Levy & Mcrae - the Glasgow based law firm who were recently found to have constructed an illegal fee agreement along with Advocate Jonathan Brown - in a case involving A&E Investments & businessman Robert Kidd - are now accused of appointing a trustee - Kenneth Pattullo of insolvancy practitioners Begbies Traynor - who hindered and excluded creditors attempts to secure consideration of legitimate debts including legal fees & legal funding of Mr Nolan’s case.
Files now handed to the ongoing media investigation - reveal that two remaining issues of the long running Nolan v Advance case - relate to the deliberate exclusion of creditors in the sequestrations of Mr Nolan and his partner - after their £6m action against Advance Construction - heard by Lord Woolman in the Court of Session - scored a victory on principle - but lost out on legal expenses.
The documents - released by the Accountant in Bankruptcy - reveal creditors - including solicitors who provided legal services, and the providers of significant legal funding which enabled Mr Nolan to go into the Court of Session and secure the win against Advance Construction - still await a consideration of sums due to them from the sequestrations.
However, further enquiries and responses from the Accountant in Bankruptcy now indicate the Trustee Kenneth Pattullo - who was directly appointed by Levy and Mcrae at Hamilton Sheriff Court in the sequestrations of both Mr Nolan and his partner - did not take account of either of the significant debts – which comprise most of Mr Nolan’s legal fees and legal expenses.
Instead – records show that Mr Pattullo and others at Begbies Traynor – did not reply to enquiries from legitimate creditors and solicitors - and focused on selling off a portfolio of properties including substantial plots of land in Wishaw, and a valuable farm - to pay Mr Pattullo’s own fees, and an offshore vulture fund known as Promontoria – which bought additional debt incurred by Mr Nolan and his partner from the secured lender – The Clydesdale Bank.
In a response to a request for review - Alex Reid of the AIB commented "Representation has been received highlighting that neither Mr Nolan nor his solicitor [redacted] received notification of any meeting of creditors. In accordance with Section 21A of the Act the trustee must give notice to every creditor known to him, at the time, whether or not they intend to hold a creditor meeting..."
However, it can be revealed the AIB have previously been presented with copies of confidential emails from law firms to Mr Pattullo’s office - showing multiple requests by lawyers to contact Begbies Traynor to establish communication and a consideration of positions regarding legal fees, and legal funding provided to Mr Nolan for his court case.
The new evidence raises questions of why Begbies Traynor did not acknowledge creditors attempts to communicate with the Trustee while there are multiple references within the released files to legal fees geneerated by Levy & Mcrae for their client - Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd.
The files also slow some Edinburgh based law firms who did act on behalf of Mr Nolan were included in the sequestration - while other law firms, creditors and providers of legal funding do not appear.
With over 1000 documents released by the AIB currently being studied - it can now be reported that the two remaining creditors have now secured significant backing to present their case for consideration of debts and repayment to the Accountant in Bankruptcy – who are expected to remain involved in this process for some time.
Within the sequestration files released by the Accountant in Bankruptcy, legal fees for Advance Construction appear to amount to around £212K – which is in the form of legal fees the company are alleged to have paid Levy & Mcrae, and Gavin Walker & Roddy Dunlop QC.
However – legal sources close to the case have raised questions over the ‘small’ sum of £212K - given the length of the case and lawyers who represented Advance - such as Peter Watson, Jamie Robb and Ewen Campbell, with the addition of Gavin Walker QC and Roddy Dunlop - the current Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.
To compare – the legal fees of around £212K used by Advance Construction to sequestrate both Mr Nolan and his partner are much less than Mr Nolan's legal costs – which are estimated at up to £500,000.
Mr Nolan’s legal fees including include hiring of construction site plant & equipment, use of multiple law firms including Biggart Baillie, Tods Murray, and John Campbell QC, advocate Craig Murray, solicitor Gavin McPhail and additional inspection and survey reports on contaminated material which culminated in Advance Construction being forced to admit in court they had dumped the contaminated material illegally on Mr Nolan’s land.
And, while it is a matter of record the pursuer - Mr Nolan - won his action against Advance Construction in the Court of Session - his own QC - John Campbell - inexplicably withdrew his own client's claim for legal expenses - which would have seen most or all of the legal fees and legal funding paid by the defenders had Mr Campbell returned to court for the expenses hearing.
A law accountant who has studied the case is of the view that had Mr Nolan’s counsel - John Campbell QC made the usual court claim for legal expenses against Advance Construction – Lord Woolman or any judge hearing the exepnses claim would have granted much of Mr Nolan’s legal expenses along with his victory in the case against the defenders – Advance Construction.
However, Mr Campbell did not follow through with instructions to appear at an expenses hearing and lodge a full claim for Mr Nolan’s legal expenses.
Mr Campbell has not offered any explanation for his refusal to lodge an expenses claim for his client’s winning case, and instead was found to have withdrew much of the claim without any instruction to do so.
