Lawyers Behaving Badly: Axe Law Society dual role, give Scots clients same consumer protections of England & Wales' independent regulation of solicitors

Unprotected: Scots consumers have no protection from dodgy solicitors who regulate themselves. UNTIL the dual role of representing both clients and solicitors is removed from the Law Society of Scotland, and clients of Scotland’s closed shop legal profession are given the same or even greater standards of consumer protection & independent regulation as currently operate in England & Wales, there is little incentive for Scottish solicitors to behave anything other than badly, as BBC Scotland found recently in their investigation of Lawyers Behaving Badly.

More often than not, the fact is, those of us who require to use legal services in one way or another via a lawyer, or those of us who require access to the courts in Scotland are taken on the same, well trodden, fee-generating-years-long ride by solicitors & law firms who have no reason to offer high quality, low cost access to justice in a legal system which is closed shop, monopolistic, and poorly regulated.

Just as fee paying clients are routinely ripped off, so is the taxpayer by way of a £150 million pound legal aid budget which seems to exist as little more than a public subsidy to prop up dodgy law firms & lawyers who would serve the community better from a position behind bars, sitting in a High Street office raking in tens of thousands of pounds a year from the public purse.

This is of course, not news to anyone who has been let down by a solicitor, and it is certainly not news to members of the public who have experienced the almost inhuman mix of regulatory bodies in Scotland, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, who currently hold court over all complaints against Scottish solicitors.

The SLCC often claims to be “independent”. It is not. Diary of Injustice reported on the secret vested interests at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in an earlier article here: A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP : Investigation reveals Scotland’s ‘independent’ legal regulator is mired in family, business & personal links to legal profession & Law Society

Neither has the SLCC cleaned up standards in the legal profession, nor has it named and shamed any crooked lawyers, nor has it protected clients any better than the Law Society of Scotland, who are equally as fixated as the SLCC on attending to, and apparently representing the interests of its membership the legal profession and much the same, found BBC Scotland in their recent Lawyers Behaving Badly investigation of Scotland’s out of control legal profession.

As the Lawyers Behaving Badly programme has now finished its term on the BBC’s iPlayer and clips of what was broadcast have been removed from the internet by the BBC, apparently after alleged protests from the legal profession and the Law Society of Scotland, those with an interest in how the Scottish legal profession regulates itself in Scotland still have access to articles on this site.

How Scots solicitors regulators dealt with dodgy legal aid solicitor:

A solicitor who ruined pensioner's legal affairs was given slap on the wrist by law complaints regulator SLCC. KILMARNOCK solicitor Niels S Lockhart, who was accused by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) of making £670K worth of dodgy claims for legal aid work and who then went on to ruin the legal affairs of a pensioner and other clients was allowed to continue working as a lawyer after the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the ‘independent’ regulator of solicitors decided his firm NS Lockhart Solicitors need only pay a meagre fine of ONE HUNDRED POUNDS to a victim who had complained about the legal nightmare she had been put through.

Solicitor Niels Lockhart was the subject of lengthy investigations by the Scottish Legal Aid Board which were uncovered by Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper and reported earlier here : One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case

Diary of Injustice published the full SLAB S31 complaint report to the Law Society of Scotland obtained after a Freedom of Information disclosure, here : SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD S31 COMPLAINT REPORT TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND : NIELS S LOCKHART

Diary of Injustice also published the investigation carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission into Niels S Lockhart. The report can be viewed online here : SLCC Investigation of complaint against Niels S Lockhart of NS Lockhart Solicitors, Kilmarnock.

How Lord Advocate & Crown Office dealt with Legal Aid fraudsters who all happened to be solicitors:

Crown Office also refused to prosecute dodgy legal aid lawyers. An exclusive report in the Sunday Mail newspaper also raised questions about the Crown Office lack of will to prosecute lawyers who were accused of legal aid fraud, revealing that FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escaped justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years.

