Your complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : Didn’t get a result ? How to find out what really happened behind closed doors

Complaints about Scottish solicitors generally do not receive a fair hearing. IF you have raised a complaint about your solicitor with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) and like many other clients, ended up with a ‘no result’ after many months of raised hopes, you may wonder what happened to your complaint, yes, you know, the one the SLCC promised to keep you informed about but never did, and certainly never informed you when the solicitor you complained about asked an organisation such as the Legal Defence Union to intervene on their behalf and smear your good name to ensure your solicitor was let off the hook.

Even worse, you may be part of the growing number of consumers the SLCC shunt into an arranged mediation, which might not achieve any recompense for your financial loss or worse still, allow a rogue lawyer facing multiple complaints you know nothing about, continue working in what appears to be a growing trend in these ‘mediation’ schemes, designed to talk down complaints or controversial cases over a few months, while ensuring the solicitor gets away with it and continues with a clean record, even though their actions have probably ruined your finances, and your changes of ever securing legal representation again in your lifetime.

According to insiders close to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, many of you consumers out there who have raised complaints against their solicitors to the SLCC should now check up to verify whether organisations such as the Legal Defence Union or even a lawyer run ‘charity’ called Law Care have intervened in your complaint on the side of your solicitor. Their intervention may well have made the difference in how the SLCC treated your complaint, yet the SLCC never told you about it, not even a hint.

Consumers must remember, while you are complaining to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, generally, you are doing this alone, no help, no independent representation for you, no assistance of any form, just a lot of static when you ask questions or raise what you feel to be important evidence or material connected to your solicitors actions on which your complaint is based. You all know the now familiar story.

However, this is not the case for your solicitor. Oh no. Your solicitor has a list of organisations they can call in for immediate support, and often they do, with you, and even your family in their sights.

If you received a no result from your complaint, the chances are that no result was swung by interference from the legal profession itself, which the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission admitted in an investigation carried out by Diary of Injustice last week that you, the consumer are not entitled to know if someone has intervened on your solicitor’s behalf in your complaint.

Anyone who has raised a complaint about a solicitor with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission since 1st October 2008 should now ask the SLCC to confirm whether the Legal Defence Union, Law Care, or any other organisation connected with the legal profession, such as the Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates, have made submissions in defence of the solicitor you have complained against. Its your right to know.

Readers who feel their complaint may be affected by this issue should read the Diary of Injustice investigation into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's links with the Legal Defence Union, here : Investigation reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's links, secret 'off the record' dealings with lawyers lobby group Legal Defence Union

Consumers making complaints to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would also do well to remember the Legal Defence Union is an organisation which represents the best interests of lawyers and was recently linked to blocked criminal prosecutions of legal aid fraudster lawyers & also the suicide of a married Oban family man in the SLCC’s 2009 report into the Master Policy.

You can of course, simply write into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to ask them to confirm whether the Legal Defence Union, Law Care, or any other organisation made a submission on your solicitor’s behalf, however the SLCC may not be truthful, because they have already admitted they don't need to tell you.

If you feel you are being deliberately misled by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, you can also use Freedom of Information legislation to find out what happened during your complaint and who said what, although again, the SLCC have a very poor record of honesty when it comes to Freedom of Information, on many occasions only being forced to disclose crucial material after rulings from Scotland’s Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

To make a Freedom of Information request to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, I would suggest you use the following format :

I would like to make a Freedom of Information request on my own behalf for information contained in documents or discussions relating to : and then add your complaint details, or whatever the issue is you feel the SLCC did not really tell you the full truth about. Its your complaint, its your right to honest legal services, its your right to justice and its most certainly your right to a fair hearing.

