CALLED TO THE BARS : Drink fuelled & ‘hate filled’ emails of MacAskill appointees ruined credibility of Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claim Govt insiders

Already wounded over refusals to investigate complaints against corrupt lawyers, the SLCC became “a laughing stock" in email revelations. A DRINK FUELLED hate-filled rant between a now former Board member of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) who was personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and a former Chief Executive who mysteriously resigned over ill health then turned up again at the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has been identified by Scottish Government insiders as the spark which left the SLCC with no credibility as an impartial regulator or of Scottish solicitors.

The bizarre rants, attacking campaign groups and clients making financial damages claims against dodgy Scottish lawyers were written by Glasgow based divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan OBE, then a Board member of the SLCC in 2008, to Eileen Masterman, the legal regulator’s third and most controversial Chief Executive who spent only a few months in the job before being accused of lying by Scotland’s Finance Secretary, John Swinney MSP, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Scottish Govt. Finance Chief John Swinney blasts Legal Complaints Commission as liars over secret meetings with Law Society insurers Marsh UK

In the bitter email exchanges, revealed after Freedom of Information requests were made by Diary of Injustice, Mrs Scanlan went on to single out a former complaints campaign group for special attention, demanding the SLCC give no recognition to such groups in a forthcoming investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy & Guarantee Fund, both of which have been roundly condemned as being “institutionally corrupt” by Consumer rights groups, submissions made to Scottish Parliament investigations and hundreds of clients who have ended up financially ruined as a result of involvement with the Scottish legal profession.

Mrs Scanlan also branded claimants to the notoriously corrupt Master Insurance Policy as “chancers”, yet a ground breaking investigation carried out by the University of Manchester’s law school later that same year in July 2009, linked the Law Society’s Master Policy with suicides of clients of solicitors who were involved in damages claims against the Master Policy compensation scheme after being financially ruined by their lawyers.

Margaret Scanlan was ‘on the razzle again’ while clients of ‘crooked lawyers’ burned. Yesterday, the Sunday Mail newspaper featured email correspondence obtained under Freedom of Information laws in which SLCC board member Margaret Scanlan, a solicitor with Russells Gibson McCaffrey in Glasgow, confessed to the Commission she was suffering from the effects of a hangover after being “'out on the razzle again last night”. Stunningly Scanlan in her emails then went on to tear apart consumers hopes the SLCC would fulfil its intended monitoring role of the ‘crooked lawyer compensation schemes, operated by the Law Society of Scotland, known as the Guarantee Fund & Master Insurance Policy which are designed to (but do not) protect consumers funds from crooked lawyers who steal money or mishandling client’s legal affairs.

Margaret Scanlan : “Was out on the razzle, again, last night so bit cross-eyed this morning. Please excuse any consequent gibberish. Here are my comments on Master Policy and Guarantee Fund…. The consultation should be viewed with some caution. It provides very little by way of a sound evidential basis for us to do anything…. One unidentified responded … reports complaints about difficulty in finding solicitors to pursue a claim under MP (Master Policy). Apart from fundamental misunderstandings about MP which is for benefit of practitioner and in respect of which consumer has no rights ..”

Margaret Scanlan condemns claimants against crooked lawyers as “chancers”. However, further emails from Margaret Scanlan have now emerged which depict the same Law Society style 'anti-consumer-anti-claims culture' operating at the supposedly independent Legal Complaints Commission, where Scanlan stunningly labels claimants to the Guarantee Fund as "chancers" indicating she may have personal knowledge of cases, despite the fact that claims to the Guarantee Fund are supposedly confidential.

Margaret Scanlan : "The only complaints I am aware of on the functioning and extent of the GF [Guarantee Fund] have come from corporate bodies eg lending Institutions whose claims have largely not been entertained on basis that is not what GF is for. This includes our friend **** (censored) whose cause is vigorously espoused by **** (censored) but is a complete chancer in my opinion."

Today, a senior source in the Scottish Government’s Justice Department claimed the revelations which ended up in the media, “revealed the regulator’s institutional contempt for members of the public who make complaints against crooked lawyers”. The source also went on to criticise the Justice Secretary himself for allowing the legal profession to dictate terms on a daily basis as to how the supposedly “independent” SLCC investigate complaints made by clients of poorly performing Scottish solicitors.

However, the anti-client culture at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission did not end with just one board member, a fact revealed in continuing investigations by Diary of Injustice after sources within the SLCC leaked details of bitter meetings where consumers, campaign groups, individuals and clients of well known corrupt lawyers were openly slated and derided by the highly remunerated Board members who were taking hundreds of pounds a day in expenses claims.

Further revelations revealing the strongly anti-client, anti- consumer views of the SLCC’s board emerged again in 2010 after Scotland’s then Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, ordered the release of further bitter email exchanges showing David Smith, husband of Court of Session Judge Lady Smith, who regularly branded victims of crooked lawyers as “frequent flyers” in emails the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission fought to keep the public from reading. Diary of Injustice reported on Mr Dunion’s decision and the scandal surrounding Mr Smith’s treatment of victims of rogue lawyers in an article here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

SLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision published late last week by Mr Dunion are emails containing anti-client jibes from one of the SLCC’s board members, David Smith who was personally appointed to the SLCC by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Smith, a lawyer who served much of his career at law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, who themselves often act for the Master Policy in protection of questionable solicitors against negligence claims, referred to participants in the Master Policy survey & deceased clients who had committed suicide as a direct result of involvement with the Master Policy, as “Frequent flyers”, a term (among many unprintable) apparently widely used among SLCC Board members & staff against anyone who submits complaints against solicitors.

A Justice Department insider condemned the use of such language, describing the words used in the email written by Smith as “being filled with hate for people who complain about their lawyers”. He further commented : “No wonder the SLCC fought against the Information Commissioner to keep it from public gaze as this depicts a very anti-client culture permeating the entire board of the SLCC.”

David Smith, Margaret Scanlan and Eileen Masterman are of course no longer at the SLCC, yet attempts to re-float the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission since the media revelations of how badly it views members of the public have consistently failed, with most people forced to deal with the prejudiced regulator ending up viewing the SLCC as little more than “a front company for the legal profession to put complaints against their members to bed”.

Eileen Masterman resigned from the SLCC, receiving a huge payoff personally backed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, reported exclusively by Diary of Injustice here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers. After allegedly being too ill to work, Ms Masterman went back to work for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, her new position exposed after allegations of a whitewash by the SPSO and a hospital over the death of a baby, reported here Deputy First Minister to look into death of baby McKenzie Wallace after parents complain of ‘whitewash’ report by SPSO investigator Eileen Masterman

The Sunday Mail newspaper reported on the anti-consumer views of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as follows

Called to the Bars : Top lawyer admits talking gibberish at work due to hangover

Mar 15 2009 By David Taylor

A TOP legal watchdog admitted to her boss she was talking gibberish - because of a hangover. Lawyer Margaret Scanlan made the confession in a email which described herself as "cross-eyed" after a night on the tiles.