Legal aid bosses reported 14 lawyers to prosecutors for allegedly fiddling a fortune in taxpayers' cash - but not a single one has been put in the dock. Eleven suspected fraud cases were marked no proceedings, one lawyer was declared insane, one died and the other is still being considered. Crown officials did not identify any of the lawyers involved or reveal the scale of their alleged fraud. The revelations were made by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service director of operations Scott Pattison in response to a freedom of information request.

Diary of Injustice has reported on the BBC’s investigation into self regulation of the Scottish legal profession in previous articles here: Lawyers Behaving Badly - a window into the world of lawyers regulating themselves

LUCAN FOR HIM: Law Society repeatedly refused BBC Scotland access to 'key player' Regulation Chief for in-depth investigation report on rogue solicitors

Non appearance of top Law Society regulation boss in BBC investigation questioned QUESTIONS have been raised as to why Philip Yelland, the little known figure in charge of regulation of Scotland’s solicitors for the past two decades was not allowed to appear on Lawyers Behaving Badly, the recent BBC Scotland investigation on systemic failings in how the Scottish legal profession regulates itself and how lawyers have regularly escaped justice and continue to benefit from publicly funded legal aid.

In response to media enquiries, sources at the Edinburgh HQ of the Law Society of Scotland have confirmed that repeated requests from BBC Scotland for access to the society’s Director of Regulation were refused by Law Society chiefs who were determined there should be no access to, or any appearance by the twenty plus year serving head of regulation in the BBC programme.

Substituting for the Director of Regulation, the Convener of the Law Society’s Regulation Committee, Carole Ford was instead, interviewed on the powerful BBC programme broadcast last week.

However, while Ford’s performance was expectedly praised in some legal quarters, some legal experts, clients, and those who have experienced the ‘alice in wonderland’ world of how the legal profession regulates itself felt the Committee Convener was a poor substitute, and appeared to have little grasp as to the realities of how the system works, and how paying clients are treated by lawyers who regularly cover up for their own colleagues.

While many expected Mr Yelland to be part of the BBC investigation, there are numerous reasons as to why the one person in legal regulation circles who has been involved in many of the controversial and highly public cases involving solicitors escaping penalty for their actions over the past twenty years did not appear on the highly acclaimed undercover investigation by BBC journalist Sam Poling.

The Law Society’s reluctance to allow Mr Yelland’s appearance in the BBC programme may well stem from the unfortunate demise of the Society’s former Chief Executive Douglas Mill, who resigned a few weeks after the Law Society’s Council viewed and debated video footage posted to video sharing website You Tube of Mill’s angry confrontation at a Holyrood Justice Committee hearing with John Swinney, Scotland’s Finance Chief.

During the Justice Committee hearing in 2006 which formed part of the Scottish Parliament’s second, ill-fated attempt to clean up regulation of the legal profession, the former Chief Executive was caught out by the Scottish Parliament’s video coverage of the hearing when he argued with the SNP Finance Chief that the Law Society’s Master Policy, the insurance scheme which protects corrupt lawyers from clients, was fair, and that there was no collusion between figures at the Law Society and the insurers to throw out financial damages claims made by clients.

However, Mr Swinney, a skilled debater himself, trounced the then pugnacious Law Society Chief on all points, leaving the public with little doubt the Master Policy Insurance client compensation scheme run by the Law Society of Scotland is unfair and claims made by clients for damages are clearly subject to concerted and determined manipulation at the highest levels of the Law Society and the legal profession.

The footage featuring Mill's Holyrood confrontation with John Swinney was first posted to the You Tube video sharing website in late December 2007. Mill, who superseded the equally controversial Kenneth Pritchard as Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland in the early 1990’s, then going on to become the Society’s Chief Executive and expected by many to remain in the position for a lengthy period of time, resigned a few weeks later in January 2008.

The confrontation between the former Law Society Boss and Scotland’s now Finance Chief, has since become a warning to how Law Society figures used to a closed world lacking any accountability can quickly stumble in public appearances such as the Holyrood Master Policy clash which made it obvious to all that the Law Society was, and remains determined to hang onto self regulation and the power that comes with it, at any cost.

Fears of BBC questions over claims made by clients against solicitors may also have played a part in the Society’s refusal to allow access to its regulation chief.