To contact the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission :

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission
The Stamp Office
10 - 14 Waterloo Place
EDINBURGH
EH1 3EG  or Phone : 0131 528 5111 Fax: 0131 528 5110 or Email :  enquiries@scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk

This guide has been written for the assistance of many readers who have contacted me over the weekend and today, worried about their complaint with the SLCC and this off the record, no-notes-taken underhanded relationship the SLCC appears to have with lobby groups from the legal profession. Unlike Board members at the SLCC, I don't need to claim £300 a day bar tab expenses to write this guide which benefits consumers instead of solicitors.

Law Society policy blunders on legal market reforms leave public in the cold, favouring control of regulation & access to justice

The Law Society of Scotland on Thursday, published its paper on the 'development' of the legal services in Scotland, which many hope will be fully opened up to widen competition in the legal services market.

There is little surprise the Law Society's 'proposals for change' are little more than a 'policy for market protection' where the hugely profitable monopoly on legal services in Scotland, for so long enjoyed by solicitors who are members of the Law Society of Scotland faces being broken up, much to the anger & bitterness of the profession's governing body which now finds itself struggling to retain control over regulation, legal services and the public's access to justice.

The Law Society policy paper on alternative business structures can be downloaded direct from the Law Society of Scotland in pdf format : Law Society of Scotland ABS policy paper

To read some of my earlier coverage of the access to justice issue, see here : Access to Justice in Scotland

While most consumer organisations such as Which?, the Scottish Consumer Council, many campaigners & consumer groups, and even the Office of Fair Trading wish to see the Law Society's monopoly on access to justice curtailed, the legal profession have unsurprisingly, clung to their policy of retaining as much control as possible within their proposals, even citing themselves as being best placed to retain regulation of the legal services market in-house, keeping the spectre of lawyers investigating lawyers to the fore which has become one of the professions biggest burdens, and greatest liability.

The President of the Law Society of Scotland, Richard Henderson, said in a press release that “We do not think that the Society should simply follow the English model but should find solutions specifically to meet the needs of the Scottish public, ensuring proper access to justice, and Scottish business, as well as creating opportunity for firms based in Scotland to compete in a growing international market.”

Of course not Mr Henderson, it would not be in the interests of the Scots legal profession's sole control over legal services and an individual's access to justice, if the 'English' reforms as per the Clementi Report were to be implemented .. as ordinary Scots would then be able to choose for themselves exactly who could handle their legal affairs, at what price, and perhaps even better, individuals would not find themselves without legal representation just because it was in the Law Society of Scotland's interests to bar them from access to justice - a policy which has been seen & reported many times in the media over the years ...

The Law Society's paper, extending to some 20 pages, inevitably breaks down to the issue of retaining regulation within the legal profession itself, where regulation has always been seen as keeping control over the very existence of a closed shop legal services market, and the consumer's access to justice.

The report states on page 16 :"The market for legal services requires regulation. legal services impact on some of the most important aspects of people’s lives. legal matters can be complex and involve a range of ethical considerations. regulation helps ensure that solicitors or advocates provide their services to an agreed standard and, if not, can be subject to sanction. A free market could not offer the consumer safeguards required. Firms of solicitors in scotland are currently regulated by the law society of scotland."

Surely after all the problems with allowing the Law Society of Scotland to regulate the legal profession for decades, which has seen complaints hit almost eight thousand a year, negligence claims at an all time high, exponential levels of corruption throughout the legal profession and almost wholesale denial of individuals right to access the justice system, the Law Society and the legal profession itself cannot ever be trusted again to maintain any form of regulation against its own members, given its abysmal failure over the years to perform its role as self regulator of all lawyers in Scotland.

Readers are left in no doubt whatsoever on the determination of the Law Society to keep control over regulation of lawyers, with further claims in the policy paper that "The council believes that regulation is the key issue in relation to alternative business structures. There should be appropriate regulation of the delivery of services provided by solicitors and advocates in Scotland, whatever business structure delivers those services, to ensure that the core values of the legal profession are protected and that service quality is maintained"

Again however, the current state of the Scots legal profession which sees an almost daily scandal involving 'crooked lawyers' and consistent, almost determined failures by the Law Society over regulating rogue solicitors who have built up long lists of ruined clients, demonstrate that the 'core values of the legal profession' and claims of 'quality' which the Law Society speak of simply do not exist.