A full report on how John Campbell QC reduced his own client’s financial claim almost to zero and without any instruction or consultation - can be found here: CASHBACK QC: Legal regulator’s files reveal senior QC reduced claim without instructions, withheld key evidence & witnesses including Cabinet Secretary from Court of Session case
A further investigation of John Campbell’s involvement in the case revealed the senior QC signed a no-win-no-fee agreement with his client Mr Nolan – then went back on it’s terms after Campbell refused to appear for the expenses hearing and the case had concluded.
A full investigation of Campbell’s fee scam and the Faculty of Advocates role in concealing undeclared cash payments to Campbell is reported in further detail here: CASH ADVOCATE: £9K consultations & £75K meetings - Edinburgh Quaich Project Charity QC Boss scammed clients on no-win-no-fee deal - Faculty of Advocates files reveal extent of Advocates cash-for-fees HMRC tax dodge scam
Ironically, during discussions with his clients - John Campbell himself described Levy and Mcrae as "untrustworthy" and
An earlier investigation revealed Trustee Kenneth Pattullo of Begbies Traynor was directly appointed by Levy and Mcrae at Hamilton Sheriff Court in the sequestrations of both Mr Nolan and his partner.
Documents previously published revealed Levy & Mcrae altered the appointment of the AIB in the sequestration of Mr Nolan’s partner to that of their own preferred choice – Mr Pattullo.
Now – fresh questions over the conduct of the Accountant in Bankruptcy have now been raised after documents revealed Levy & Mcrae requested the AIB become Trustee in the sequestration of Mr Nolan – in Jamuary 2015.
The letter and petition, published here: Petition to appoint AIB January 2015 Jamie Robb Levy Mcrae reveals Jamie Robb of Levy & Mcrae asked the AIB to assume the position of Trustee in their sequestration of Mr Nolan in January 2015.
Records then show Levy & Mcrae went on to appoint Mr Pattullo in the same unusual manner in Mr Nolan’s sequestration – and the AIB did nothing in either case – despite having the power to intervene and call a meeting of all interested parties including debtors & creditors alike to find a way forward after the court’s alteration of an appointment where the court did not appear have the power to act.
A previous report published material which questioned the court’s improper use of powers to switch out Trustees in the sequestration of Mr Nolan and his partner from the Accoutant in Bankrutpcy to Mr Pattullo, here: FIRE SALE: AIB face sequestration probe as files reveal Trustee was paid £20K by vulture fund to sell home & firebombed farm five days after targeted attack on couple at centre of land case linked to top Scots judges, an ex-Sheriff, an asbestos dumping building company & law firm Levy and Mcrae
And, an earlier investigation revealed Scotland’s top judge – Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) – deliberately concealed his own links to this case while he faced questions in the Scottish Parliament from MSP Alex Neil and members of the Public Petitions Committee, here: JUDGE OF CONFLICT: Top judge who attacked MSPs over judicial interests probe – failed to declare relative’s role at law firm targeting MSP’s constituents’ home & farm in £6M court case linked to Lord Malcolm conflict of interest scandal
Nolan v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd [2014] CSOH 4 CA132/11 is the same case which exposed serious conflicts of interest in Scotland’s judiciary – notably where Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell QC) failed to disclose on multiple occasions - the fact Lord Malcolm’s son – Ewen Campell - represented the defenders in the same court.
The investigation into the Lord Malcolm case of serious failures to declare conflicts of interest, is reported in further detail here: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Papers lodged at Holyrood judicial interests register probe reveal Court of Session judge heard case eight times - where his son acted as solicitor for the defenders.
LAW FIRM AT CENTRE OF ILLEGAL FEES & CONFLICT OF INTEREST CASE:
Earlier this year, Levy & Mcrae - the same law firm who masterminded the Advance Construction case in the Court of Session, and the resulting sequestrations of the pursuers in a case now linked to Scotland's top judge Lord Carloway - were found by Lord Doherty to have constructed an illegal fee agreement after a ruling by Lord Doherty.
Levy & McRae had billed their former client - businessman Robert Kidd the seven-figure sum after representing him in a successful damages claim against another firm of solicitors.
The £19 million settlement figure was paid to Levy & Mcrae - after the firm deducted it's legal fees which included £3million of “success fees” for winning the case.
Mr Kidd then launched a legal action against Levy & McRae, claiming it should not have charged him the success fees on top of its legal fees.
The case was heard by Lord Doherty - who later ruled the fees were “illegal and unenforceable”,
The judge said the fees breached a legal principle designed to prevent conflict of interest when a lawyer has a financial stake in the amount a client gets in compensation.
The £6million sum included a basic fee to Levy & McRae of £2.1million plus a success fee of £1.89million while advocate Jonathan Brown was paid £1.1million plus a success fee of £990,000.
Lord Doherty said: “The substance of what was agreed was that the defenders’ (Levy & McRae and Jonathan Brown) remuneration would increase in proportion to the sum recovered.