Academics heard involvement of Regulation Boss was linked to controversial complaints. A case referred to in a Research Report from the University of Manchester School of Law documented allegations in papers which have never been made public that the Society’s long time Regulation Chief was also allegedly linked to a case of a claim involving the Master Policy, where a respected businessman & family man from Oban committed suicide after he was sent to a law firm who have since been identified in a number of cases where dodgy solicitors have escaped justice and even possible criminal charges for legal aid fraud.

The revelations, appearing in papers studied by Professor Frank Stephen & Dr Angela Melville of the Manchester University of Law School in 2009 who were compiling a report on the Master Policy for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), alleged the businessman from Oban had been sent to a Glasgow law firm to represent him in a court case against his former solicitors.

However the Glasgow based law firm, who have since represented the First Minister himself and a number of controversial figures in the legal world, did nothing for a period of three years and when it was revealed the same law firm who the Law Society’s Regulation Chief had allegedly recommended to the Oban businessman were also representing the Legal Defence Union, the organisation which represents crooked lawyers against complaints, the unnamed client committed suicide.

Against a background of too-numerous-to-mention cases where involvement of the twenty year plus serving Law Society’s Regulation Boss appears to have played a key part in allowing corrupt solicitors to remain in work, Yelland may well have faced difficult questions over his involvement in one of the key parts of the BBC Scotland report aired last week, that of former solicitor Tom Murray, currently living in Lucca, Italy.

Featured in the Lawyers Behaving Badly documentary, Murray, has appeared before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) on no less than three occasions, (i) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 01/03/2005 (ii) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 25/11/2005 and (iii) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 10/12/2009.

Former solicitor Murray, who said on the BBC programme during secret filming that if he returned to Scotland he could reapply to be a solicitor again, was found guilty of professional misconduct in respect of misrepresentation, deception and misleading clients including his failure to tell his clients he had been barred from practising as a lawyer. The solicitor who was sequestrated in Scotland in 2001 and continues to avoid any moves by the Law Society to take action against him and recover compensation awarded to his clients.

The case of Murray, and the Law Society’s apparently haphazard pursuit of complaints against him clearly provided fertile ground for difficult questions of Yelland, who has personally signed off on many of the communications to clients who were involved with the former solicitor. Diary of Injustice featured an in depth report on the Law Society’s involvement in the Murray case in an earlier article HERE

In a long, rambling statement attacking the BBC Scotland programme, the Law Society of Scotland made no mention as to why Mr Yelland refused to appear, nor did the Society explain why the one man who can be linked to many of the complaints made against Scottish solicitors which have done significant damage to the image of the profession, did not appear or give an account of his charge over regulation of, and standards in Scotland’s legal profession in the past two decades.

Diary of Injustice has reported on the BBC’s investigation into self regulation of the Scottish legal profession in previous articles here: Lawyers Behaving Badly - a window into the world of lawyers regulating themselves

Let’s work together to identify dodgy lawyers: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission statement on BBC Scotland investigation of Lawyers Behaving Badly

Regulators behaving typically – SLCC statement on BBC investigation into dodgy solicitors. AMID widespread criticism from the legal profession over the content of a popular and well researched BBC Scotland investigation Lawyers Behaving Badly, which revealed significant failures in self regulation of the legal profession, the much criticised and often pro-lawyer Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has issued a statement welcoming the BBC programme “for raising some important issues” on how complaints against solicitors are currently dealt with by the ‘independent’ regulator.

The SLCC, itself beset with complaints about how it mistreats clients & complainants and how it appears to operate on an anti-consumer platform, also claimed in a Press Release that it wished to work more closely with the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) and the Law Society of Scotland to ‘share information and intelligence with these organisations to help identify risks to the public’.

Statement from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission regarding BBC Scotland’s Lawyers Behaving Badly investigation: On Wednesday night, the BBC screened the latest BBC Scotland Investigates: “Lawyers Behaving Badly”.   The programme investigated the regulation of the legal profession in Scotland and the role of the different organisations involved.  We welcome the programme for raising some important issues.