Scanlan was appointed to her job in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission by anti-booze crusader Kenny MacAskill. She wrote: "Was out on the razzle, again, last night so bit cross-eyed this morning. Please excuse any consequent gibberish."

Divorce lawyer Scanlan sent the lengthy email at 11.30am one day in November last year to watchdog chief Eileen Masterman. It was also copied to Alan Paterson, a law professor at Strathclyde University.

Campaigner Peter Cherbi, who champions legal and consumer issues, said: "This is not the sort of service the people of Scotland deserve. "It's not very good conduct for people who are supposed to be in some of the most respectable positions in the legal profession."

Scanlan was hand picked by Justice Secretary MacAskill as one of five lawyers to serve on the SLCC - a "one-stop shop" for complaints against lawyers. MacAskill plans to enforce mimimum prices for drink to combat alcoholism and drink-related problems.

The SLCC was set up by the Scottish Government to "modernise the legal complaints" system and ensure gripes are resolved quickly and effectively. It was formed after complaints that self-regulation by the Law Society of Scotland often protected crooked lawyers through cronyism.

Scanlan's email - about an insurance policy to cover solicitors' mistakes and misuse of clients' cash - was released to legal reform campaigners through a Freedom of Information request. The request also released emails from Scanlan attacking outspoken legal reform group Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.

In one email, she wrote: "I would prefer that we not give any recognition to SACL. "I do not see why we have to name them even if we are bound to engage with them. "Their website is offensive and so far as I am aware no reputable organisations has anything to do with them"

Scanlan is a specialist in family law at Glasgow-based Russells Gibson McCaffrey.

She has also tutored in family law at Glasgow Caledonian University and was deputy chair of the Scottish Legal Aid Board between 1997 and 2007. She was also director of the Legal Defence Union between 1998 and 2002. She earns £350 a day plus expenses for her work with the SLCC.

When asked about the emails, Scanlan told us: "I have nothing to say."

HACKED BY THE LAW : Hacking in UK public life reveals deals between professions, vested interests, business, lawyers & crooked cops for YOUR details

Dealt with a rogue lawyer, the Law Society or Master Policy ? You have been hacked. Oh yes you have. HACKING IN PUBLIC LIFE in the UK is much more commonly practised and goes far wider than one rashly closed down newspaper, as anyone who has become a figure of public interest, a celebrity, a politician, a critic of industry or vested interests, a campaigner of any kind, and yes, anyone who has made some kind of court claim against big business, the professions or even public services should know. I even know journalists who have been hacked, because they were investigating some kind of scandal which vested interests, some political, some commercial, and some public, did not want their names, companies or organisations dragged through the media in entirely justifiable headlines exposing scandal upon scandal.

Hacking, or as former Prime Minister Gordon Brown referred to earlier this week as “Law breaking on an industrial scale” as he spoke in Parliament about rather unnecessary news reports relating to his son’s medical condition, is most definitely not limited to certain sections of the media. Even if we don't particularly want to admit it, I think most of us and accept that hacking in UK public life and all that illegal information sharing by professions, vested interests, big business and even public servants, exists, happens with alarming frequency, involves substantial amounts of money and personal gain for those involved, and is completely out of control. In short, it wasn't just the News of the World now, was it.

The area of journalism I cover, is of course, the justice system and all its ills. Believe me, there are many and I don't need to go far to find examples.

However, after my article on 3 July 2011 in which I wrote : “SUICIDES, ill health, death, family break-ups, personal threats, repossessed homes, unsolved burglaries, tampered mail, spurious Police visits or raids on your home with following arrests & charges withdrawn, benefits cheat investigations, Inland Revenue investigations, losing your job, DVLA inquiries, TV license inquiries, even RIPSA surveillance by local authorities, actions all apparently instigated by aggrieved lawyers out to discredit troublesome clients, are now known to form a catalogue of common experiences in varying combinations which keep cropping up with clients who attempt to pursue ‘rogue Scottish solicitors’ through the courts by claiming against the Law Society of Scotland controlled Master Policy, the Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme which protects solicitors from damages claims from clients for negligence and other rip-offs”, little did I realise my coverage would bring some individuals out of the woodwork who are now admitting to practising the ‘dark arts’ against disgruntled clients of Scotland’s less than honest legal profession.

Was I surprised. Well, no. However I was surprised at the number of contacts from clients caught in the loop of hiring yet another lawyer to repair the damage a previous lawyer had done to their case, or those clients now trying to pursue their former lawyers through the courts.

Strangely enough, all of these individuals now caught in the system appear to have suffered a string of multiple problems in their life which were not present before they had become involved with the legal system, and had clearly suffered some kind of information sharing exercise between professions & in some cases even the Police who had turned against them on all counts.

In short, the Scottish justice system had clearly turned from an allegedly well respected system of dispute resolution, to that of a finely tuned, well oiled weapon used against anyone who disagreed with it or sought to recover from damages inflicted by it.

After careful consideration of material presented to Diary of Injustice, material which portrays an oh-so-obvious favour-&-trade-for-information policy involving agents working for the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy, I wrote a further article on 11 July 2011, reporting admissions from a legal insider that Private Investigators were routinely used to hack the details of clients who were pursuing negligence claims against their crooked lawyers, claims which involve the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy, an insurance protection scheme for the legal profession which is brokered by a UK subsidiary (Marsh UK) of a US company called Marsh McLennan Companies (MMC) who were found guilty of bid rigging in the US.

One firm of Private Investigators admitted to working for law firms connected to the Master Policy after being challenged with information. Since I wrote the article on Monday of this week, another firm has also acknowledged its part in monitoring and seeking, on behalf of law firms who in some cases have links to the Scottish Government, details of clients private lives.

Even better, a now retired Private Investigator who has gone on to confirm much of what has been said this week and provide further insight into highly questionable surveillance on clients and even some of the legal profession’s critics, has informed Diary of Injustice that law firms who represent the Master Policy “are now engaged in an effort to find out who talked”.

One particular incident is certainly much more clearer to me after this week.

I am now in a much better position to understand why, for instance, Board members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) felt they were able, with impunity to brand claimants to the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund as “chancers” and “frequent flyers”.

Simply, it was all down to the level of information on those individuals these particular SLCC Board members had access to, although how & why that information was compiled, what ‘questionable methods & relationships’ were used to compile it, and who was involved in compiling it, is, anyone’s guess for now, as is whether there is even one shred of truth to the information which was generated, and perhaps in some instances, fabricated by the legal profession itself.

