Perth Law firm & Accountant in Bankruptcy lose bitter fight for disputed legal fees as MSP secures discharge for disabled client after FOUR YEAR ORDEAL

MSP Jayne Baxter secures relief for constituent in bitter fight over legal fees.THE CASE of a Perth client who has been through an horrific FOUR YEAR ordeal initiated by a Perth based law firm & Scotland’s Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) over fees claimed to be owed for a personal injury case, has sensationally collapsed after it was revealed this week the client has been officially discharged by the AIB from any alleged debts and that no funds were repaid to either the AIB or the law firm who claimed to be owed the money.

Just days ago, Mr William Gordon, of Perth, was notified by the office of Jayne Baxter MSP, he had been discharged by the AIB in late November 2012 from any alleged debts due to Perth based law firm Kippen Campbell.

The discharge, which frees Mr Gordon from any further claim by his former solicitors, comes after a long running battle over disputed legal fees Kippen Campbell claimed were due to them even though they had withdrawn from acting for their client and left him on the steps of the Court of Session to face a judge, alone, in his personal injury claim.

Notification of the discharge was only provided to Jayne Baxter, Mr Gordon’s MSP, after several requests from Mrs Baxter and her staff to the AIB for copies of the documents and an update on her constituent, Mr Gordon’s position.

Copies of papers received by the MSP and handed to Diary of Injustice appear to show the AIB and it’s agents who acted in the case, Glasgow based accountants Wylie & Bisset, failed to provide Mr Gordon with any notification of his discharge in November of last year. The delay of seven long months in informing Mr Gordon of his discharge, raises serious questions as to why the AIB felt they could keep Mr Gordon in a state of flux for some seven months after the discharge took effect.

It has also been revealed the AIB are refusing to supply Mr Gordon and his MSP with a copy of the actual discharge certificate, citing a rule over fees, despite the fact the entire case has already cost the taxpayer a significant amount of money. Representatives of Mr Gordon who have been helping him through this long ordeal have today told Diary of Injustice they will continue to pursue the AIB for a copy of the actual discharge certificate, given Mr Gordon’s entitlement to a copy and to help establish more details surrounding the AIB’s conduct in this case.

Given the shocking treatment of Mr Gordon in this case, Diary of Injustice feels there must be a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the AIB's conduct towards Mr Gordon and the actions of its agents in the wake of claims no authentic court papers were ever served on Mr Gordon nor was he given the chance to challenge events, due to circumstances of poor health which have been verified by his own doctor to the court on each required occasion.

There are also serious questions over the activities of the AIB’s agents, who attempted to seize the rented house Mr Gordon lives in, and the house of another individual unrelated to Mr Gordon, with a view to scoop the proceeds of the sale of both properties in lieu of the less than three thousand pounds claimed to be owed to the law firm.

The AIB’s move to seize Mr Gordon’s home and a property belonging to someone else, was reported by Scottish Law Reporter and the Herald newspaper, here : Accountant in Bankruptcy agents try to seize wrong house in bankruptcy of disabled client ordered by Perth law firm over disputed legal fees

AIB threatened to seize two properties for a £2.7K debt to solicitors. In letters sent to Mr Gordon, AIB agents Wylie & Bisset demand a “required payment” of NINETY TWO THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS, and went on to threaten “We require firm proposals for the realisation of the sum in question to your sequestrated estate as a matter of urgency. Should we not receive your proposals within 14 days of the date of this letter, then please be aware that we shall be forced to seek action for vacant possession of the property.”.The second property located in Rattray, Blairgowrie, and owned by a family unconnected to Mr Gordon was valued by AIB agents Wylie & Bisset, at £185,000. However, the debt allegedly owed to Kippen Campbell amounted to little more than £2,700.

Along with the freezing of Mr Gordon’s access to his state disability benefits for seven months – an act on its own which is reprehensible and not acceptable in terms of the law as it stands, nothing short of a full investigation into, and an accounting of the AIB’s activities in this case must take place and be published in the public interest.