We know from our trends analysis that problems with solicitors often arise during important life events – buying and selling a house, divorce, wills.  The public rightly expects high standards of conduct and service from their solicitors and it is a serious matter when these are not met.

As the single gateway for all complaints against legal practitioners in Scotland, we provide the first point of contact in the legal complaints system.  In the four years from 1 July 2009-30 June 2013, we dealt with 4929 complaints.

Under the current system, it is our responsibility to investigate service issues.  In the last year alone, we awarded £250,000 in compensation or rebated fees for inadequate service.  We are upholding more complaints than ever while also offering complainers alternate means to get a resolution.  We also aim to reduce the occurrence of service issues by researching and producing guidance for the profession to help them improve.

Our powers regarding complaints about the conduct of solicitors raised with us are limited.  If we decide the complaint has merit, we will pass it over to the Law Society of Scotland to investigate.  We can investigate how it handles the complaint, but only if the complainer asks us to and the action we can then take is restricted.  We also audit the Law Society’s overall complaints process.  We have no oversight over the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT).

It is clear that we, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the SSDT could work together more closely.  We are already sharing information and intelligence with these organisations to help identify risks to the public.  We are committed to working with them to improve the effectiveness of the system and to continue to build public trust and confidence in Scotland’s legal system.

Commenting on the SLCC’s wish to work more closely with the Law Society & Scottish Legal Aid Board, a legal insider said the idea could only work if each of the three bodies had greater oversight over their operations and were able to gain public trust and confidence in their operation, combined with increased transparency.

He also said that if the three bodies were to work together, the Law Society of Scotland should be subject to the full requirements of Freedom of Information legislation, a proposal once supported by the former Chair of the SLCC, Jane Irvine, reported here: Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity

Earlier this week, it was reported a spokesperson for the Legal Aid Board who gave reaction to the BBC’s investigation of dodgy lawyers also said SLAB supported an idea from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission that a regulator’s forum should be set up.

However, it was recently revealed the troubled SLCC has its own issues of perceived pro-lawyer bias with a full complement of staff & Law Society insiders revealed in an exclusive Diary of Injustice report here : A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP : Investigation reveals Scotland’s ‘independent’ legal regulator is mired in family, business & personal links to legal profession & Law Society

Speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon, a client who encountered significant delays and difficulties with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission said he felt like he “was talking to a bunch of lawyers” throughout the time he dealt with the SLCC. The client branded the SLCC as bad as the Law Society, calling the regulator “a lawyer set up to bury complaints against other lawyers”.

The hapless regulator then took nearly a year to accept the complaint against the solicitor concerned, who went on to time waste, then use mediation as a further time wasting measure, upon the failure of which, the complaint re-entered the investigation stage and ended up with only a partially upheld finding.

Speaking of his experiences with the SLCC, the client commented: “No matter what material is handed over to the SLCC and how often you have to make the points again and again that your solicitor has stolen money and property deeds, this regulator seems to allow crooked lawyers to go on working”.

He continued: “What use is a regulator when the SLCC does nothing even after evidence has been handed to it documenting the most cruel and pernicious offences committed by solicitors against their clients?”

Diary of Injustice has reported on the BBC’s investigation into self regulation of the Scottish legal profession in previous articles here: Lawyers Behaving Badly - a window into the world of lawyers regulating themselves

Blame them not us: Legal Aid Board accuse Law Society over poor regulation of dodgy legal aid lawyers exposed in ‘Lawyers Behaving Badly’ BBC Scotland investigation

How lawyers regulate themselves is to blame for current mess says Legal Aid Board. AHEAD of a BBC Scotland investigation Lawyers Behaving Badly which reports on failings in how lawyers regulate themselves, to be broadcast later today at 10:35pm on BBC One Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) has revealed it has long standing concerns that it can take too long for the Law Society of Scotland and the current mix of lawyer controlled regulators to investigate and make decisions in disciplinary cases involving solicitors.

In a lengthy statement issued to the media earlier today, a spokesperson for the Scottish Legal Aid Board said: “We welcome the BBC’s interest in this important subject. We have been concerned for some time that it can take too long to get decisions in disciplinary cases involving solicitors.”