However one thing can be clear. This particular information obtained on clients which allowed some people at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to feel good enough to hurl a few insults at those attempting to recover financial losses incurred by their solicitors, certainly did not come willingly from any client.

Any organisations, particularly a statutory regulator which benefits in any way from such acts of spying on clients denied justice, or whose who are caught up in trying to prove an injustice, acts clearly many of which are illegal, is not a fit or proper organisation to represent the public interest in legal matters, or protect clients interests in dealings with the legal profession.

Similarly, an insurance company which has already been convicted of bid rigging in the United States and has, in conjunction with the most senior officials of a statutory regulator, coordinated a series of acts against consumers to prevent them getting to court to settle negligence claims against crooked lawyers, or crooked anyone for that, is not a fit or proper organisation to offer insurance policies which are held up by equally crooked regulators as client protection schemes, which are nothing of the sort.

So this takes us back to one now very clear fact. If you have dealt with the legal profession on the basis you have tried to take legal action against a solicitor, or if you have raised what could be classified as serious or controversial complaints against members of the legal profession, particularly high profile members of the legal profession, you, like many others caught in the same position you have never met in your life, may well have been hacked. Hacked to an unimaginable degree. If anyone wants to do something about it, you know where I am.

Readers may also wish to note the fine article in today’s Guardian by Heather Brooke, which goes far in explaining some of the information sharing cartels existing in UK public life, here : Phone hacking: let's break up this information cartel

And finally … to the scandal which catapulted hacking in public life into the media headlines, the story of the News of the World, which met its untimely end because, as Rupert Murdoch said today in his apology printed in several newspapers, “The News of the World was in the business of holding others to account. It failed when it came to itself.”

Need I remind you all, the same relationships between former journalists and corrupt Police Officers which ultimately brought down the News of the World, still exist in the same quantities, perhaps even more so, in many walks of life, in big business, in public services, and in the legal profession and indeed right at the very top of its regulatory bodies.

Do you ever think the legal profession and its regulators will ever apologise for, and attempt to put right the wrongs they have committed against members of the public. No they wont. Never.

This is exactly why we need newspapers & journalists with integrity, bloggers, campaigners and victims of injustice who can turn the tables on those in power, do the investigative work which needs to be done, and hold the vested interests, the crooked professions, big business, crooked politicians, the justice system, and those in public life who put on a double face, to account.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission pays organisations £20K of YOUR MONEY to spy on Kenny MacAskill, Law Society, its own staff & media

SLCC paid organisations £20k to spy on Kenny MacAskill, Holyrood, Law Society, media & others. CLIENTS of all Scottish solicitors are unwittingly helping to fund a little talked about yet HUGELY EXPENSIVE media monitoring & spying policy operated by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which reports back on news & any other reports or references relating to Kenny MacAskill, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Scottish Parliament, MSPs and even the SLCC’s own staff, according to documents & admissions disclosed under Freedom of Information legislation yesterday.

So far the SLCC has spent well nearly TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS on spying on the media, £7555.72 in its first financial year (2009-2009) the same year it received a whopping two million pounds of taxpayers money, with the spying project’s costs increasing to £9863.07 in financial year 2009-2010 and rumoured to be even more for the current financial year. Income received by the SLCC from the levy imposed on all solicitors, which in turn is recovered from clients through increased fees, funds the SLCC’s operating costs including the media spying project. Earlier this year it was revealed the SLCC has only managed to uphold one single complaint in its three years of existence and has made not one single referral to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, a worse record than even the Law Society of Scotland.

Keeping the SLCC informed of how they, and their targets look to the outside world, at a cost of £10K a year. The bizarre spying policy, the principle aim of which is ‘to keep the SLCC informed of any media activity where the organisation is mentioned’, uses two companies to monitor reports & references relating to : “SLCC (UK), SLCC in all Scottish daily and weekly press, Staff Mentions, Faculty of Advocates, Justice Committee, Law Society of Scotland, The Association of Commercial Attorneys, Alternative Business Structures, Client Relations Partners, and Kenny MacAskill”. The arrangement with two companies, one called Meltwater News, the other so far not identified by the SLCC, provide reports of daily mentions of the SLCC’s search terms from all online sources and has also netted critical stories on Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on disgraced former MSP Bill Aitken, who resigned his position as Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee after he attempted to blame Sunday Herald journalists to cover up comments he made on a rape victim.

The FOI disclosure showing how the SLCC’s media monitoring policy operates, can be viewed or downloaded here : SLCC media monitoring policy

A legal insider speaking this morning on the revelations said : “Have they never heard of using a free search engine like google to find out what's happening on the internet ? For an organisation which is supposed to be saving money, the SLCC seems to have a lot of it to waste on worries of how to maintain its image rather than attending to its duties of regulating complaints about the legal profession”

A Scottish Government source condemned the SLCC’s costly spying project. He said : “I think the 20K might have been better spent on other areas of policy rather than worrying about how they are being reported in the media.”

He also claiming the SLCC “had failed public expectations of cleaning up the poor reputation of complaints regulation in the legal profession” adding that “stalking the Justice Secretary and the Scottish Parliament at a significant cost to solicitors and their clients for signs of criticism from Scottish Ministers & msps does not do the organisation any favours.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations braded the SLCC’s media spying policy “a complete waste of money”.

She said : “The SLCC have been so concerned about the cost of consultations such as the report into the Master Policy which happened on a shoestring budget yet we regularly see that the SLCC throws money down the toilet on anything to do with boosting its own image or keeping tabs on its critics.”

She continued : “Is this the way we expected the SLCC to perform as a complaints regulator ? I think the answer to that is a resounding ‘No’.”

While the SLCC claimed websites such as “Diary of Injustice in Scotland” were banned at the organisation’s luxurious half million pound a year Edinburgh HQ located at the Stamp Office, which is populated with staff earning up to £1350 a week & board members receiving up to £300 plus a day with almost unlimited expenses claims schemes & lucrative pension arrangements, copies of articles from this site are apparently regularly printed off from the SLCC’s Head of Communications computer and distributed around the organisation out of concern for rising levels of criticism of the now widely discredited law complaints regulator.

Reports by Diary of Injustice on Eileen Masterman’s resignation caused grave concern at SLCC. One particular subject covered by Diary of Injustice has, according to insiders, “caused grave concern and much anger among the SLCC’s board members & staff”, relating to reports from April 2010 on the six month disappearance of the SLCC’s now former CEO, Eileen Masterman, which prompted an announcement Ms Masterman had resigned over grounds of “ill health” after less than seven months in her £80,000 a year, £1,350 plus, a week job.  However, enquiries amid a host of refusals by the SLCC to disclose information on Ms Masterman’s resignation revealed there had been bitter & drawn out negotiations with legal teams on the terms of a rumoured-to-be “large ex-gratia” payment to Ms Masterman, approved by the Scottish Government in secret, which I reported on here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers :

According to insiders, even greater concerns were raised by the SLCC’s board members regarding earlier articles from Diary of Injustice which focussed on the sheer hostility of the board members towards clients of solicitors who were participating in the University of Manchester Law School’s 2009 investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy, the notoriously corrupt Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme which covers all Scottish solicitors for negligence & other client service failures.