How a law firm and bankruptcy regulations were used to hound a disabled client for dodgy fees :

Diary of Injustice initially reported on the long running case of Mr Gordon in December 2009, when it was revealed the then head of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Jane Irvine was to be cited as a witness at Perth Sheriff Court after it was revealed Kippen Campbell had tried to charge their former client a fee for dealing with complaints.

During October 2010, the case came back into the media spotlight with Kippen Campbell took their case to Perth Sheriff Court in an attempt to pursue Mr Gordon for the fees they claimed to be owed, reported here : Personal injury client dropped by Perth based solicitors Kippen Campbell ‘being hounded’ by court attempts to recover disputed fees

Later in October 2010 it was also revealed by Diary of Injustice that Sally McCartney, a partner at Kippen Campbell and the solicitor at the heart of the case against Mr Gordon had lobbied the Scottish Parliament against independent regulation of solicitors Scottish Parliament documents reveal Perth law firm in complaint fees case campaigned against Holyrood clean-up of regulation of lawyers

In July of 2012, Diary of Injustice featured a further article on the case, revealing Mr Gordon’s now two years of hell could have been avoided if the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had used their powers on fee nullification in the course of considering Mr Gordon’s complaints against his then solicitors Kippen Campbell.

Material also presented to Diary of Injustice at the time and featured in the report, revealed the private firm of accountants acting on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, had also frozen access to his disability benefits, here : Solicitors regulator blamed for failure to use powers on fees as accountants seize Disability benefits to pay Perth law firm for collapsed court case

As further enquiries continued into Mr Gordon’s case, an investigation by the media of the Accountant in Bankruptcy’s conduct revealed over £8 million pounds of taxpayers money was being handed on a plate to private firms of accountants by the AIB, reported by Diary of Injustice here : £8 MILLION of YOUR MONEY spent on ‘BULLY BOY’ agents as papers to MSP reveal Accountant in Bankruptcy secretly seize benefits of disabled, trashing lives of Scots on the brink

£8 MILLION of YOUR MONEY spent on ‘BULLY BOY’ agents as papers to MSP reveal Accountant in Bankruptcy secretly seize benefits of disabled, trashing lives of Scots on the brink

Plush offices of Kilwinning based Accountant in Bankruptcy, who target disabled benefits cash. AT THE END of a week when the Scottish Government announced there have been 4,063 personal insolvencies in the past year, it may well come as a surprise to learn that papers now in the hands of MSPs and an MP, reveal that Scotland's Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) is conveniently looking the other way while its highly paid, ‘bully boy’ agents routinely seize Scots benefits cash in attempts to force unnecessary payments out of even the long term sick and disabled victims of the current recession.

It can also be revealed the same ‘bully-boy’ firms of private accountants who go on to seize the bank accounts of sequestrated individuals, are being paid millions of pounds of public money by the AIB to do it, and when victims are forced to complain about their benefits being withheld, contrary to laws put in place to prevent this, the Accountant in Bankruptcy and their agents refuse to allow external investigations by banking & finance regulators.

Journalists from Diary of Injustice who have been looking into this huge bankruptcy scam on the public purse, recently made Freedom of Information requests to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, asking for details of expenditures of public money on private accountants acting as the AIB’s “agents” and the numbers of complaints made against each of the AIB’s agents.

In it’s response. the Accountant in Bankruptcy revealed that at least EIGHT MILLION POUNDS of taxpayers cash (£8,021,756.62) has already been spent on private accountants working for the already overstaffed multi million pound budgeted public body in charge of sequestrations. The AIB have also revealed a litany of complaints made against its agents but it refused to release any details of the actual complaints and confirm whether matters were in fact resolved.

The AIB ‘s FOI response, available to view online HERE, states :

I can confirm that Armstrong Watson is one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Armstrong Watson has been paid £1,051,627.12 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 2062 cases. I can confirm that there have been 11 complaints made to AiB in respect of Armstrong Watson, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

I can confirm that Hastings & Co are one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Hastings & Co have been paid £608,605.96 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 1040 cases. I can confirm that there have been 8 complaints made to AiB in respect of Hastings & Co, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

I can confirm that Invocas is one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Invocas has been paid £284,346.77 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 875 cases. I can confirm that there have been 6 complaints made to AiB in respect of Invocas, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

I can confirm that KPMG is one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, KPMG has been paid £3,706,744.79 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 6585 cases. I can confirm that there have been 28 complaints made to AiB in respect of KPMG, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

I can confirm that Miller McIntyre & Gellatly (now mmg archbold) is one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, MMG have been paid £303,745.48 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 710 cases. I can confirm that there has been 1 complaint made to AiB in respect of MMG, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Wylie & Bisset have been paid £2,066,686.50, for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 3703 cases. I can confirm that there have been 18 complaints made to AiB in respect of Wylie & Bisset, from 1 April 2009 to date, 27 July 2012.