On page after page, the Law Society loses the focus over developing the Scots legal services market in both the profession and public interest, instead preferring to maintain the tired worn line on retaining regulation for itself, confirming that what this debate is really about is control over the legal services market itself, and ensuring the Law Society retains its position on regulation, which has already been split to the new Scottish Legal Services Complaints Commission.

On page 17 of the legal services report for instance, the Law Society simply can't help itself and comes out with the following ridiculous statement : "The council takes the view that the society is the most appropriate body to regulate entities delivering legal services in scotland. The society is the only body in scotland with relevant experience of regulation of all areas of legal practice. its capacity, however, would need to be enhanced to take on additional functions."

Rather than focus on retaining control over the legal services market, just to ensure that member solicitors keep the profits from representing clients, the Law Society really needs to come away from this insane, obsession with retaining regulation just so it can demonstrate yet again how lawyers so poorly regulate their colleagues but as we see from the general tone of the policy paper, there doesn't seem much chance at that.

All in all, a very poor showing from the Law Society of Scotland, and one which typifies the policies of a few within the Scots legal profession who have determined that rather than embracing the opening of the legal services market in the public interest, the focus will be on continued control and enforcement of the legal professions right to control and monopolize legal services & access to justice.

Hopefully the public's voice and that of elements within the Scots legal profession itself who are for the expanding of the legal services market will win the day and ensure the Scots national and public interest is served by giving the consumer freedom of choice in legal representation, leaving the Law Society's antiquated views to the dustbin of history, where the Law Society itself, clearly shows it belongs.

Now we must wait & see if the Scottish Government can struggle with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to fully open up the Scots legal services market and give us, the public, the choices we should have the right to make, rather than follow Kenny MacAskill & other parliamentarians highly personalised views of protecting the legal profession's profits from the public's right to choose better, less crooked, & perhaps cheaper ways of doing things in the world of law & justice ...

As a final comment, I did like this little snippet on page 18, where the Law Society policy document states "All activities of a business structure must have appropriate indemnity insurance and fidelity cover, at a level approved by their licensing regulator, which must be not less than a statutory minimum level. The minimum terms of the protection afforded must be made explicit to clients in all transactions"

Fantastic stuff - you couldn't make it up ... clients have never been told or made aware of the [little] protection offered to them via the Law Society of Scotland's infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy - which even saw Chief Executive Douglas Mill intervene directly in claims & complaints against colleagues and tell the occasional lie or two to Parliament over it .... so why start pointing these things out now ?

Onwards please to a fully opened legal services market - give Scots the same rights as the rest of the UK to an accountable, competitive, competent, well respected, and independently regulated legal services market - which Scotland surely deserves after all these years of failure.

Revelations in Court of Session appeal show Law Society & Fiscal deliberately failed to take witness affidavit and excluded crucial evidence

Taking a long time, but about three years later, I finally have the Legal Services Ombudsman's report into the Law Society of Scotland's handling of my complaint against Michael Robson - the now infamous 'tennis playing lawyer', which you can read more about here :Lawyer who took on Law Society for clients ended up as dishonest as those he challenged

Sunday Mail - Michael Robson, an untrustworthy solicitor who did nothing for his clients

The report basically shows the Law Society of Scotland handled my complaint against former lawyer Michael Robson, with the utmost prejudice against me, and that the Council of the Law Society of Scotland deliberately excluded the details of Michael Robsons conduct in the medical negligence case relating to my mum, just to deny me a fair hearing, deny me the chance to give an input into the case, and deny me any justice - just as they do with everyone else.

Legal Services Ombudsman's report on the Law Society of Scotland & Court of Session case involving Michael Robson

Perhaps more importantly, the Legal Services Ombudsman's report shows that the Law Society of Scotland and even Law Society Fiscal in the case, Mr David Reid of Messrs Flemming & Reid, failed to the point of deliberately seeking to deny me the chance to make a formal affidavit that I was entitled to input into the Court of Session hearings.