Frequent Flyers : SLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes to Eileen Masterman in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion and featured in reports on Diary of Injustice were emails containing anti-client jibes,sent by SLCC board member David Smith to Ms Masterman in July 2009. Mr Smith, husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith, was personally appointed to the SLCC by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Smith, a lawyer who served much of his career at law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, who themselves often act for the Master Policy in protection of questionable solicitors against negligence claims, referred to participants in the Master Policy survey & deceased clients who had committed suicide as a direct result of involvement with the Master Policy, as “Frequent flyers”.

An earlier story in the Sunday Mail newspaper, revealing the boozed-up antics of SLCC board members who went on to make bitter hate fuelled remarks against members of the public & consumer groups in their emails to each other, prompted calls by some connected to the organisation “to take action” against Diary of Injustice and “attempt to discredit any reporting of internal goings on or information perceived to be anti-consumer” at the hapless law complaints quango.

Called to the Bars featured in newspapers, pointed to SLCC’s anti client culture among board members & senior officials. Margaret Scanlan’s ‘cross eyed’ email said : ““Was out on the razzle, again, last night so bit cross-eyed this morning. Please excuse any consequent gibberish. Here are my comments on Master Policy and Guarantee Fund…. The consultation should be viewed with some caution. It provides very little by way of a sound evidential basis for us to do anything…. One unidentified responded … reports complaints about difficulty in finding solicitors to pursue a claim under MP (Master Policy). Apart from fundamental misunderstandings about MP which is for benefit of practitioner and in respect of which consumer has no rights ..”  Ms Scanlan's rant against the Master Policy investigation was featured in the Sunday Mail newspaper, depicting a bitter, hate fuelled anti-client culture operating at the highest levels of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which also saw Ms Scanlan rubbish victims of crooked lawyers who tried to recover money misappropriated by their solicitors as “complete chancers”.

Despite the bitter tirades of Scanlan & Smith against consumers & victimised clients, the University of Manchester’s report published by the SLCC in 2009 linked the Master Policy to the deaths of clients, more on which can be read here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was asked to justify their expenditure on spying on the media in the face of requirements by all public bodies to save money and whether they considered this is money wisely spent. The SLCC were also asked if their media monitoring spy service brought any benefits to regulation of the legal profession. A spokesperson for the SLCC said : “The SLCC has no comment.”

BACKGROUND TO PAYOFF & RESIGNATION OF SLCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE EILEEN MASTERMAN :

Sources in late 2009 had informed Diary of Injustice that Ms Masterman had failed to respond to correspondence from consumers & msps, however it was not until early 2010, firm evidence was made available Ms Masterman had been missing from her role as the SLCC’s Chief Executive for some time, as I revealed in an article on April 13 2010, here : £70K Chief Executive ‘missing for 6 months’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Secretary dodges questions on scandal-hit law quango The day after my initial article on Ms Masterman’s disappearance from  work, April 4, 2010, the SLCC were forced to announce the resignation of Ms Masterman from her post on grounds of “ill health”, which I reported on, here : SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh

Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney revealed he felt Ms Masterman had mislead him over accounts of meetings. However, Eileen Masterman’s resignation leaves questions over increasingly bitter exchanges between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & the Scottish Government’s Finance Chief, John Swinney, on a matter which I have previously reported where further documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation revealed the SLCC had clearly mislead Mr Swinney over secret meetings between its officials including Ms Masterman and officials from Marsh, the Law Society’s Master Policy insurers.

Frequent Fryers of FOI : SLCC Board Member ex-Deputy Chief Constable Ian Gordon, also the Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland refused disclosure on Masterman. Given the many questions raised over the resignation of Ms Masterman, and the lack of progress the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had made on key issues including scrutiny of the Master Policy, Freedom of Information requests were made to the SLCC asking for details surrounding the resignation. They were refused. Upon a request for a review of the SLCC’s refusal to disclose information through Freedom of Information legislation, one of its board members, former Tayside Deputy Chief Constable Ian Gordon, who is also, amazingly, the Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland, abruptly refused the Freedom of Information review, as did the SLCC’s new Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew, who considered and again abruptly refused a second request for an FOI review.

The Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion was asked to investigate the SLCC’s refusal to hand over information on Ms Masterman’s resignation. He has found the SLCC must release some details although has allowed other information to remain secret. His decision can be read here : Decision 114/2011 Resignation of the former Chief Executive Officer

HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman (foreground) received Scottish Government approved pay off after lawyers intervened says auditor report. RUMOURS that Eileen Masterman, the former Chief Executive of the much derided Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), received a SUBSTANTIAL PAY OFF after she resigned on grounds of “ill health”, after serving less than SEVEN MONTHS in the £80,000 a year, £1,350 plus, a week job have now been confirmed with the publication of a “Key Memorandum Issues” document prepared for the SLCC by the Edinburgh offices of auditors Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton were called in to replace the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) as the SLCC’s auditors, after SLAB were abruptly sacked from their auditing role by the SLCC’s board in 2009 after much bickering over the Legal Aid Board’s scrutiny of the failed law complaints quango.

However, the report now published by Grant Thornon FAILS to mention any references to official claims Ms Masterman resigned due to “ill health”. The report instead documents a battle negotiations between lawyers, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and even the Scottish Government over what is referred to as an unspecified “Ex-Gratia payment”, which one legal insider this morning said may have been made to head off any legal proceedings against the SLCC by Ms Masterman. The figure, which Grant Thornton, the SLCC and the Scottish Government have so far failed to disclose, is rumoured to be substantial.

Grant Thornton’s audit of the SLCC’s problems revealed Scottish Government approved payoff to former CEO. Referring to Ms Masterman’s payoff while managing to omit the figures, page eight of the report from Grant Thornton states : “Ex gratia payment to former CEO : Rosemary Agnew was appointed the role of Acting CEO in November 2009 and the former CEO, Eileen Masterman departed from the post in February 2010, with Rosemary Agnew continuing in her role. We understand that an ex-gratia payment was paid to the former CEO. The amount of this payment was determined through consultation between the former CEO, the Board and the respective lawyers. The payment was then authorised and approved by the Board and the payment approved by the Scottish Government.”