After looking into cases brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice, it has now been confirmed several of the firms identified in the above FOI response have been subject to serious complaints relating to how sequestrations have been handled, including matters involving the freezing of bank accounts and access to state funds.

Papers relating to one such case now in the hands of Perth MSP John Park confirm that agents acting on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy have blocked access to disability benefits payments made to individuals who have suffered sequestration under highly questionable circumstances, for up to SEVEN MONTHS at a time.

The case being handled by MSP Mr Park, involves a Mr William Gordon of Perth who’s plight has previously been reported by the Herald newspaper, online law news websites and Diary of Injustice, featuring the case here :

An investigation of Mr Gordon’s case on Scots law website Scottish Law Reporter identified a firm Glasgow accountants, Wylie & Bisset who have been acting for the Accountant in Bankruptcy against Mr Gordon.

The Herald newspaper & Scottish Law Reporter have previously reported that Wylie & Bisset, who have been paid a whopping TWO MILLION POUNDS of public money to act for the AIB in sequestration cases, had also attempted to seize Mr Gordon's home  (which he does not own) and the home of an unrelated family in another town in order to pay off questionable debts claimed by a Perth based law firm, Kippen Campbell.

Diary of Injustice has previously reported on Mr Gordon’s case, after Kippen Campbell decided to bankrupt Mr Gordon, their former client, over a fees dispute, even though documents produced to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission revealed Kippen Campbell had left their client on the doorstep of the Court of Session without legal representation after a long battle to bring a personal injury claim.

It has shockingly turned out that since the last report on Mr Gordon’s case, where his accounts were unfrozen, the agents acting for the AIB along with Lloyds TSB, Mr Gordon's bank, froze his accounts again, and have since refused to offer any explanation for their conduct.

Earlier this week, Diary of Injustice was handed copies of papers now in the hands of John Park MSP, and the SNP’s Pete Wishart MP at Westminster, which show the AIB’s agents, Wylie & Bisset have even refused requests from the Financial Ombudsman to investigate complaints made about the case by Mr Gordon, a move which suggests private firms acting on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy are effectively unregulated, and can do as they please to victims of the credit crunch, brought about by the antics of corrupt, greedy bankers & their colleagues.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice yesterday (Friday), an official with one of Scotland’s Consumer protection bodies condemned the treatment of Mr Gordon and others at the hands of the AIB.

She said : “It is a disgrace that firms of private accountants who are apparently being paid millions of pounds of public money by the AIB are freezing benefits payments made to the sick & disabled and those who can ill afford any further expenditure after being made bankrupt.”

She added that the matter was so serious it must be raised in discussions with a view to making amendments to the coming Bankruptcy Bill, proposed by the SNP to be brought before the Scottish Parliament at a later date.

After Mr Gordon’s plight became public, Diary of Injustice received numerous emails from individuals caught in similar circumstances where agents acting for the AIB have also blocked access to state benefits payments, in what appears to be a popular policy of holding the poorest in society to ransom, in an effort to extort unnecessary payments back to the AIB’s agents who are already raking in millions of pounds of taxpayers money.

No one from the Accountant in Bankruptcy has answered or explained why it has not acted over complaints about bully boy tactics by its own agents in cases where bank accounts and state benefits payments to victims of disabilities have been frozen for such long periods of time.

If you have encountered difficulties with the Accountant in Bankruptcy or their agents, please let us know via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com. Anyone in such a situation should also ask for help from their MSP, in the light of the planned new legislation on bankruptcies in the Scottish Parliament.