The spokesperson continued: “The legal aid system was set up to enable people who could not afford legal help to get access to it, rather than as a regulatory system for solicitors. While there were some regulatory aspects in the Legal Aid (Scotland)1986 Act, and further compliance aspects have been developed for areas like criminal registration, it is an on-going and developing process.

“When a solicitor who provides legal aid is found guilty of any offence it is obviously of concern to us, as it will be to the Law Society of Scotland as the statutory regulator of the legal profession in Scotland.”

“In the cases highlighted by the BBC where a solicitor was convicted for assault and the clerk of court was convicted for embezzlement, the Scottish Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal determined in 2001 and 2004 respectively that neither offence was sufficiently serious for either solicitor to be struck off.”

“At the time these cases took place we did not have the statutory powers through Section 31 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act to exclude a solicitor from undertaking legal aid work and representing legal aid clients. Section 31 powers were with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates until May 2011, at which time they transferred to SLAB.”

“Since taking over the Section 31 powers, we have put in place a procedure we will follow in determining whether to exclude a solicitor or advocate. We are also to be notified by the Law Society of Scotland whenever there are disciplinary findings against a solicitor. Where we consider that a lawyer has acted in an inappropriate manner we will exercise sanctions available to us under the legal aid legislation.”

“It remains the case, though, that while we are robust in our protection of the legal aid fund and the regulation of solicitors registered to provide legal assistance, there is a limit to the powers we can exercise if the profession’s regulatory body itself doesn’t find it necessary to prevent a solicitor from practising.”

“Solicitors undertaking criminal legal aid must register with us, and we have powers to de-register a solicitor from criminal legal aid work where we have evidence of abuse of the legal aid fund or breaches in our criminal Code of Practice. Where appropriate, a report is sent to the Procurator Fiscal, who makes a determination on whether to prosecute or not. This is not a matter for the Board.We will continue to monitor those solicitors on the Registers and act decisively against those who breach the Code.”

“Following investigations by the Board we did just that when we de-registered the solicitor Iain Robertson and his firm Robertson and Ross. In 2010, both he and the firm were removed from the criminal register for failing to comply with our Code of Practice. A sum of £221,847 was also repaid to the Legal Aid Fund.

“The registration process for civil is different to the criminal scheme and a solicitor cannot be de-registered. The only sanction to exclude a solicitor from undertaking legal aid is to use Section 31 powers. At the time these powers lay with the Law Society. This option was not employed in respect of Mr Robertson.”

The spokesperson for the Legal Aid Board also said SLAB supported an idea from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) that a regulator’s forum should be set up, stating : “We believe there should be greater coordination between the regulators of the legal profession and we support the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s suggestion that a legal regulators’ forum is set up.”

However, it was recently revealed the troubled SLCC, which itself is viewed with suspicion from clients & solicitors alike, and appears to be more part of the problem rather than part of a solution, has its own issues of perceived pro-lawyer bias with a full complement of staff & Law Society insiders revealed in an exclusive Diary of Injustice report here : A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP : Investigation reveals Scotland’s ‘independent’ legal regulator is mired in family, business & personal links to legal profession & Law Society

In response to today’s media coverage of the forthcoming BBC investigation, the Law Society of Scotland attempted to blame the Scottish Legal Aid Board for failings in dealing with problem lawyers who are still working with firms receiving large amounts of tax payer funded legal aid.

The Law Society Press Release stated : “We have yet to see the full documentary.  However, coverage in advance of the broadcast has focused on the issue of the criminal and civil legal aid registers. The BBC has raised concerns over 33 solicitors who have had findings of professional misconduct against them and are on the legal aid register.”

“In each of the cases mentioned, the Society did act properly, investigating the complaints thoroughly and taking action to the independent Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal.  It is only because of the actions of the Society and our evidence gathering that the findings of misconduct were made against the solicitors involved.  However, it is always a matter for the independent tribunal to decide what action is taken against a solicitor found guilty of misconduct, whether that be a fine, censure, restriction, suspension or strike off.  In these cases, the tribunal chose not to strike off the solicitor concerned.”