“That gave them a clear pecuniary interest – a stake – in the amount recovered.
“In my view, that pecuniary interest created a conflict of interest which gave rise to an unacceptable risk that the proper administration of justice might be obstructed.”
Levy and Mcrae have lodged an appeal against the decision by Lord Doherty.
The full judgment from Lord Donerty is here: A&E Investments Robert Kidd v Levy & Mcrae and Jonathan Brown - Lord Doherty 2020csoh14
And more a recent report in the Sunday Post Top advocate found guilty of “unsatisfactory professional conduct” after charging client extra fee of almost £1 million reports the Advocate Jonathan Brown was found guilty of “unsatisfactory professional conduct” after charging his client - Robert Kidd an extra fee of almost £1 million for representing him in a successful £20m damages action against another firm of solicitors.
The case arose after Mr Kidd hired lawyers, including Mr Brown, to sue his former solicitors over the sale of his oil firm ITS. Mr Kidd said Mr Brown had failed to tell their QC Andrew Smith details of the arrangement which brought his total bill to £2m.
The Sunday Post further reported that the Faculty of Advocates Disciplinary Committee has since made a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct against Mr Brown, ruling that he should have informed Andrew Smith QC that he had an arrangement with Mr Kidd by which his fee increased according to the amount recovered from the opponent, and how the amount on which the success fee was measured should be calculated.
Mr Kidd’s spokesman Jim Diamond told the Sunday Post: “We’re very happy with the decision of unsatisfactory professional misconduct. We want the success fee repaid in full plus interest at 8%. We will also be seeking repayment of our legal fees in this matter which could amount to more than £100,000.”
Levy & Mcrae - Court papers reveal their part in Heather Capital hedge fund writ
Detailed documents submitted to the Court of Session as part of a now abandoned writ against Levy & Mcrae and their former partner Peter Watson - revealed the following acts attributed to Levy & Mcrae and Heather Capital:
[21] In the Levy Mcrae case:
On 4 January 2007, Heather Capital transferred £19 million to its client account with Levy & Mcrae (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).
On 24 January 2007, Heather Capital transferred £9.412 million to its client account with Levy & Mcrae (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).
The money was intended to be loaned to a first level SPV Westernbrook Properties Ltd (WBP) for onward lending to second level SPVs (Lord Doherty paragraph [5]).
On 9 January 2007, Levy & Mcrae transferred £19 million to a Panamanian company (Niblick) owned and controlled by Mr Levene:the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print).
By a memorandum dated 17 March 2007, Heather Capital’s auditors KPMG “identified a number of concerns relating to the documentation provided in respect of these loans”.Further work and information was required (Condescendence 5, page 13 of Levy & Mcrae reclaiming print).
On 29 March 2007, Levy & Mcrae transferred £9.142 million to Hassans, solicitors, Gibraltar, under the reference “Rosecliff Limited” (a company controlled by Mr King):the money was not therefore transferred to WBP.The transfer was undocumented and without security (Lord Doherty paragraph [5], and Condescendence 6 and 17, pages 20 and 44 of LM reclaiming print).
In April to June 2007, amounts equivalent to the loans thought to have been made to WBP (including accrued interest) were “repaid” to HC via Cannons, solicitors, Glasgow.The directors were unable to ascertain the source of these repayments (Lord Doherty paragraph [7]).
Approaches made by Heather Capital to Mr Volpe and Triay & Triay, a firm of solicitors in Gibraltar, were met with a total lack of co-operation (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]).
At a board meeting on 6 September 2007, “KPMG could not approve HC’s accounts … Santo Volpe had executed certain loans to SPV companies where non‑standard procedures had been followed which meant that inadequate security had been given for some loans … Gregory King stated that the loans to the SPVs had been repaid in full in May 2007” (Condescendence 5, page 13 of Levy & Mcrae reclaiming print).
By email to a non‑executive director of HC (Mr Bourbon) dated 7 September 2007, Mr McGarry of KPMG referred to the previous day’s board meeting, and expressed concerns about the situation.He asked for further information, namely “all possible evidence regarding the movement of monies out of Heather Capital into these SPVs and onwards to whatever purpose the funds were applied – ie, sight of bank statements, payment/remittance instructions, certified extracts from solicitors clients’ money accounts etc”.(It should be noted that, contrary to HC’s averment in Condescendence 5 at page 13C‑D of Levy & Mcrae reclaiming print, the email did not restrict the inquiries requested to “explaining what information was required from Santo Volpe”:the request was much broader.)
In October 2007 the non‑executive directors of HC met with the Isle of Man Financial Services Commission (FSC) to discuss “the issues” (Lord Doherty paragraph [8]).A director also disclosed the suspicious activity and Mr Volpe’s obstruction to the Isle of Man Financial Crime Unit (FCU), who said they would investigate (Condescendence 5 page 14 of LM reclaiming print).The auditors KPMG carried out an additional full scope audit.