SLCC release on Masterman resignation claimed illness, omitting details of Scottish Government approved pay-off. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a public press release regarding Ms Masterman’s resignation, stating : “The SLCC has now informed its staff and stakeholders that after a period of illness, Eileen Masterman, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has left the organisation. The Commission wishes her well for the future. Jane Irvine, SLCC Chair, confirmed that Rosemary Agnew, the SLCC Head of Investigations, will continue in her role as Accountable Officer and Acting Chief Executive until further notice. The position of Chief Executive is filled through the Public Appointments process run by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland (OCPAS). The recruitment process will commence in due course.”

Following the ‘recruitment process’, Ms Masterman was eventually replaced by Rosemary Agnew as Chief Executive in 2010. The SLCC have since removed any references to Ms Masterman’s resignation from their website.

Sources in late 2009 had informed Diary of Injustice that Ms Masterman had failed to respond to correspondence from consumers & msps, however it was not until early 2010, firm evidence was made available Ms Masterman had been missing from her role as the SLCC’s Chief Executive for some time, as I revealed in an article on April 13 2010, here : £70K Chief Executive ‘missing for 6 months’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Secretary dodges questions on scandal-hit law quango

The day after my initial article on Ms Masterman’s disappearance from work, April 4, 2010, the SLCC were forced to announce the resignation of Ms Masterman from her post on grounds of “ill health”, which I reported on, here : SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh

Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney revealed he felt Ms Masterman had mislead him over accounts of meetings. However, Eileen Masterman’s resignation leaves questions over increasingly bitter exchanges between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & the Scottish Government’s Finance Chief, John Swinney, on a matter which I have previously reported where further documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation revealed the SLCC had clearly mislead Mr Swinney over secret meetings between its officials including Ms Masterman and officials from Marsh, the Law Society’s Master Policy insurers.

Cabinet Secretary Swinney demanded explanations of SLCC's minutes contradictions. Letters written by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney dated March 2009 to the SLCC's Chief Executive Eileen Masterman brand her explanation 'contradictory' to details in the Commission's own minutes : "In your response on the 12th of December to *** subsequent letter on the 2nd of December in which *** had stated 'clearly you are saying that no date has yet been arranged for the Marsh presentation'. You indicated that a meeting took place with RSA (Royal Sun Alliance) in July 2008 but that no meeting had occurred with Marsh."

Mr Swinney went on to state in his letter : "*** has drawn to my attention the fact that the minutes of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission dated 11th of March 2008 and 7th July 2007 indicated firstly in March 2008 that 'Jane Irvine confirmed she had arranged an introductory session from Marsh' and the minutes in July said that a meeting had taken place with RSA. I have to say that I feel there is a contradiction between the correspondence you have sent to *** dated 1st and 12th of December and the minutes of the SLCC meetings of March and July."

SLCC's answers to Cabinet Secretary Swinney were far from clear. Ms Masterman’s responses to Mr Swinney's allegations of contradictions in correspondence between himself, a constituent and the SLCC, to keep secret any meetings with the insurers, fell through after details of the secret meetings emerged in board minutes of meetings of the Commission, leading to further correspondence between the SLCC & Mr Swinney, who went onto brand Ms Masterman’s explanations as "far from clear" after Ms Masterman informed Mr Swinney in letters dated 15 January 2009 "The SLCC has not consulted with Marsh or the Royal Sun Alliance about the operation of the Master Policy" which was contradicted by emails from November 2008 between Ms Masterman & the then Head of Investigations Rosemary Agnew, which read : "We received our tutorial yesterday on the Master Policy from Marsh".

Eileen Masterman then wrote to John Swinney in a letter dated March 2009 claiming "I have not met with Marsh", clearly contradicting the course of events revealed in documents released under FOI legislation where SLCC officials including Ms Masterman had in fact met Marsh.

Frequent Flyers : SLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes to Eileen Masterman in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, emails containing anti-client jibes were revealed to have been sent by SLCC board member David Smith to Ms Masterman in July 2009. Mr Smith, husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith, was personally appointed to the SLCC by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Smith, a lawyer who served much of his career at law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, who themselves often act for the Master Policy in protection of questionable solicitors against negligence claims, referred to participants in the Master Policy survey & deceased clients who had committed suicide as a direct result of involvement with the Master Policy, as “Frequent flyers”.

Called to the Bars : Evidence from earlier FOI releases featured in newspapers point to SLCC’s anti client culture among board members & senior officials. The emails from David Smith to SLCC staff including the SLCC’s then Chief Executive Eileen Masterman, support evidence from earlier FOI releases which featured in the national media of a bitter, hate fuelled anti-client culture operating at the highest levels of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has seen other board members such as Glasgow divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan who rubbished victims of crooked lawyers as “complete chancers”. In additional emails, other board members chastised consumer organisations, and sought to exclude them from the inevitable results of the SLCC’s Master Policy investigation, which the deaths of clients to the Law Society of Scotland, its insurers and the Master Policy itself.

A client who has been waiting months for the SLCC to take action on his complaint about his solicitor, condemned the organisation for its inaction over complaints and internal secrecy. He said : “I’ve been waiting nine months for a result on my complaint which has been back and forth from the Law Society to the SLCC yet neither can work out who should investigate my case. They seem to be more able to pay off their staff in the snap of a finger and make sure the dirt is kept secret rather do their job which is supposed to be investigating complaints about solicitors.”

Something to hide : Scottish Government Ministers refuse to comment on audit report’s claims they approved a payoff to the former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman. The Scottish Government were asked for comment on their role in approving the pay off to Ms Masterman amid claims that a series of leters from Mr Swinney & a law reform campaigner over the Master Policy meetings led to her downfall. The Scottish Government refused any comment, their spokesperson briefly stating : "This is a private personnel matter for the SLCC and its former employee."

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission also refused to comment on the matter or release any details of the payoff and how it was negotiated. It was also noted the SLCC’s media response was emailed at exactly the same time as the response received from the Scottish Government.

Frequent Fryers of FOI requests : SLCC Board Member former Deputy Chief Constable Ian Gordon is also the Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland for the next four years. Given the many questions raised over the resignation of Ms Masterman, and the lack of progress the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had made on key issues including scrutiny of the Master Policy, Freedom of Information requests were made to the SLCC asking for details surrounding the resignation. They were refused. Upon a request for a review of the SLCC’s refusal to disclose information through Freedom of Information legislation, one of its board members, former Tayside Deputy Chief Constable Ian Gordon, who is also, amazingly, the Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland, abruptly refused the Freedom of Information review, as did the SLCC’s new Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew, who considered and again abruptly refused a second request for an FOI review.

The Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion is now investigating the SLCC’s refusal to release any information on Ms Masterman’s absence and resignation from the SLCC.

More ‘jobs for the boys’ than action on ‘crooked lawyers’ : What it takes to be a Board Member at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Board Members of the do-little Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have record numbers of ‘other jobs’. IT MAY COME as no surprise the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) and the Law Society of Scotland have been busy priming their well-oiled media spin machines for the imminent publication of the SLCC’s latest annual report, which is expected to show the number of complaints have dropped against solicitors in Scotland with the SLCC apparently being left with almost little to do by way of regulating anything past a dog biscuit.