Accountant in Bankruptcy unfreezes benefits payments of client caught up in sequestration battle with Perth law firm Kippen Campbell

Accountant in Bankruptcy seized disability benefits to pay law firm’s disputed fees MEDIA REPORTING of a case in which a sequestrated client’s Disability Benefits payments were illegally seized for nearly FOUR MONTHS by the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) over a wrangle involving debts which a Perth based law firm, Kippen Campbell claim are owed to them over a collapsed court case, appears to have helped the client, Mr William Gordon (also of Perth) finally gain access to money desperately needed for living expenses.

Mr Gordon apparently discovered his accounts had been unfrozen last weekend, but no one from the AIB has contacted him over the matter or offered explanations as to why they had seized his benefits payments.

Diary of Injustice reported last week that Mr Gordon was apparently sequestrated by his former law firm after a series of bitter, ‘one sided’ court actions held in Perth Sheriff Court, where agents acting for Kippen Campbell demanded Mr Gordon be sequestrated to pay fees they claimed were due to them for legal services provided for a medical damages claim being heard in the Court of Session.

Even though it transpired Mr Gordon was too ill to attend court for any of the hearings, and his doctor had written to the court informing them of his patient’s medical circumstances, it appears Sheriffs at Perth Sheriff Court ignored the doctor’s medial opinions and sided with the local law firm who were demanding fees for representing Mr Gordon in the now collapsed medical damages claim. More on the story can be found here : Personal injury client dropped by Perth based solicitors Kippen Campbell ‘being hounded’ by court attempts to recover disputed fees

Earlier last week, the Herald newspaper & Scottish Law Reporter reported that attempts had been made to seize Mr Gordon’s home by Glasgow based accountants Wylie & Bisset who are acting on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy. Wylie & Bisset were apparently convinced Mr Gordon owned his property. Apparently not content with seizing Mr Gordon’s home, the agents acting for the AIB attempted to seize another property owned by an unconnected family who live in Rattray, Blairgowrie, whose surname is also Gordon.

Jane Irvine, SLCC Chair : £300 a day for some, benefits seized to pay lawyers for others as regulator accused of failure to clip disputed fees. It is clear from persistent failures & a reluctance on the part of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) to use their powers to abate or nullify disputed legal fees, that had the SLCC chose to exercise its powers in Mr Gordon’s case, he would not have been facing the wrath of courts, the Accountant in Bankruptcy & attempts to throw him onto the street over fees a law firm are claiming for walking away from his case. Diary of Injustice tackled these issues in last week’s report here : Solicitors regulator blamed for failure to use powers on fees as accountants seize Disability benefits to pay Perth law firm for collapsed court case,

In the article, it was also pointed out by a senior official from one of Scotland’s Consumer organisations that it was against the law to seize state benefits under section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 which clearly states “On the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.”

The official went onto tell Diary of Injustice that her organisation had received numerous reports of law firms threatening clients with bankruptcy if they did not pay what appear to be dubious demands for fees. In other cases, law firms have simply gone ahead and made their clients bankrupt without even giving them a chance to question the legitimacy of the fees claimed to be owed.

The Accountant in Bankruptcy was asked to explain why Mr Gordon’s bank accounts & benefits payments had now been unfrozen after the media coverage. The AIB refused to issue any comment.

It has also been revealed the Financial Ombudsman is investigating why Mr Gordon’s bank accounts were seized and why benefits payments were also frozen by the AIB. While the Financial Ombudsman has declined to comment on the case, documents provided to them appear to raise serious questions over the validity of court documents coming out of Perth Sheriff Court which were used to ‘sequestrate’ Mr Gordon and put him through months of torture.

Since last week’s report, a number of individuals have contacted Diary of Injustice with regard to problems with the Accountant in Bankruptcy, and their agents apparently seizing benefits payments on multiple occasions. Coincidentally or not, some of these cases also relate to dubious fee demands by law firms who have left their clients with ruined legal cases.

Indeed, the trend of law firms using threats of bankruptcy against clients appears not to have gone unnoticed by the Scottish Government, reported in last week’s article where a senior source in the Government acknowledged there was a growing problem with law firms threatening clients over legal fees. He went on to say he believed law firms were using their influence in local courts to easily obtain bankruptcy orders against clients who have little or no chance of obtaining legal representation to challenge the law firms demands.