By letter dated 18 October 2007, FSC wrote to the directors of HC setting out further information which they required.
By letter dated 26 November 2007 Mr King advised the HC board that “some sort of fraud had been deliberately introduced with invalid land registry details on a number of the loans”.He stated that he had applied pressure to Mr Volpe and Mr Cannon, whereupon there had been “full repayment of the loans with relevant interest” which meant that “investors were secure”.
On 17 December 2007, KPMG signed the accounts and added a completion note using language such as “The risk of fraud increased to high as a result of the documentation issues surrounding the SPVs, where some form of fraud appeared to have been attempted”.In their audit report opinion, they stated “We have been unable to verify where funds advanced to the SPVs were invested.In addition, we were supplied with false documentation in relation to the SPVs which appears to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead us.Given these loans were repaid in the period, we consider that the effect of this is not so material and pervasive that we are unable to form an opinion on the financial statements [opting instead for express qualifications that loan and security documentation could not be validated] … There is uncertainty as to where the monies lent to the [SPVs] were then subsequently invested … Investigations continue to determine what party (or parties) were involved in and were accountable for these events, and whether any action should be taken against them …” (Lord Doherty paragraph [9]).
By letter to HC dated 4 January 2008, KPMG gave serious warnings about their inability to validate loan and security documentation, and lack of evidence as to the purpose for which the money advanced to SPVs was applied.In their words:
“ … Our report is designed to … avoid weaknesses that could lead to material loss or misstatement. However, it is your obligation to take the actions needed to remedy those weaknesses and should you fail to do so we shall not be held responsible if loss or misstatement occurs as a result … [Having explained the disappearance of the funds and the apparent repayments, on which legal advice had been received, KPMG warned] … these matters are extremely serious … an attempted fraud appears to have been perpetrated … We would recommend that the Board continue their investigation into this matter and formally document their decision as to whether or not to inform the criminal justice authorities …”
A full copy of a court opinion detailing these and other claims with regards to a further case against Burness Paull LLB - which coincidently also collapsed earlier last year - can be viewed here: Court of Session allows proof against Levy & Mcrae and Burness Paull LLP in Heather Capital case as liquidators attempt to recover cash from collapsed £280m hedge fund.
You may be interested to know someone within the legal profession raised an issue about Mr Campbell's conduct which resulted in her career all but ending.
ReplyDeleteI understand there were others willing to raise similar issues and were told in no uncertain terms their claims would not be heard.
If this is not exactly your line perhaps your colleagues in the newspapers may wish to make further enquiries given there were several incidents which have left their mark on people.
The Accountant in bankruptcy is one of the most corrupt bodies in Scotland and all MSPs at the Scottish Parliament are aware of it!
ReplyDeleteIf you poll every MSP you will find every one of them has to deal with sequestration complaints and the AIB covers up each time and I know this because my own MSP is helping me with my sequestration and this horrible bunch of people at AIB office in Kilwinning Ayrshire
If I may quote your report and ask a couple of questions
ReplyDelete"Within the sequestration files released by the Accountant in Bankruptcy, legal fees for Advance Construction appear to amount to around £212K – which is in the form of legal fees the company are alleged to have paid Levy & Mcrae, and Gavin Walker & Roddy Dunlop QC."
Do I understand this correctly Levy and Mcrae ran up an account of £212,000 for Advance Construction and then went to court and sequestrated Mr Nolan for their legal fees to Advance even though Mr Nolan won his case?
Is this not a conflict of interest if a petitioner (Advance Construction) use the same law firm it owed money to, to sequestrate a person who won his case against them in court? If this is not a conflict of interest, it should be.
"However – legal sources close to the case have raised questions over the ‘small’ sum of £212K - given the length of the case and lawyers who represented Advance - such as Peter Watson, Jamie Robb and Ewen Campbell, with the addition of Gavin Walker QC and Roddy Dunlop - the current Dean of the Faculty of Advocates."
£212K for Levy and Mcrae and the others seems on the low side particularly as Roddy Dunlop and Gavin Walker are both known to charge high fees for work and would easily be £200K for counsel alone.
"To compare – the legal fees of around £212K used by Advance Construction to sequestrate both Mr Nolan and his partner are much less than Mr Nolan's legal costs – which are estimated at up to £500,000."
My thoughts exactly.
Obviously the figures for Advance Construction's alleged legal bill is now suspect and should be investigated.
It is illegal to deliberately exclude creditors from a sequestration and if the Accountant in Bankruptcy have been handed evidence of failure to communicate with creditors they have the power to act against any trustee found to have done so
ReplyDeleteFor a client such as Advance and a case as lengthy as Nolan v Advance I would have expected the defender's legal fees to be higher than the pursuer which you quote a figure of £500k.
ReplyDeleteYou appear very knowledgeable and well armed with evidence on this case Peter what else is to come?