“It is the Scottish Legal Aid Board and not the Law Society of Scotland which maintains the legal aid registers.  Whilst the Board has the ability to remove a solicitor from the register, the Society has no such power other than through the civil legal aid quality assurance scheme where a poor service has been provided by the firm directly to clients.  In cases involving the abuse of legal aid money, we are dependent on the Board in making a conduct complaint through the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for us to investigate and, where necessary, take to the discipline tribunal.  In the specific cases raised directly with us by the BBC, the Scottish Legal Aid Board either chose not to complain or made a complaint but then withdrew it.”

Late this afternoon, a legal insider rubbished the Law Society’s attempt to blame the Legal Aid Board for failings in how the Society dealt with solicitors featured in the BBC programme.

He said: “The Law Society is disingenuous in its claim to effectively regulate its own members.”

He continued: “The fact is S31 complaints have been put to the Law Society of Scotland regarding solicitors who have taken hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal aid in a relatively short period of time, yet the Law Society chose to take years to deal with those complaints, constantly replace its own investigator and in the end, did nothing and allowed the solicitor to remain in work.”

HOW REGULATORS ‘DEALT’ WITH DODGY LEGAL AID SOLICITOR COMPLAINT :

A solicitor who ruined pensioner's legal affairs was given slap on the wrist by law complaints regulator SLCC. KILMARNOCK solicitor Niels S Lockhart, who was accused by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) of making £670K worth of dodgy claims for legal aid work and who then went on to ruin the legal affairs of a pensioner and other clients was allowed to continue working as a lawyer after the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the ‘independent’ regulator of solicitors decided his firm NS Lockhart Solicitors need only pay a meagre fine of ONE HUNDRED POUNDS to a victim who had complained about the legal nightmare she had been put through.

Solicitor Niels Lockhart was the subject of lengthy investigations by the Scottish Legal Aid Board which were uncovered by Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper and reported earlier here : One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case

Diary of Injustice published the full SLAB S31 complaint report to the Law Society of Scotland obtained after a Freedom of Information disclosure, here : SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD S31 COMPLAINT REPORT TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND : NIELS S LOCKHART

Diary of Injustice also revealed via a Freedom of Information investigation the Scottish Legal Aid Board asked Law Society to withdraw complaint after a secret deal was reached with Legal Defence Union. “In November 2010 SLAB advised the Law Society of Scotland that they had negotiated with Mr Lockhart his voluntary removal from the provision of legal assistance with effect from 1 November 2010 and acknowledged that the Society had separately received information from Mr Lockhart signalling his intention to withdraw from provision of all types of legal assistance. In the light of this, we sought to know from them whether they accepted SLAB’s withdrawal of the S31 complaint against Mr Lockhart.”

“In December 2010 the Law Society wrote to SLAB advising that they had accepted SLAB’s withdrawal of the complaint and that they were closing their file and taking no further action.”

Diary of Injustice also published the investigation carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission into Niels S Lockhart. The report, now in the hands of media outlets, can be viewed online here : SLCC Investigation of complaint against Niels S Lockhart of NS Lockhart Solicitors, Kilmarnock.

Crown Office also refused to prosecute dodgy legal aid lawyers. An exclusive report in the Sunday Mail newspaper also raised questions about the Crown Office lack of will to prosecute lawyers who were accused of legal aid fraud, revealing that FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escaped justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years. Legal aid bosses reported 14 lawyers to prosecutors for allegedly fiddling a fortune in taxpayers' cash - but not a single one has been put in the dock. Eleven suspected fraud cases were marked no proceedings, one lawyer was declared insane, one died and the other is still being considered. Crown officials did not identify any of the lawyers involved or reveal the scale of their alleged fraud. The revelations were made by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service director of operations Scott Pattison in response to a freedom of information request.