Diary of Injustice would like to hear from any reader who has endured difficulties with the Accountant in Bankruptcy and law firms demanding fees which cannot be substantiated. Please contact us with your information via : scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Solicitors regulator blamed for failure to use powers on fees as accountants seize Disability benefits to pay Perth law firm for collapsed court case

Jane Irvine, SLCC Chair : £300 a day for some, benefits seized to pay lawyers for others as regulator accused of failure to clip disputed fees. PERSISTENT FAILURES at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) including A RELUCTANCE to use key powers which enable the ‘independent’ regulator of Scottish lawyers to reduce or even nullify fees of solicitors who ruin their clients legal interests are being blamed for the predicament of a Mr William Gordon of Perth, who has now been made bankrupt by Perth based law firm Kippen Campbell, over demands he must pay fees for a case which collapsed because his lawyers withdrew from acting for him.

Mr Gordon’s plight comes as a result of a series of bitter, ‘one sided’ court actions held in Perth Sheriff Court, where agents acting for Kippen Campbell demanded Mr Gordon be sequestrated to pay fees they claimed were due to them for legal services provided for a medical damages claim being heard in the Court of Session. However, documents obtained by Diary of Injustice in connection with complaints made to regulators show the Perth law firm walked away from Mr Gordon’s case after he made complaints about their service & conduct to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who typically, backed the law firm despite considerable allegations of service failures provided by Mr Gordon to the SLCC.

Diary of Injustice has previously reported on Mr Gordon’s case, here : Personal injury client dropped by Perth based solicitors Kippen Campbell ‘being hounded’ by court attempts to recover disputed fees

Earlier this week, it was reported by the media that Glasgow based accountants Wylie & Bisset, who are now pursuing Mr Gordon, attempted to seize his home (even though he does not own it) and the home of another family to pay back the Perth law firm for debts the law firm claims were incurred on Mr Gordon’s damages claim in the Court of Session, now ruined because he is unable to obtain any further legal representation.

Scottish Law Reporter quoted an article from the Herald newspaper, and further reported HERE : Glasgow based accountants Wylie & Bisset who are acting on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, sent demands to Kippen Campbell’s former client Mr Gordon who lives in Perth, threatening seizure & sale of his property, which he does not own, and the seizure & sale of another property owned by an unconnected family who live in Rattray, Blairgowrie, whose surname is also Gordon.

Threatening letters – Pay up for lawyers fees or we make you homeless say AIB’s agents. In letters sent to Mr Gordon, Wylie & Bisset demand a “required payment” of NINETY TWO THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS, and goes on to threaten “We require firm proposals for the realisation of the sum in question to your sequestrated estate as a matter of urgency. Should we not receive your proposals within 14 days of the date of this letter, then please be aware that we shall be forced to seek action for vacant possession of the property.”.

The property which Wylie & Bisset were attempting to seize and had valued, at £185,000, was located in Rattray, Blairgowrie, and owned by a family unconnected to Mr Gordon. Yet the debt allegedly owed to the Perth based law firm amounted to little more than £2,700, which now appears to have increased to some £6,600 taking into account several hearings at Perth Sheriff Court which have artificially inflated the original demand for the disputed legal fees. Another demand sent to Mr Gordon from Wylie & Bisset, just a few days after the earlier threat, stated : “Please note that should suitable proposals not be received in writing, within 7 days, then we will have no alternative but to instruct a solicitor to raise proceedings in court for the forced sale of your property.”

Accountant in Bankruptcy, Scotland’s insolvency service with added errors. The Accountant in Bankruptcy was asked by Diary of Injustice to explain why their agents, Wylie & Bisset attempted to seize Mr Gordon’s rented property and that of another family. However, a spokesperson for the AIB explained away the attempted property grab as “errors”, telling Diary of Injustice yesterday : “As previously advised, Wylie & Bisset are one of AiB’s Insolvency Service providers and are required to administer cases in accordance with our processes. The administration of sequestrations is a complex task where a range of information is obtained from various sources.  During this process, it is possible for errors to occur, though the Accountant in Bankruptcy is satisfied that our providers give a consistently high standard of service when acting on our behalf.  Where errors are discovered, our providers are required to review their processes and make necessary changes to ensure that similar errors are not repeated.  In cases where individuals have been negatively affected by an administrative error, our providers will attempt to rectify the issue as soon as possible and where appropriate, will write to apologise for any inconvenience caused."