Good article as always Peter.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the Levy and Mcrae letter and petition to the AIB you published in the article regarding Mr Nolan's sequestration was a chance to prevent what appears to be a very suspicious sequestration.
There should be an investigation of all sequestrations where Levy and Mcrae, and in particular Begbies Traynor are involved.
Oh dear
ReplyDeleteWho would ever trust Levy MCrae after judge finds their fee deal illegal and Lord Doherty's comments on Heather Capital involvement.
Are your readers aware Callum Anderson and David McKie of Levy MCrae are Alex Salmond's lawyers.
We should be suspicious now Levy MCrae claim to be looking for transparency in the Scottish Parliament inquiry on the Alex Salmond case.
They cannot have it both ways.
Not so squeaky clean after all.
Please read - https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18739158.salmond-threatened-prosecution-releases-evidence-holyrood-inquiry/
The First Minister’s legal team said they had received a letter from the Crown Office reminding them "in the strongest terms" that it would be a “criminal offence” to release certain restricted material.
Mr Salmond’s lawyer said it could have “significant implications” for the inquiry, as it hamstrung Mr Salmond’s ability to give meaningful evidence.
David McKie, of Glasgow firm Levy & McRae, said: “Our client cannot realistically therefore provide a statement or documents which are partial and piecemeal.
“Any meaningful statement necessarily will involve reference to a large amount of the material which he is not permitted to release.”
Mr McKie told MSPs earlier this month that Mr Salmond had material obtained during his criminal trial that could be relevant to their inquiry.
He said it was Mr Salmond’s “intention to make submissions on those documents as part of the wider submission he wishes to make to the committee”.
Clever write up of the facts, Peter
ReplyDelete"the resolution of two remaining issues in a controversial sequestration linked to Scotland’s top judge"
ReplyDeleteWhat a relief.
Good to to read you are sticking to the "remaining issues".
In reply to comment 12:59
ReplyDeleteNeed I say what everyone already knows?
Known for years those who hire 'a' law firm who have a larger ego than any of their clients are always guilty as sin or corrupt to the bone.
Reading your article and comments I agree the claim of £212k from Advance Construction for the sequestration appears weak and lacking credibility if this relates to their legal fees against Mr Nolan.
ReplyDeleteIt would appear much of the blame and deficit rests with John Campbell for failing to claim legal expenses but why would any solicitor or counsel who won a case then refuse to claim legal expenses for their client unless he obtained another route for his fee?
The involvement of Lord Carloway and his son which I read from your earlier report.
Did Begbies Traynor deliberately select Addleshaw Goddard knowing Alexander Sutherland worked at this firm and use their involvement as an asset to ram through the sequestration regardless of law?
Much more to this case than meets the eye.
Not too difficult to find long and well known links between Alex Salmond Levy & Mcrae and Peter Watson.
ReplyDeleteNone of the above should ever be taken seriously on their use of a soap box to howl for transparency after the kicking Salmond and his Levy & Mcrae friends have constantly given the media.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/feb/19/alexsalmond-leveson-report
'Conflict of interest' claim over Alex Salmond's Leveson lawyer
Roy Greenslade 19 Feb 2013
All manner of stories have been generated in the aftermath of the Leveson report. The latest is in Scotland where, according to a report by The Drum, one of the people advising first minister Alex Salmond on press regulation is being accused of a possible conflict of interest.
It has emerged that Peter Watson, a lawyer with the Glasgow-based firm Levy & McRae, once acted for Salmond in dealings with the Press Complaints Commission.
The complaint, against the Mail on Sunday, concerned two stories in January 2010: "Salmond and the asylum fugitive" and "Salmond faces probe over case of illegal immigrant". It was claimed that they were inaccurate. The PCC decided otherwise and the complaint was not upheld.
The Drum quotes Alistair Bonnington, the former BBC Scotland legal chief, as saying that there might be a "perception" of a conflict of interest.
Watson is one of five members of the panel that forms the Scottish Leveson implementation committee.
Levy & McRae occupies a unique position in relation to Scotland's newspapers, acting for and against titles.
On one bizarre occasion, reports The Drum, Newsquest, publisher of The Herald and Sunday Herald, found itself being asked for a right of reply by Levy & McRae over an article concerning a Levy & McRae client that had been passed for publication by a Levy & McRae lawyer.
The Drum's take on Peter Watson, Levy & Mcrae and Alex Salmond
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/02/19/questions-asked-alex-salmond-lawyer-peter-watson-over-leveson-role
Questions asked of Alex Salmond lawyer Peter Watson of Levy & McRae over Leveson role
By Gordon Young-19 February 2013
A key member of the team advising Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government on new press laws north of the border is the same lawyer who acted for the first minister in a Press Complaints Commission referral against the Mail on Sunday.
Levy & McRae's Peter Watson
As a result Scottish media sources have expressed concern that this could be perceived as a conflict of interest by some.