Yet while complaints have dropped, and thumbs are twiddled at the SLCC’s lavish Stamp Office Edinburgh HQ, the SLCC is, as I reported in November 2010 about to attempt to hype itself as being more effective in dealing with complaints against crooked lawyers, than it actually is in reality, adding four new Board Members to its already over-the-top line of quangocrats & lawyers who, in some cases, are currently holding down more than 10 jobs each.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will soon announce new additions to SLCC’s expensive expense claiming board. While the new appointments are yet to be officially announced by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in the usual fanfare, according to information seen by Diary of Injustice, the SLCC's now overdue annual report attempts to spin around the real reasons for the fall in complaints against solicitors & law firms, reasons which appear to be mostly due to the financial downturn, with clients being unable to afford to use solicitors, along with a general downturn in property sales, and perhaps a slightly increased willingness on the part of some law firms to discuss & resolve client difficulties before the matter develops into complaint and attracts unwanted media attention, rather than any sudden increase in the standards of legal services offered to consumers in Scotland by legal practitioners.

Whopping expenses claims by SLCC’s Board Members expected to increase with additional appointments. With the further imminent announcements of the latest appointments to the SLCC’s Board of three ‘non-lawyer’ board members with legal & ‘consumer’ backgrounds at £209+ a day along with one extra lawyer board member to ensure the legal profession continues to have its way against client complaints, it is perhaps fitting to reflect on exactly what it takes to be a Board Member at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, along with all that lolly money one can expect by way of expenses claims for ensuring the vast majority of complaints made by members of the public or clients against solicitors & law firms which operate in Scotland’s notoriously hugely expensive yet poor quality legal services market succumb to the same whitewash treatment typical of the Law Society of Scotland’s tenure as self regulator of lawyers in Scotland, a tenure which has led to thousands of financially ruined clients while even the most negligent solicitors (in some cases with criminal records) remaining in practice, unbeknown to their clients …

Jane Irvine
• Immediate past Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman.
• Professional contact with solicitors' firms Burness, Leslie Deans & Co and Allan McDougal.
• Professional contact with advocates Derek O'Carrol and John Campbell QC.
• Director, Daleway LTD.
• Deputy UK Pensions Ombudsman.
• Chair of the Disciplinary Board of the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries (from January 2010).

Douglas Watson
• Former lay member of a Law Society of Scotland Committee dealing with Access to Legal Information. The role was unpaid.
• A cousin, Bruce Minto, is a partner in Dickson Minto, Solicitors.
• Formerly a Chief Superintendent with Lothian and Borders Police.

Dr Linda Pollock
• Executive Nursing Director (1989 -2006).
• Interim Board Nurse Director (2002-2003).
• Chief Nursing Officer’s Professional Advisor on nurse prescribing (2005-6).
• Past External Examiner with Robert Gordon’s University and Queen Margaret University.
• Research Honorary Fellow in the Social Science Faculty of Edinburgh University.
• Formerly, a part time nurse member of the Mental Welfare Commission (1997- 2005).
• Currently, working as a Primary Care Consultant, undertaking research work commissioned by the Queen’s Nursing Institute in Scotland.
• Registrant member of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Appointments Board.
• Member of the Royal College of Nursing.
• Dr Pollock has a track record of authorship and chapter contributions in professional books, and continues to write articles in nursing journals.
• Board Member of the Accounts Commission (from 1st October for three years).
• Chair to a UK-wide Advisory Board with Pain Concern (from Jan 2010).

George L Irving CBE
• Director of Social Work North Ayrshire Council 1999-2000. • Chair of Ayrshire Council on Alcohol.
• Ex-President of the Association of Directors of Social Work (Scotland).
• Chair of NHS Ayrshire and Arran from 2001-2006.
• Led the National Support Team, Management of Offenders 2005-2007.
• Visiting Professor to Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health.
• Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.
• Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
• Member of the Rotary Club of Alloway.
• Member of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Ian Gordon OBE, QPM, LL.B (Hons)
• Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland (from 1 February 2010 for four years).
• Member of the Registration and Conduct Sub Committees of the Scottish Social Services Council. Appointed by the Council on 29 April 2010 for 3 years.
Payment from Scottish Social Services Council.
• Associate Professor in Policing for Charles Sturt University (Australia)
• Director (Trustee) of Blairgowrie and Rattray Regeneration Company (BARRC) Registered Charity – Not remunerated.
• Member of Rotary International
• Retired Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside Police.
• Formerly Chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS)
Professional Standards Business Area.
• Formerly Vice-Chair of ACPOS General Policing Business Area.

Margaret Scanlan
• Consultant, Russells Gibson McCaffrey, Solicitors.
• Member of the Law Society of Scotland and holder of current practising certificate.
• Husband is a senior partner Russells Gibson McCaffrey.
• Husband is a member of the Law Society of Scotland and holder of current practising certificate.
• Past Chair of the Family Law Association.
• Former member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

David Smith
• Member of the Law Society of Scotland.
• Former member/partner of Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP, Solicitors. Retired on 30/04/08.
• Non-Executive Director, Value and Income Trust Plc.
• Wife is a Senator of the College of Justice and a non practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.

David Chaplin
• Former member of Anderson Fyfe LLP, Solicitors. Retired on 30/04/08.
• Member of the Law Society of Scotland.
• Director and shareholder in Baliol Properties Limited.

Alan Paterson
• Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Professional Legal Studies at Strathclyde University.
• Research adviser to the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
• Member of the Law Society of Scotland.
• Professional contact with Guild & Guild, Solicitors and McCash & Hunter, LLP.

SLCC report on Master Policy revealed clients had committed suicide at the hands of crooked lawyers but still nothing has been done after two years. Having all these second, third & forth jobs appears to have got in the way of the SLCC doing its job, particularly when it comes to monitoring the Law Society of Scotland's Master Policy (the Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme run by the infamous insurers Marsh to cover solicitors negligence), which was revealed by an independent report carried out by Manchester University of Law School to have caused the deaths of clients, simply to ensure lawyers could sleep at night. More on the Master Policy report can be read here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night' and the latest attempt by the SLCC to fulfil its ‘monitoring role’ over the Master Policy adds to its long running failure to attend to its legislated duties, reported here : Law Society's ‘Killer Insurance’ in the dock as solicitor says only way ‘adversarial’ Master Policy will be revealed is if it ends up on Wikileaks

Going on the above evidence, it clearly would take more than 9 people at the SLCC to change a light bulb, never mind attending to consumer expectations of independent regulation of legal services in Scotland and all the safeguards which come with independent regulation, which at least, the English seem to be enjoying via their own Legal Ombudsman, as I reported last October, here : Scots consumers stuck with 'crooked' self-regulation of lawyers as England & Wales go fully independent with new Legal Ombudsman

Quangocrats wanted : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seek ‘non-lawyer’ board members with legal & ‘consumer’ backgrounds at £209+ a day

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seek new non-lawyer board members for window dressing exercise. THE USUAL SUSPECTS, quangocrats, & other ‘regular-appointees-on-the-Government-circuit’ will today be rubbing their hands at the prospect of yet another publicly appointed position of £209+ per day to add to their growing list of jobs as it was revealed the Scottish Government announced they are seeking an additional three ‘non'-lawyer’ board members to fill positions on the anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and one further lawyer member appointment. These latest appointments to the SLCC board will be made in early 2011 by Scottish Ministers in consultation with Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton.