From the LSO report into Michael Robson

"In his response of 17 December, the Fiscal expressed his surprise. He said that he had understood that you were „very interested in the prosecution’. He suggested that enquiries should be made as to your whereabouts when you were required as a witness. However, I cannot see that any such enquiries were made. On 21 March 2005, the Law Society provided the Fiscal with your e-mail address. I can only assume that it was at that point they realised that they had a contact e-mail address for you on another file.

Here follow a couple of sample emails from the Law Society Fiscal Paul Reid to myself, showing firstly, his intention to take statements from me, then silence, after no doubt the Law Society decided I should again be denied access to justice or given a chance to speak.

Law Society Fiscal Paul Reid writes to contact me for a statement - on a hearing which was to take place the very next day early in the morning ....

From: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
To: <petercherbi>
Subject: Council of the Law Society of Scotland - Michael G Robson
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:24:16

FLEMING & REID, SOLICITORS, 180 HOPE STREET, GLASGOW, G2 2UE

TELEPHONE: 0141 331 1144

Our ref: PR/GP

Dear Mr Cherbi,

Council of the Law Society of Scotland

Michael G Robson

I write further to my recent correspondence in connection with the above to which I have not heard from you in response.

In the course of discussions with representatives from the Law Society I was advised that you were now communicating with them by way of e-mail. I am therefore taking the liberty of presenting this message to you by way of e-mail.

A hearing in connection with the prosecution of Michael G Robson is to take place tomorrow within the Scotsman Hotel, 20 Northbridge, Edinburgh, before the Discipline Tribunal at 10am. I had written to you previously asking that you contact me in order that I may obtain from you a statement which would then be encapsulated within the form of an Affidavit of your evidence. I have not heard from you in response. I would be grateful if you would telephone me upon receipt of this e-mail to indicate whether or not it is your intention to attend tomorrow to give evidence on behalf of the Complaint.

I look forward to hearing from you in early course.

Yours sincerely

P A Reid, LLB (Hons) Dip.LP.NP.

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE

My reply :

From: "PC" <petercherbi>
To: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
Subject: Re: Council of the Law Society of Scotland - Michael G Robson
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:50:07

Dear Mr Reid,
Thanks for your email.
I'm sorry it seems that the Law Society haven't kept you informed of my
whereabouts or my health, but in any case, I am not currently in the Uk
and wont be able to return until sometime before June.
I certainly could not attend tomorrows hearing
However, I would like to attend the hearing, or give evidence, I cannot advance you
a statement by tomorrow - 10am
I would suggest, given the importance of my testimony, and the fact that
you were not made aware that I was not at my address to which you were
writing (which was actually 47 Bongate), you try to obtain a postponement
or adjournment of the hearing on these grounds, as I would very much like
to input into this hearing, given Mr Robson's conduct as per his
representation of my affairs.

Fiscal Paul Reid replies :

Reply-To: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
From: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
To: <petercherbi>
Subject: Council of the Law Societry of Scotland - Michael Robson
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:03:2
Dear Mr Cherbi,

Council of the Law Society of Scotland

Michael G Robson

I write further to your e-mail of 12th April in connection with the above.

I have yet to be made aware as to whether Mr Robson intends to appeal the judgement. A period of 21 days following release of the written Findings is allowed for either party to mark an appeal.

I suspect the indication that an appeal will be forthcoming is based upon previous history insofar as Mr Robson is concerned.

From my own part I would consider that any appeal at his instance is bound to fail. However if an appeal is so marked then it would be my intention to counter-appeal the decision of the Tribunal in relation to your evidence.

When that is determined, at that stage it would be my intention to meet with you, if possible, and obtain from you a statement in relation to your involvement with Mr Robson and the manner in which you were let down. I trust this will not cause you a difficulty. If there is any further information which you require from me, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

P A Reid, LLB (Hons) Dip.LP.NP.