The issue has emerged as the Scottish Government considers the Conservative Party's plan to recognise any new press regulator via a Royal Charter which was published last week.
The Scottish Government told The Drum: "The Scottish Government set up an expert group in December to consider how the findings and recommendations of the Leveson Report could be applied in Scotland. The group, which will report later this year, may take account of this proposed draft charter as part of that work."
The setting up of this expert group was closely associated with Scotland's first minister Alex Salmond, who is thought to want tighter statutory controls of the press than the UK Government. However, industry insiders have pointed out that the expert group, which is chaired by former solicitor general Lord McCluskey, includes Peter Watson, the senior partner of law firm Levy & McRae.
They say this raises potential conflicts on a number of different levels which extend beyond Leveson, including:
* The fact that Peter Watson represented the first minister, Alex Salmond, in a Press Complaints Commission referral against the Mail on Sunday in 2010 which was not upheld.
* Peter Watson also acts for former lord advocate Elish Angiolini, who is now an independent adviser on the Scottish Government's ministerial code. She has been invited to investigate Salmond's conduct in the past. But this development means they are taking advice, in one form or another, from the same lawyer.
The fact that Watson was personally involved in the PCC case was not part of the public record. It was only confirmed last week when a spokesman for the Mail on Sunday told The Drum: “I can confirm that Peter Watson was the solicitor who dealt personally with Salmond’s embarrassing PCC complaint.”
Said Alistair Bonnington, former head of legal at BBC Scotland and an author of ‘Scots Law for Journalists’: “There is in my view bound to be a perception that Peter Watson’s participation on this ‘Scottish Leveson Implementation Committee is questionable.
“Whether it is in fact a ‘conflict of interest’ is a matter for the Law Society of Scotland and perhaps the Scottish Legal Complaints Committee.
“The test our courts apply to this kind of situation is to ask whether the general public would take the view that the decision-making process is being carried out openly and impartially. I don’t think that the public would take that view – given the number of conflicting interests represented by Levy & McRae.”
In a Freedom of Information request The Drum sought to establish whether Peter Watson had also personally offered the first minister advice when he was under investigation by Angiolini, or whether he or his firm were advising the Scottish Government on any other matters. But citing various exclusions under the terms of the act, the Government declined to answer.
Responding to the conflict of interest allegations, a spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "It is not for us to comment on others who may or may not interact with Levy & McRae, but in any event it is for a solicitor rather than a prospective client to consider issues such as possible or perceived conflicts of interests in deciding whether or not to accept work."
Pt2
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/02/19/questions-asked-alex-salmond-lawyer-peter-watson-over-leveson-role
Questions asked of Alex Salmond lawyer Peter Watson of Levy & McRae over Leveson role
By Gordon Young-19 February 2013
Law Society of Scotland guidelines on conflict of interest do make it clear that the issue is one for the solicitor as opposed to the client. However, they make a distinction between private and better informed commercial clients and include in their guidance: "Where the potential for conflict is significant you (the lawyer) must not act for both parties without the full knowledge and express consent of the clients."
Watson has faced similar questions before. As well as having a thriving criminal law practice, the firm also at one stage represented those who investigate alleged criminals, in the form of Strathclyde Police Federation, and the individual ultimately responsible for their prosecution, the lord advocate, at the same time.
The issues this poses was illustrated in the case of Steven Purcell, who appointed Levy & McRae and found himself under police investigation after quitting as the leader of Glasgow City Council in the wake of a drugs scandal.
At one point Strathclyde Police – whose officers are Levy & McRae clients – was seeking advice from the Crown Office – whose chief was a Levy & McRae client – about how a Levy & McRae client should be dealt with.
Ultimately no charges were brought in the Purcell case. Although there was no suggestion of wrongdoing, some in the legal profession expressed concern that this could be seen as a conflict of interest.
The issue also highlighted other concerns. Levy & McRae offers most of Scotland’s newspapers legal advice on what can and cannot be published.
At one stage Newsquest, publisher of The Herald and Sunday Herald, found itself in the unusual position of being asked for a right of reply by Levy & McRae over an article that had been passed for publication by a Levy & McRae representative which concerned Steven Purcell, a Levy & McRae client.
According to Bonnington this is a state of affairs that would be unacceptable in other jurisdictions: “In America, Canada and other jurisdictions practising lawyers would not act for both the media and those who make claims against the media. That would be seen as professionally improper.”
As a result a perceived conflict of interest The Herald reviewed its relationship with the firm, but reappointed it when new safeguards were put in place. It demonstrates that the firm commands considerable loyalty amongst clients.
A credo once published on the Levy & McRae website gives an insight into why this is perhaps the case:
"With a low profile we aim to keep clients off the front page and take swift and effective action where required. Being networked at the highest levels and having access to major decision makers is key to our success."
The firm did not exaggerate these links. As well as representing the first minister and his independent ministerial code adviser, Levy & McRae can also lay claim to the fact that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, is one of its former lawyers.