Curiously, the latest attempt by the Scottish Government to ‘enhance’ the consumer credentials of the notoriously anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission requires the three new non-lawyer positions be filled by persons who specialise in, among other things “consumer advocacy”, “consumer rights” and “consumer needs” – three very distinct areas the SLCC and its board members have worked 100% against since it was created in early 2008.

Scotland’s top judge Lord Hamilton will have final say-so over SLCC’s new ‘non-lawyer’ appointees. While the recruitment drive appears to focus on consumer credentials, there is also a requirement for applicants to have a background in legal education and complaints handling, the provision of advice to members of the public on or in relation to such matters, the practice and provision of legal education and training, civil or criminal proceedings, court procedures and practice generally, the practice and provision of other legal services, and the monitoring of legal services. The successful candidates will only be appointed by Scottish Ministers after consultations with Scotland’s top judge, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, who is in charge of the entire Scottish courts system.

Scottish Government amended complaints law to bolster SLCC’s board with additional quangocrats. The increase in the non-lawyer compliment of the SLCC’s board has been brought about after the Scottish Government brought in a specific amendment to the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to expand the SLCC’s board non-lawyer complement. The apparently little publicised amendment states : “This Order makes certain changes to the number and composition of the membership of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The number of members (other than the chairing member) is increased from 8 to 11 (article 2(a)). This increase is made up of an increase in the number of non-lawyer members (other than the chairing member) from 4 to 6 (article 2(b)) and an increase in the number of lawyer members from 4 to 5 (article 2(c)).”

The latest quangocrats will have a chance to work with existing SLCC Board members already featured in the newspapers for being less than consumer friendly. The recruitment advertisement from the Scottish Government states : “The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) requires 3 non lawyer members to become part of their Board with effect from February 2011. The successful candidates will be appointed by Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session.As a non lawyer member you will have the ability to apply objective and impartial judgement to the resolution of disputes, have the ability to offer guidance on one or more of the following Commission activities: regulation, consumer rights, consumer advocacy, consumer needs and have the ability to contribute to an effective team.”

The advertisement continues : “The SLCC was established by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The main functions of the Commission are to resolve complaints alleging inadequate professional service or negligence by legal practitioners, to refer complaints which allege professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct to the relevant professional body and to promote good practice in complaints handling.”

Becoming an SLCC board member brings quango style expenses claims. Successful apologists, spivs & already employed quangocrats applicants can hope to receive remuneration of the order of : £209 per day. Travel and subsistence costs and reasonable receipted childcare and dependent carer expenses directly related to the Commission’s work will be reimbursed. Term of appointment: 5 years. Time commitment: Up to 6 days per month. Around one third of the time spent on the work of the Board and two thirds on complaints. Location of meetings: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, The Stamp Office, 10-14 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh EH1 3EG. The closing date for applications is 29 November 2010, the Application Form & Guidance Pack may be of interest to those many clients who have already been maligned & victimised by the SLCC in dealings with complaints against the legal profession.

SLCC’s Chair Jane Irvine claims in recruitment drive complaints quango has commitment & high standards ! A letter from the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine, included in the guidance pack states : “The Board of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) is committed to resolving complaints and ensuring high standards of regulation of the Scottish legal profession are maintained. We work with our operational team to make that happen.As Chair of the Board I need new Board members who are committed to public service and willing to devote time and energy to both the governance and complaints handling roles that Board members engage in. Both roles are intellectually stimulating. The SLCC is still a relatively new body and we have much to learn and develop. The roles are also absorbing and enjoyable, as we work with a lively and committed operational team and sophisticated stakeholders.”

While the SLCC boast of commitment to public service, papers disclosed under Freedom of Information legislation revealed its top board members engaged in bitter insults against consumers. While the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine claimed in her letter, the Scottish Legal Complaint Commission is committed to resolving complaints and ensuring high standards of regulation of the legal profession, earlier coverage of the SLCC’s board’s bitter attitudes towards consumers revealed its senior members, David Smith (husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith), and well known Glasgow solicitor & SLCC Board member Margaret Scandal branded clients as, among other insults “frequent flyers” & “chancers” to name but a few incidents. Further investigative reports revealed SLCC board members refused to deal with consumer groups, engaging in bitter hate fuelled email exchanges over the exclusion of consumer interest organisations.

A legal source said today he was concerned over the wording of the requirements of the new appointees, pointing out the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had never been designed to be a regulator with a remit on consumer rights or solicitor’s rights and pointed out the SLCC claims to be ‘a neutral body and operates independently of the legal profession’. He went onto say the new non-lawyer appointments may provoke a legal challenge on the basis the advertised requirements may violate solicitors right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of ECHR legislation.

He said : “I find it very odd the Scottish Government resorts to amending legislation without any substantial consultation to increase the SLCC’s compliment of board members with a specific remit on consumer rights where it was clearly never intended in the original legislation the SLCC would have any remit on solicitors rights, consumer rights or consumer advocacy.”

He continued : “The SLCC was intended to provide the profession & clients with a neutral, fair and independent regulator of complaints against the legal profession. Clearly these new appointments will create an imbalance at the SLCC where the interests of the profession, who are forced to pay for the SLCC’s extravagant upkeep, may receive less of a fair hearing with a board which will be heavily weighted against solicitors. I believe these new appointments could be open to challenge under Human Rights legislation.”

Another solicitor, speaking late this morning said : “This alarming move, which I have only heard of today, appears to be a window dressing exercise to appease the consumer lobby. There has been little debate within the profession to alter the SLCC’s role in such a radical manner and I believe this to be totally wrong, particularly considering we as solicitors are being forced to pay for it while it appears we have little say in how the SLCC is run.”

In response to solicitors claims they new arrangements would be weighted against the legal profession, a Scottish Government Spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government is confident that there is appropriate balance, with the rights of solicitors maintained.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations commented today the SLCC’s moves to attract individuals with consumer credentials was not what it seemed and urged consumers to be wary, pointing out previous SLCC decisions regarded as highly anti-consumer, notably where the SLCC decided to refuse to investigate any historical complaints before it began its work on 1st October 2008.