ROGUES LAW: Law Society of Scotland’s self regulation “cartel” of lawyers investigating lawyers must end, says legal academic

Decades of lawyers looking after each other has destroyed confidence in Scots legal profession. THE Law Society of Scotland should be stripped of its dual role of acting for lawyers and the public, says a leading legal academic who has publicly called for an end to the self regulation cartel of Scottish lawyers looking after each other. The call for change comes amid overwhelming evidence that Scots consumers & clients who fall victim to rogue lawyers rarely if ever secure a fair hearing for their complaints or receive correct recompense for significant financial losses or embezzlement by their solicitors, due to lawyers covering up for each other.

Speaking to the Sunday Mail newspaper ahead of a BBC Scotland investigation on how solicitors make a mockery of the current system of regulation of complaints against the legal profession, Professor Julia Black of the London School of Economics said independent regulation is vital to build public confidence.

On Wednesday 15 January 2014 at 22:35, BBC Scotland will broadcast their investigation “Lawyers Behaving Badly”, where journalist Samantha Poling investigates a regulation system which clients say favours the profession rather than the consumer, and goes undercover to investigate solicitors making a mockery of the system.

Those involved in the debate regarding self regulation of Scotland’s legal profession will be well aware of the ill fated attempts between 2001-2007 to create a more independent system of regulation, which saw the creation of the pro-lawyer, anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Since the SLCC was created in 2008 by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, there have been little if any improvements in how consumer complaints against Scottish solicitors are investigated.

The current model of self-regulation of Scottish solicitors, where the SLCC investigate complaints against lawyers, appears to have led to record numbers of solicitors escaping sanction or prosecution for offences committed against clients.

Critics of the current system and its in-built pro-lawyer bias point to the fact the SLCC itself is effectively run by the Law Society who pay for its running through subscriptions raised by lawyers who in turn increase client fees to fund their own pat-on-the-back self regulation cartel.

Diary of Injustice reported on the secret vested interests at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in an earlier article here: A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP : Investigation reveals Scotland’s ‘independent’ legal regulator is mired in family, business & personal links to legal profession & Law Society

The frequent, almost serial failures of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been widely reported in previous articles.

The Sunday Mail reports :

Expert: Kick out cartel of lawyers

Sunday Mail 12 January 2014

A leading legal academic has called for an end to the self regulation “cartel” of lawyers in Scotland.

Professor Julia Black said independent regulation is vital to build public confidence.

Critics say the Law Society of Scotland’s dual role of acting for lawyers and the public is flawed.

Professor Black, director of the law school at the London School of Economics, said: “Let’s be honest about self-regulation.

"It’s a case of a group of people doing their work, marking their own work and if they do something wrong, telling each other off.

“It would be difficult to have full confidence in a system until you have independence, transparency and accountability.”

The Law Society in England and Wales was stripped of its regulatory role by the UK Government seven years ago.

The independent Solicitors Regulation Authority now investigates and disciplines lawyers there.

Professor Black said: “You have moved from a situation where the professional regulated itself to a situation where you have operationally independent regulators.”

Professor Black raised her concerns ahead of BBC1 Scotland investigation Lawyers Behaving Badly, which will be broadcast on Wednesday.

The Law Society of Scotland said there was “much evidence” that the system in England and Wales is more bureaucratic and expensive. A spokesman added: “This doesn’t sound like a model Scotland should follow.”

Beware of the one 'fiddled' independence referendum & one stooge managed Scottish Referendum Commission coming right up

Scottish Government wants a new one-shot quango to stooge manage independence referendum. I tend not to stray too far into reporting political news, principally because there are so many scandals involving the legal profession and its many tentacles, I am kept busy indefinitely on that subject. However, reading about how the Scottish Government are attempting to create a new quango with yet more stooge appointments, simply for the purpose of pushing the referendum on independence agenda, in a time when basically, Scotland is broke, deserves some attention.

If anyone came along & knocked on your door, telling you they were going to demolish your house to build a new road, you might say, oh, I’m going to fight this, take legal action, and either win, preventing your home being demolished, or walk away with a suitable compensation figure after a lot of haggling and letters.