Further enquiries by Diary of Injustice have now established Wylie & Bisset, acting on behalf of the AIB have also frozen Mr Gordon’s Lloyds TSB bank account and seized his disability benefits payments, leaving him without any cash to live on whatsoever. Documents & copies of communications between the bank & Mr Gordon appear to show the bank simply froze Mr Gordon’s account on a telephone call ‘say so’ from Wylie & Bisset.

This information was put to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, who attempted to explain away the seizure of Mr Gordon’s benefits by claiming they had no idea what the source of payments into bank accounts were.

A spokesperson for the AIB claimed : “Where a trustee discovers that the debtor has a bank account, they may contact the bank to have the account frozen.  This action may be appropriate to prevent the debtor from inappropriately withdrawing funds after the award of sequestration. Where an account has been frozen, it is the responsibility of the debtor to contact the trustee to make representations around the money held in the account. This is particularly important where the debtor is reliant on state benefits that are paid directly into a bank account, as the trustee is unlikely to be aware of the origin of the money held in the account. This scenario can be avoided if the debtor co-operates fully with the trustee and provides information on their income and savings."

However, a senior official from one of Scotland’s Consumer organisations speaking to Diary of Injustice this morning rubbished the AIB’s claims of ignorance, and pointed out it was against the law to seize state benefits under section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 which clearly states “On the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.”

She described the AIB’s actions as : “An attempt to starve out Mr Gordon to pay off his lawyers.”

The official went onto inform Diary of Injustice that her organisation has received numerous reports of law firms threatening clients with bankruptcy if they did not pay what appear to be dubious demands for fees. In other cases, law firms have simply gone ahead and made their clients bankrupt without even giving them a chance to question the legitimacy of the fees claimed to be owed.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice late last night, a senior source in the Scottish Government acknowledged there is a growing problem with law firms threatening clients over legal fees, an issue which has also been brought to the attention of some msps.

He went on to say he believed law firms were using their influence in local courts to easily obtain bankruptcy orders against clients who have little or no chance of obtaining legal representation to challenge the law firms demands.

Meanwhile Mr Gordon is running short of cash while the Accountant in Bankruptcy and their agents run up large charges to the taxpayer in the course of pursuing a client who has no access to justice to challenge what has been done to him, in the name of paying a firm of lawyers based in Perth. Mr Gordon is without legal representation and his doctor has told Perth Sheriff Court on numerous occasions his patient is too unwell to attend court hearings.

The unavoidable conclusion is Mr Gordon’s predicament could easily have been avoided if the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had listened to him during the course of his complaint, and at the very least, reduced or nullified the fees of a law firm who walked away from their client when he discovered his case was not being pursued as he had instructed.

Diary of Injustice has previously reported how Ms Sally McCartney, the partner at Perth based Kippen Cambpell who dealt with Mr Gordon’s case, wrote letters to the Scottish Parliament CAMPAIGNING AGAINST independent regulation of the legal profession, also ARGUING AGAINST plans to increase compensation to clients of lawyers who had provided poor services, reported here : Scottish Parliament documents reveal Perth law firm in complaint fees case campaigned against Holyrood clean-up of regulation of lawyers

Scottish Parliament documents reveal Perth law firm in complaint fees case campaigned against Holyrood clean-up of regulation of lawyers

Holyrood sourced documents reveal Perth law firm pursuing client over ‘disputed’ fees campaigned against independent regulation of lawyers. DOCUMENTS obtained from the Scottish Parliament and brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice by legal insiders concerned over a case reported last Friday, that of Perth based law firm Kippen Campbell who are pursuing a personal injury client they dropped for 'disputed feels', after complaints were made about their service, stunningly reveal two of the law firm’s partners made almost identical submissions to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee in 2006, challenging legislation created to usher in independent regulation of complaints against solicitors. The Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, as the legislation is now known, was eventually passed in December 2006.