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE

A further chaser from me, a year later, asking about my statement, after silence from the Fiscal ...

From: <petercherbi>
To: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
Subject: Re: Michael Robson
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:21:56

Mr Reid
I am informed that the prosecution of Michael Robson is to be in May, but I have not heard from you as to the matter of whether I am giving a statement or not.
It seems I have also been contacted by elements of a lobby group who are volunteering to be in touch with Mr Robson, to ensure that all his rights to cross examine witnesses or cases in the prosecution, are adhered to.
It seems therefore if I am not going to testify for you, I will be testifying for someone else, which is very odd to me, because I am the complainer of course

Clearly I was still waiting on giving a statement a year after .. but the Law Society were determined to see I had no chance in having access to the court on this one ...

A catalogue of obvious delay, denial of access to justice and prejudice seems to be the course of the day in the Law Society's determination to prevent me from speaking in court against their lawyer Michael Robson.

Even worse revelations in the Legal Services Ombudsman's report show the Law Society Fiscal made an attempt to delete references to my complaint so they could be heard at a later date - supposedly, and that was unsurprisingly denied, simply because no one in the court, even Mr Robson, wanted me to be able to speak about how he treated the case of my mum's death at the Borders General Hospital.

From the Legal Services Ombudsman's report :

"On 20 February 2004, the Law Society lodged a complaint of professional misconduct with the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (the Tribunal). That complaint included details of your allegations against Mr Robson. A hearing took place before the Tribunal on 23 March 2005. You were unable to give evidence as you were only made aware of the hearing the day before.

The Fiscal made an application to delete reference to your complaints which would allow them to be held over to a later date. That application was denied. No finding of professional misconduct was made in relation to your complaint. However, Mr Robson was found guilty of professional misconduct in relation to another matter before the Tribunal."

Quite convenient for both the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal and the Court of Session that I wasn't allowed to make any affidavit or statement about how Michael Robson had treated me as a client - and with my complaint being one of the principle complaints against Mr Robson which the Law Society had investigated, that is an incredible denial of access to justice, which the court itself became part of. Mr Robson was happy too of course, as he didn't have to answer for why he lied the whole time he said he was handling the medical negligence case involving the death of my mum.

The conclusion of the Legal Services Ombudsman's report finds the Law Society guilty of wrongdoing, so to speak, and offers a paltry 100 pounds for their actions. Quite disgusting that in our society, an ombudsman has such limited power, but this is just another good example of how crooked lawyers get away with it, time and again, with everyone, not just myself.

Legal Services Ombudsman's conclusion :

"I have considered the handling of your case by the Law Society and in my opinion they failed to take reasonable steps to keep in contact with you between February 2004 and March 2005. I am also of the view that they failed to give you adequate notice of the hearing of 23 March 2005 and you were therefore unable to give evidence. I recommend that the Law Society compensate you in the sum of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to you as a result"

Ultimately, the Law Society gets off the hook again, and if anything this case simply shows the present structures of prosecuting crooked lawyers and recovering damages in Scotland is a complete and utter failure.

So can I find a lawyer to represent me in a case to sue the Law Society and Mr Robson for what happened ? I doubt it, as all lawyers are members of the Law Society of Scotland and wont want to do anything to upset the powers that be.

Offers of legal representation to clear up this mess will be gratefully received ...

This is all a good example of how our glorious Scottish legal system is geared to self protecting lawyers and the legal profession against any member of the public who may have a valid claim against a solicitor. That in itself is a good enough argument to ensure that any regulation involving the legal profession must be fully independent, transparent and have no connection whatsoever with the present systems the legal profession has put in place over the years to constantly save itself from any harm.

Reform these injustices now, and bring fully independent regulation for the legal services market, which must be fully opened up to break the Law Society's monopoly on access to justice - as they have so well demonstrated against myself and so many others.