Peter Watson had not responded to The Drum’s request for comment at the time of writing.
Dont forget Elish Angiolini McPhilomy who was Alex Salmond and Levy & Mcrae's other friend/client who Salmond gave a job as his complaints adviser as soon as she was no longer Lord Advocate
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedrum.com/news/2010/04/28/did-scot-gov-finance-lord-advocate-angiolini-libel-action-against-media
Did Scot Gov finance Lord Advocate Angiolini libel action against media
By Staff Writer-28 April 2010
In the week that libel reform campaigners scored a victory in England, The Drum fails to get answers on whether the Scottish Government financed a libel action in Scotland on behalf of Lord Advocate.
The information is exempted from disclosure, says the Crown Office, "on the basis that it would be likely to prejudice substantially the prevention and detection of crime."
Angiolini had threatened to sue The Drum's sister title, legal magazine The Firm, for libel, and the Crown Office issued a statement to all Scottish news desks that a report in The Firm was potentially defamatory. As well as who paid Angiolini's costs, The Drum also asked how much the bill was.
The contentious article in The Firm reported criticism of the fact that nobody had been prosecuted over a case in which £13,500 was awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to Hollie Greig, a Down Syndrome child said to be the victim of a paedophile ring in Aberdeen.
It is very unusual for a Government appointee to sue the media for defamation. And, despite being the largest employer of lawyers in Scotland, the Lord Advocate chose to use a private lawyer, Peter Watson of Levy & McRae, to represent her in the action against The Firm.
Mr Watson also represents disgraced Glasgow City Council leader, Steven Purcell, who is now under police investigation. If evidence of criminal activity is found, the matter would be reported to Angiolini's department, the Crown Office.
Levy & McRae also represents several major media outlets and has links to PR firm Media House, leading some to express concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Richard Draycott, Editor of The Drum, said: "We felt it was a matter of real public interest to find out who was paying Elish Angiolini's bills. Was the magazine up against the Scottish Government or Angiolini personally? If the Scottish Government did foot the bill was that appropriate? After all, any award would have been due to her personally. Is defending the reputation of Government appointees an appropriate use of public funds?
"If she had won, she could have picked up more for damage to her reputation than the original victim did for being raped. The key issue is whether or not this sets a bad precedent. It cannot be healthy for Government officials to launch libel actions against the press, underwritten by the Government."
In the event the action was dropped, and a referral to the Press Complaints Commission was settled without an adjudication being made.
Draycott added: “The Crown Office's reluctance to answer questions from the media is not only frustrating us, but contributed to The Firm's original dispute with the prosecution service. Early on it wanted to know exactly when Angiolini was appointed regional prosecutor for the North East of Scotland and when exactly the decision was made not to prosecute the only individual ever charged in connection with the Hollie Greig case. It was only when legal correspondence reached an advanced stage that it was confirmed she was appointed for the area on the 21st of July 2,000. The decision not to prosecute was taken on the 20th of July 2,000.”
Angiolini continued, through Peter Watson, to threaten legal action elsewhere in relation to this matter.
You are correct to point this out, Peter.
ReplyDeleteLook at the fees Dunlop made from the Scottish Govt in the Alex Salmond review - much higher than £212,000 on a smaller value case so £212,000 from Advance and Levy & MCrae as an excuse for a sequestration is well short of the mark.
Out of interest do you have a figure for any payment to John Campbell by Begbies Traynor in these sequestrations?
Your comments section is very educational Peter.
ReplyDeleteSomeone should email this material to the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints
https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/111052.aspx
Email: SGHHC@parliament.scot
to make sure the msps on the committee dont swallow all that drivel from Levy & Mcrae on behalf of Alex Salmond
Oh and also I read from Scottish Law Reporter about Kenny MacAskill's career link to Levy & Mcrae.
God knows I cannot stand Sturgeon but at the same time I do not think we should be subject to meddling in politics and lectures on transparency and government from the likes of Levy & Mcrae and their 'clients'
Is there any lawyer or advocate who isnt crooked?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I heard tonight this is not the first time John Campell took cash on a case and walked away
ReplyDeleteI forgot to add to my comment a friend in the profession who says he knows you says to tell you his colleagues refer to Lord Carloway as Lord Carlowaffle after some story in the Herald reported what you said about him waffling away at the Scottish Parliament.
ReplyDeleteThe one remaining trustworthy website on legal matters in Scotland all the rest are run by the legal mafia or wannabe legal mafia keep up the good work mister
ReplyDeleteAll the judges involved in this must have taken backhanders and they are now in the spotlight for it.Too bad eh Lord Carloway all your power as a top fudge and it still gets out!
ReplyDeleteExcellent work Peter.
ReplyDeleteOne thing for sure John Campbell did not do all the court work and then work run away from an expenses hearing for nothing.