Last week Diary of Injustice reported on Perth law firm pursues client for disputed fees. Last week, Diary of Injustice reported on a year long case in Perth Sheriff Court where a local law firm Kippen Campbell, are pursuing a former client, Mr William Gordon for allegedly due fees (Kippen Campbell v William Gordon A334/09). Documents seen by Diary of Injustice show Mr Gordon had been dropped by the law firm after he made complaints to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Law Society of Scotland over the level of service he had received from Kippen Campbell in connection with a personal injury claim in the Court of Session (A625/04 William Gordon v Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd Party Litigant - HBM Sayers), now stalled due to lack of legal representation. Kippen Campbell then attempted to charge Mr Gordon for dealing with the complaint.

Kippen Campbell partner Sally McCartney sent letter to Scottish Parliament over ‘concerns’ of independent regulation of solicitors. Documents provided to Diary of Injustice today now reveal Kippen Campbell solicitor Ms Sally McCartney, who ironically represented Mr Gordon’s legal interests and is named in Mr Gordon’s complaints to the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland, sent a template letter distributed by the Law Society of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee who were considering the LPLA Bill and independent regulation of complaints against solicitors in 2006. The letter challenged & questioned legislative moves to bring increased protection to consumers of legal services in Scotland in the shape of independent regulation and independent oversight of claims against ‘crooked lawyers’.

Ms McCartney wrote : “As a practising solicitor I am extremely concerned with some of the provisions of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, particularly with regard to the handling complaints against solicitors.”

Ms McCartney’s letter to Holyrood’s Justice 2 Committee continued : “The Law Society of Scotland previously backed an independent complaints handling body. However, the Bill goes significantly further in a number of areas where the Society made it clear in its response to the consultation that it did not believe action was required. The Society made it clear when it backed an independent complaints handling body that it must be demonstrably better than the current system, particularly so given the cost and disruption involved. There are a number of areas where the Society, and I, as a member of the Society, believe that the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will not fulfil this aim.”

“Independence – The new Commission has to be independent from Government. The proposals in the Bill suggest that the appointments to the Commission Board should be made by Scottish Ministers. This not appropriate – they should be made by an independent body which is free from political influence. Also, there is no guarantee of solicitor representation on the nine-member Board, despite the fact they comprise around 95% of the legal profession in Scotland.”

Former Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill threatened Scottish Parliament, Government with legal action over complaints legislation. Ms McCartney’s letter then went on to mention the Law Society of Scotland obtained an ECHR opinion from an English LibDem Peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, who claimed it was against the human rights of a solicitor for a complaint to be independently investigated by anyone other than another solicitor. The Law Society of Scotland’s then Chief Executive Douglas Mill challenged the Scottish Parliament’s right to pass the LPLA Bill, and issued a threat of legal action to the Parliament & Scottish Government, based on Lord Lester’s opinion.The Law Society of Scotland’s threat of legal action against the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government was not pursued, although amendments to the LPLA Bill passed by MSPs did stymie some of the original measures designed to protect consumers from ‘rogue solicitors’.

Ms McCartney said in her letter : “ECHR Compliance – This is related to the issue of independence (see above). The Bill at present does not allow for the right of appeal for the public or the profession about a decision by the Commission on a service complaint. The current system has safeguards – a Reporter makes a recommendation and a Committee, made up of solicitors and non-solicitors, reaches the decision. If solicitors believe that the Society has reached the wrong decision, in a service complaint, they have a right of appeal to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. The complainer is entitled to take the Society’s handling of the matter to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman. I understand that the Society has obtained an Opinion from Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Q.C. and he is of the view that the Bill, as it stands is not ECHR compliant.”