She said : “These appointments are not to be confused with lay appointments. As I understand matters, the SLCC are hoping to attract people with a legal background who may also have already served on consumer bodies, probably in the knowledge once they are appointed they will no longer be able to criticise the SLCC’s conduct towards consumer complaints or how the SLCC functions as a regulator. Consumers should beware of a false sense of security being projected by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in these new appointments.”

As I was asked today whether I might apply, for my own part, I will certainly not. I view the SLCC’s latest attempt to bolster its already non-existent consumer credentials as being too little too late. The SLCC have never been and will never be anything other than, as one MSP put it, ”a front company for the Law Society of Scotland”, no matter who serves on it.

To be part of something lesser, the SLCC, which has proved itself to be nothing more than an anti-consumer puppet of prejudiced self regulation would be an insult to the thousands of victims who have gone before, & continue to be left behind in the wake of the scores of Andrew Penmans, John G O’Donnells and the infamous many of Scotland’s bests-to-be-avoided legal profession, protected in their positions by the 'World's worst regulator' – the Law Society of Scotland.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were asked today for comment on the recruitment and also the prospect of any challenge from the legal profession over the apparent new ‘consumer oriented’ course of the SLCC. So far no reply has been received from the SLCC.

FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

Scotland’s Freedom of Information Chief Kevin Dunion. SCOTLAND’s FOI COMMISSIONER Kevin Dunion has ordered the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release information relating to its research on the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt Master Policy, the insurance protection scheme designed to protect the ever growing number of crooked lawyers in Scotland again claims for compensation to cover the millions of pounds of funds misappropriated from clients each year by solicitors in Scotland without recompense.

SLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision published late last week by Mr Dunion are emails containing anti-client jibes from one of the SLCC’s board members, David Smith who was personally appointed to the SLCC by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Smith, a lawyer who served much of his career at law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, who themselves often act for the Master Policy in protection of questionable solicitors against negligence claims, referred to participants in the Master Policy survey & deceased clients who had committed suicide as a direct result of involvement with the Master Policy, as “Frequent flyers”, a term (among many unprintable) apparently widely used among SLCC Board members & staff against anyone who submits complaints against solicitors.

Evidence from earlier FOI releases featured in newspapers points to SLCC’s anti client culture among board members & senior officials. The redacted, but readable emails from David Smith to SLCC staff including the SLCC’s Chief Executive Eileen Masterman , who resigned recently in mysterious circumstances after a 6 month absence from work, support evidence from earlier FOI releases which featured in the national media, there is a hate fuelled anti-client culture operating at the highest levels of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has seen other board members such as Glasgow divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan who was revealed in emails to have rubbed victims of crooked lawyers as “complete chancers” while of course, having nothing to say about her legal colleagues conduct. In additional emails, other board members chastised consumer organisations, and sought to exclude them from the Master Policy investigation, no doubt for fear of what would be revealed …

My earlier article on the SLCC’s demands that Scotland’s FOI Commissioner shield David Smith’s anti-client jibes, which can be read here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission demand judge’s husband’s insults against solicitors clients be shielded from FOI investigation

SLCC’s Master Policy report revealed client suicides, board members were more interested in attacking victims instead of helping them. Mr Dunion’s decision, commenting on the SLCC’s argument to withhold the already visible written attacks by its board member David Smith against participants of the Master Policy survey stated the SLCC had argued against disclosure of the information, including Mr Smith’s anti-client remarks, saying : “In citing section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA, the SLCC noted its concern that, if disclosed, the terminology used in this email exchange could be misinterpreted, and argued that effective working relationships with key stakeholders outwith the SLCC requires a certain amount of private space for discussions to take place.The SLCC went on to argue that not being able to discuss cases freely and openly in email for fear of being misinterpreted would affect the way it records information in the future, requiring change to its whole way of working and adding expense and delay which would substantially prejudice the free and frank exchange of views.”

Basically, the SLCC are arguing that it’s staff & board members just want to sit there and rip the living daylights out of consumers who fall victim to rogue lawyers while board members shower £135K a year on themselves in lavish expense claims and staff earn anything up to £1350 per week. It sounds reminiscent of the orgy of client hate which fuels the Law Society of Scotland … so its clear where the SLCC has learned its nasty habits from …

Mr Dunion rejected the SLCC’s arguments to keep secret its board member’s bitter attitude towards consumers, and ordered the release of the information relating to Mr Smith’s anti-client jibes, along with a further eight documents withheld by the SLCC relating to the Master Policy research carried out last year which I reported on here : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers and also here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Mr Dunion’s decision in full can be read here : Decision 089/2010 Mr Peter Cherbi and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : Master Policy and Guarantee Fund Research

A separate issue which was raised in the investigation – that of the SLCC’s poor quality redactions which led to the identification of individuals names, locations & contact information was dealt with ‘as a separate issue’ by Mr Dunion, and apparently no action was taken by Mr Dunion against the SLCC in this respect, even though individual's home addresses had been disclosed by the SLCC’s failure to properly redact several documents released under FOI.

A legal insider speaking this morning on condition of anonymity dubbed the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as ‘nothing more than a den of bitterness against those who complain about their solicitors’.

He said : “Clients who are forced to complain to the SLCC about their solicitors should be in no doubt they are hated at all levels of the organisation.”

He continued : “It is common knowledge there are those at the SLCC who constantly slur, insult and tell jokes about clients who have written into the organisation after being put in the most difficult circumstances by their solicitor’s failings. I’m sure these poor clients would not be impressed if they knew what was being said about them behind their backs”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations which is now receiving letters complaining against the SLCC itself, alleging the quango is covering up for crooked lawyers, said this afternoon : “It is clear from the public feedback we are receiving, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is not the solution to resolving the historical problems of bias in the regulation of Scotland’s legal profession which now date back many years.”

Advice ? Don’t trust a regulator that hates consumers. Based on my previous articles reporting on news & consumer difficulties with the SLCC, I also would not advise any member of the public to trust the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to investigate any complaint against a solicitor. Those who complain may well get the results of an investigation but you can bet there are so many get-out-of-jail clauses for the solicitor concerned, it wont be worth the paper its printed on. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is, as so many now say, nothing more than a front organisation for the Law Society of Scotland and crooked lawyers.

Only fully independent regulation of legal services in Scotland will bring any protection for consumers and I urge anyone who can, to campaign for independent regulation of the legal profession – its in everyone’s interests to do so.

As for Mr Smith and the others at the SLCC who apparently hate clients who dare complain about their solicitors, well, why don't you all resign and make way for people who the public can trust, instead of people who just sit there insulting everyone and keep taking the expenses & salaries cheques for doing so … what is that called again ?