the softest of touches?

    Only in Scotland?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous said...
    3 months is a sick joke - and effectively translates into 6 weeks if 'good behaviour' is taken into account.

    This for 11 years of misery, untold stress and financial hardship caused to countless trusting members of the Public.

    As for Elaine Motion QC she should never have allowed herself to be party to a discussion with O'Donnell's solicitor at an informal occasion - that alone merits a disciplinary investigation.

    All this just proves what DOI and others have long said of the Scottish justice system....it is rotten to the core.

    2 March 2015 at 15:03
    ::::::::::::£££££::::::::::::::

    Surely that would mean the Law Society of Scotland taking action against their own lawyer who the Law Society of Scotland Instructed in the first place?

    It would be Comedy Gold if it wasn't so unlawful?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous said...
    Quite a lot of detail here how did he manage to get away with it for so long?

    2 March 2015 at 20:08
    ££££££££££££££££££££££

    Consider the circumstances:-

    1) You have the Law Society of Scotland who have demonstrated over many years that they have a sadistic hatred of the Scottish Public

    2) You have the Law Society of Scotland who love to keep crooked lawyers continuing to cause harm and to continue filling their boots with £50 Notes

    1) + 2) = The Law Society of Scotland are above the law and too powerful to be answerable for their actions

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous said...
    Let me begin by saying I work for a Citizens Advice Bureau based in Scotland.

    I accept the need for you to report on Gilbert Anderson's part in the O'Donnell case.
    However I would like to make it clear to your readers there are many of us in CAB who do not have relationships with lawyers or the legal profession at large.
    Mr Anderson's position at Hamilton CAB is part of a scheme funded by the Scottish Legal Aid Board as you are well aware.
    However there are some of us within CAB who were of the opinion accepting funds from Scottish Legal Aid would always lead to trouble and the wrong people behind a desk.As you can see it has.
    Unfortunately there are those with responsibility for funding who are quite happy with this arrangement despite the interference it has brought to CAB offices and CAS (Citizens Advice Scotland).
    The Legal Aid funding has also been used to politicise Citizens Advice.I am sure you will be aware of this.Some have raised this point only to be silenced.
    The Legal Aid funding has also allowed local law firms and bar associations to treat our offices as an extension of their law firm's branding.
    Some CAB offices on the East cost are now little more than secretarial outpost for local law firms and their partners who breeze in and out of CAB with lists of clients to go after.
    You are probably going to ask me if referral fees are being paid by solicitors to individuals in CAS/CAB.
    The answer is Yes.
    Just last week an elderly couple visited our office and asked why they received an invitation from a local law firm to attend their office after being given the impression Citizens Advice were assisting with their case.
    I did not speak to the couple personally.
    After the couple left with a reassurance' which was in fact a lie our manager took us aside one by one and warned us not to admit our office has a connection with a certain law firm and any inquiries of a similar nature must be handled by the manager directly.
    I am sure you will know what to do with this information.You may publish this comment.

    4 March 2015 at 14:51
    *******************************************
    *******************************************

    Look what happens when the courageous public service DOI journalists pull the loose thread of the Law Society of Scotland's conceited woven corrupt practices to fill the wallets of Scottish lawyers, whilst at the same time allowing them to harass, steal and cheat trusting members of the Scottish Public?

    At the time this case was exposed by the DOI, the suspicion was that the Law Society of Scotland had secretly infected and coerced the CAB into joining their corrupt plan in pursuit of power and cash where they would deceive and cheat the Scottish Public and sell their soul for bundles of cash?

    ReplyDelete
  30. How some Office holders of the Law Society of Scotland avoided jail over this scandal beggars belief?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Notice that the Law Society's personal lawyer Elaine Motion was happy to cut an out of court deal with O'Donnell's lawyer in order that he should cheat justice?

    O'Donnell's lawyer stated that this out of court, tawdry deal would be 'advantageous to everyone involved', everyone that is except the Scottish Public?