Campbell took money in this case so the questions are;
from who?
with what motivation?
and who else including the judiciary are involved?
oh yeah anyone believe all the £19 million transfers happened and no one at Levy and Mcrae saw or said anything?
ReplyDeletekinda strange we never got to find out what happened to the money!
yeah right where are your Scottish cops oh yeah I read Levy and Mcrae represent them too
Very informative AND the comments
ReplyDeleteAnyone care to speculate what Levy Mcrae's price on the rest of us for delivering the First Minister throne for Salmond will be?
How did you get hold of those letters from Alex Salmond and Ruth Davidson about Peter Watson and Levy & Mcrae, the ones you posted tonight on Twitter?
ReplyDeleteThis is what the court of session is all about stealing your land to pay your own lawyers and then they spread the proceeds around the judges to make sure they get the sequestration against you for the lot
ReplyDeleteVery good Peter.
ReplyDeleteHope to see these "remaining issues" resolved and life can go on.
The Salmond committee will do better hauling Levy Mcrae in front of them to ask where all the money went in Heather Capital
ReplyDeleteThey can then ask Carloway why the courts were so desperate to dump the Heather capital case and who took bungs for looking the other way
AGREE 100%
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Anonymous said...
The Salmond committee will do better hauling Levy Mcrae in front of them to ask where all the money went in Heather Capital
They can then ask Carloway why the courts were so desperate to dump the Heather capital case and who took bungs for looking the other way
5 October 2020 at 21:13
Any more to come on this nolan v advance thing?
ReplyDelete@ 17 January 2021 at 12:32
ReplyDeleteOnly from the viewpoint of an investigation of two remaining issues which should have been considered in the sequestrations - recovery of legal expenses for legal agents & litigation funding.
Understanding is the two issues are now being looked into with a view to establish a resolution, and answers sought to recent evidence raising questions of the QC - Mr Campbell's motivation re refusing to appear at a legal expenses hearing.
A full review of previously published material and physical files relating to this case is currently being undertaken by a journalist colleague. Later this year, a report will be published on elements of this case, those involved, motivations and other impactful issues of which several agencies may wish to take an interest in.
So the lawyer was deliberately not paid.
ReplyDeleteNot surprise given the reputation of the Bonkle Road resident.
Clear up these remaining issues and move on.
17 January 2021 at 20:49
ReplyDeleteFrom looking at records of the case, the QC - John Campbell was not paid (although he was paid tens of thousands in cash - because he collected it himself.
However a 2015 letter from Mr Campbell has been handed to the blog where he attempts to set up a meeting involving an architect and the litigants and others to recover fees he felt he was due. Campbell also puts forward ideas on 'solutions' to land assets which were by that time, part of ongoing litigation around two sequestrations.
The litigant's solicitor was not paid by the litigant, and neither did the litigant pay the provision of litigation funding.
These are the two remaining issues to be resolved, no other issues remain other than an investigation into the origins of the case and what has been said in earlier comments.
Given what I have read in the other article about this case may I suggest you place an active link here for readers of this post to visit for the latest updates.
ReplyDeleteWhere is Carloway hiding all this time?
ReplyDeleteWe never see him out other when when Sturgeon needs him to put in an appearance
@ 20 January 2021 at 17:32
ReplyDeleteAs per the article, there are two remaining issues under consideration to be resolved, and there is an open investigation on the litigant and others he/his partner co-opted into their motivated case after information was received from a former witness in their case.
A full report will follow in due course.
@ 23 January 2021 at 14:41
In the broom cupboard, along with the Lord Advocate & top cops ...
I was asked to join a group run by a person linked to this case you wrote about.The person asked me if I wanted access to the person's msp and the person was able to arrange meetings with him for one thousand pounds to be paid to her in cash.Other people in this group told me they each paid this person hundreds of pounds and always in cash.I was going to write to the Parliament and report what happened but if you are interested I can send you details and conversations where the person demands cash from people for her help and access to a politician.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is selling access to their MSP you better get on it Peter and do a write up this is absolute corruption!
ReplyDeleteMembers of the Scottish Parliament are not allowed to represent people outside their constituency.If a constituent is selling access to their MSP this should be reported to the Scottish Parliament and the MSP's party.
ReplyDelete@ 30 January 2021 at 16:56 Delete
ReplyDeleteThanks for this and the approach via email, am aware of issues in relation to this 'group' and allegations of charging for access - this will be looked at further and relevant persons have been informed.
@ 30 January 2021 at 22:14
Being dealt with.
In relation to an unpublished & now lost comment - should emphasise to readers - there are two remaining issues in relation to this case, no other claims by the litigants in their misuse of the courts, justice system and judiciary should be believed or given any attention.
A full report on this case and the motivations of the litigants, and their misuse of the justice system in relation to Nolan v Advance will appear at a future date, meanwhile relevant authorities have been informed of findings in an ongoing investigation.
Reporters on this blog are keen to hear from anyone who has been contacted, threatened, intimidated or misused in any way by the litigants in this case.