If however, someone came along, knocked on your door and said, we are going to demolish your house to build a new road, and oh, by the way you cant take legal action, you have to appeal to this new quango we’ve created which is run by the company who are building the road, you might be forgiven for thinking you are being led up a one way garden path by the road builders. So alas, are we all being led up the same one way garden path with the plans exposed by the BBC on the Scottish Government’s planned referendum on independence, to be announced later this week.

Electoral Commission to be kept out of Scottish independence referendum on. Normally, the Electoral Commission, oversee elections in the UK. This has worked fairly well as we all know for many years. Yes, a few nags and niggles, but as always, we get who we vote for, regrets or not. However, the Scottish Government do not want to use the Electoral Commission for their independence referendum plan, which is certainly no surprise to me, because this time the SNP wont be able to get away with stuffing the ballot with a title “Alex Salmond for First Minister” as they did in the last Holyrood elections. That was certainly unfair on all concerned, and everyone being wise to that, I’m sure it will never be allowed to happen again, hence, no Electoral Commission please, we know your tricks .. you will spot any fiddles in the questions tout de suite so cant allow that.

So, as appears to be tradition, when an organisation might not give Ministers the result they want, they call in, or better still create a new body to give them the result they want .. and hence here we are now reading about a new Scottish Referendum Commission, which will be doubtless stuffed with quango style appointed people who have one track minds to hand over the one result the current Scottish Government want – a “Yes” for independence, at any cost, and as garbled a set of questions to the electorate that no one will be able to fathom out.

I’d say that is a fit up, but don't take my word for it, look through the Freedom of Information disclosures obtained by the BBC and released yesterday.

Personally, I am left wondering what they are going to call this referendum quango .. how about the Scottish Legal Independence Referendum Commission ?

Surely it could be modelled on the entirely dishonest failure & quango fat cat ridden expenses lined Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. who are serving the legal profession unbelievably well, considering it was actually set up to give the public a chance against, well … the same rogue lawyers Mr MacAskill professed his Scottish Government owed a big debt for their election ‘success …

At a time of huge public service cuts, rising unemployment, our banks still on the rocks, and the national debt (mainly thanks to those on-the-rocks banks which had to be saved) sky high .. I could think of a lot more better use for public funds, and legislative time at Holyrood. Anyway, arent we all supposed to stick together in times of crisis ?

Read the full exchanges obtained by the BBC under FOI [2.91MB] (pdf)

A selection of those FOI disclosures obtained by the BBC, well worth reading (click for larger size) :

BBC News reports :

Plans for special body to run independence referendum

The Scottish government plans to set up a special body to run a future referendum on independence.

Ministers do not want to use the Electoral Commission which overseas Westminster elections.

The plan was revealed in minutes of meetings which were obtained by the BBC under Freedom of Information.

The draft bill on the independence referendum - which could take place as soon as 30 November - is expected to be published on Friday.

Email from the Scottish government, 13 march, 2009 - "We are now looking at what the question in an independence referendum might be and at some point will need to show we have properly assessed it for intelligibility, neutrality, etc."

Electoral Commission minute, 22 September, 2009 - "Scottish government officials confirmed... that there was currently no provision to consult any organisation as to the intelligibility of the referendum question."

Electoral Commission minutes, 6 November, 2009 - "There seems little regard to the remit and role of what the Scottish Referendum Commission would actually do."

The Electoral Commission has a statutory role to run referenda called by Westminster, but has no formal role in those called by the Scottish Parliament.

In the minutes obtained by BBC One's Politics Show, civil servants told the commission they planned to set up a new body - the Scottish Referendum Commission - to run the election.

The paperwork also revealed the concerns of the Westminster commission over the wording of the questions and that the timescale towards the poll was too short.

A minute from September last year said: "Scottish Government officials ... confirmed that there was currently no provision to consult any organisation as to the intelligibility of the referendum question".

No Scottish minister would comment on the FOI minutes, however, a spokesperson said that Scottish voters already had quite recent experience of a multi-option constitutional referendum.

The Electoral Commission said that when the government sets out the referendum on full independence, it would "consider it and submit a response" using experience of planning for referendums in the UK.

It added: "We are not able to comment until this public consultation is opened."

and the latest today on this can be read here : Referendum ballot 'rigging' claim