    Given that the Law Society's lawyer was involved in facilitating this man's continuing rampant campaign of crookedry against the Scottish Public, then most people would think that it was a clear conflict of interest to have the same person continuing to representing Law Society's interests in trying to get O'Donnell off with the lightest of sentences?

    Why was the Law Society's lawyer even allowed to tale a Private In-House prosecution of O'Donnell at the Court of Session (Civil Court), when it is clear that O'Donnell should have been prosecuted by the Crown Office and jailed for many years?

    Is this not defeating the ends of justice?

    Once again, another example of one rule for Scottish lawyers and another for everyone else?

    Wholly corrupt!

    ReplyDelete
  32. This case reveals the shocking levers of power that the Law Society of Scotland wield in Scotland, where they can cut deals with the Crown Office so that the Law Society of Scotland cab completely usurp the justice system by being allowed to privately prosecute their crooked Scottish lawyer member, when of course they should have been exposed to the full force of the law?

    This amounts to a two-tiered-justice-system in Scotland, where crooked Scottish lawyers can effectively 'opt-out' of the prosecutorial system?

    This scandal also means that the Law Society of Scotland are a private organisation who are allowed to get preferential treatment for their members?

    And finally, it defiantly draws the Scottish Public's attention to the fact that there is no real justice being operated and there is zero deterrent to prevent more crooked Scottisg lawyers behaving in a similar unlawful manner?

    ReplyDelete
  33. How many O'Donnells left in the legal profession now?Hundreds!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bit concerned to hear the money hungry lawyers inveigled their way into Citizens Advice.
    How did this happen and who is responsible for this being allowed to go on?
    We need answers and an investigation of these abuses of public trust.

    The elderly widow who was directed to O'Donnell by Hamilton Cab did not expect to be sent to a corrupt solicitor after pleading for help at a CAB office hence need for proper investigation and not the usual putting everything to bed Scottish idea of an investigation we usually get from their friends in high places including the Scottish Government and useless Scottish Legal Aid Board who are giving public money to these scam artists.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I wonder how many years O'Donnell would have been sent down for if he was prosecuted in a Criminal Court for his career of crime?

    ReplyDelete
  36. We apparently have two types of law in Scotland?

    One law is for Scottish lawyers?

    And the other law is for everyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I wonder what O'Donnell's lawyer whispered into the Law Society of Scotland's lawyer Elaine Motion this time?

    'Goney cut a sweet deal wee the Crown Office to no let ma client be prosacutit in a criminal court, coz he wull get sent tae the Bar-L fur 10 Year'

    'Ma client as a crookit lawyer deserves instead to be treated differently to everyone els, to be given a wee pat on the bum by the Law Society's lawyer so as fur them to try to cover it up and to minimise any bad publicity and minimise claims against them for aiding and abetting criminals'

    ReplyDelete
  38. That was a right result by my old mukka Elaine Motion. Means I get to evade justice yet again and can be assured that the Law Society will have a new job lined-up for me when I get out of the Health Resort, so that I can continue to fill my very deep Scottish lawyers pockets when I continue where I left off.

    Afteral, it is only fair as I am a Scottish lawyer

    ReplyDelete
  39. This case highlights the reality with the Law Society of Scotland who are allowed to prosecute their own lawyer (read to let him off with a slap on the back) instead of being prosecuted by the State Authorities like everyone else?

    What does this message give out to the rest of the Scottish Public, where Scottish lawyers can commit any crime of their choosing knowing that they have a 95% chance of getting off Scot Free?

    It just confirms that the Law Society of Scotland acts as though it is a criminal organisation, actively involved in protecting criminals within their club, so that they can continue to cause as much damage and harm to as many people as possible, whilst stealing cash from unsuspecting members of the Scottish Public?

    So much for the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, which the Law Society of Scotland continue to breach but nothing ever seems to get done about it?

    It's as if the Scottish Crown Office have decided that the Law Society of Scotland are above the law and that they allow them to continually commit these crimes against the Scottish Public with impunity?

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.