Ms McCartney’s letter also went onto challenge the increase in compensation to clients of solicitors who had provided inadequate service, a complaint now levelled at Ms McCartney and Kippen Campbell by their former client Mr Gordon. Ms McCartney’s letter continued : “Compensation – This relates to the issue of cost (see above). The increase in compensation for Inadequate Professional Service from £5,000 (a level which was raised from £1,000 just last year) to £20,000 is excessive and no explanation for such a large rise is given. The English white paper on complaints handling introduced the £20,000 figure – it appears that an English solution is being imported to resolve a perceived Scottish problem, despite the promise of Scottish solutions for Scottish issues.”

SLCC’s investigation linked Master Policy to client suicides, in the name of allowing solicitors to sleep at night. In the key area of claims made by clients against solicitors involving the Master Policy, the Law Society of Scotland’s Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme operated by Marsh UK which was investigated last year by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and subsequently revealed to have caused the deaths of clients who had attempted to make claims against the Master Policy, Ms McCartney stated in her letter to the Justice 2 Committee : “Negligence – It appears the Commission would take on the functions of the courts in negligence matters where the claim is less than £20,000, even though there is no consultation mandate to do so. Again, this raises issues in relation to ECHR compliance. Negligence should remain a matter for the courts. Every solicitor pays a premium additional to his or her Practising Certificate subscriptions to be covered under the Master Policy for Professional Indemnity Insurance. That already covers claims up to £1.5m for clients if there has been negligence by the solicitor. Many solicitors are prepared to advise and take on cases from the members of the public where there is a concern that a solicitor has been negligent.”

Readers familiar with the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee of the LPLA Bill during 2006 will remember it was questions over the operation of the Master Policy, which resulted in a bitter confrontation between the then Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill and the current Scottish Government Finance Chief, John Swinney MSP, eventually leading to Mr Mill’s resignation from his post in early 2008. The report on Douglas Mill’s resignation is here : Breaking News : Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill who lied to Parliament, pursued 'personal vendetta' against critics - to resign

Second Kippen Campbell partner sent almost identical letter to Scottish Parliament challenging move to reform regulation of complaints against lawyers. In a curious case of dejavu, Holyrood insiders & law reform campaigners have pointed out an almost identical letter to that of Ms McCartney’s, challenging the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee consideration of the LPLA Bill, was sent by a second partner of the same law firm, Kippen Campbell. Both letters are still available on the Scottish Parliament’s website here : 115_LB115_SallyMcCartney.pdf and the second one here : 203_LB203_SusanWightman.pdf. The two letters form a long list of similar, almost identical correspondence sent in by solicitors as part of the Law Society of Scotland’s campaign against the bitter Holyrood passage of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Submissions to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee consideration of the LPLA Bill, as it was in 2006 can be viewed here : LPLA Bill Evidence (Scottish Parliament Justice 2 Committee 2006)

On reading the almost identical submissions made to the Scottish Parliament by partners from Kippen Campbell, who are now involved in the now publicised Perth Sheriff Court action over disputed fees, law reform campaigners suggested this afternoon anyone considering using a Scottish solicitor should check their prospective legal representative’s stance on complaints handling, and also ensure any work they ask a solicitor to undertake for them is properly estimated in terms of costs before clients agree to proceed.

Clients are also advised to thoroughly check fee demands from their solicitors to ensure they are not being ‘ripped-off’ or charged for issues such as complaints handling, if a client has been forced to submit a complaint to either the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or Law Society of Scotland regarding their solicitor’s poor service or conduct.

Personal injury client dropped by Perth based solicitors Kippen Campbell ‘being hounded’ by court attempts to recover disputed fees

Perth Sheriff court is the latest setting for Scots law firms pursuing clients over fees. PERTH SHERIFF COURT is again at the centre of questions over the progress of a year long case involving a local law firm Kippen Campbell and their attempts to recover fees from a client they were representing in a personal injury claim against Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd & Reg Vardy plc. Partners at Kippen Campbell allege the fees are due, even though the law firm dumped their client, Mr William Gordon, in a move which brought to a halt any progress on Mr Gordon’s personal injury claim as he has since been unable to secure legal representation.

Mr Gordon has now been put in the unenviable position in Scots Law of being an unrepresented party litigant trying to stave off demands from a law firm for disputed fees. Letters sent by Mr Gordon to Perth Sheriff Court in the case of Kippen Campbell v William Gordon A334/09 reveal Mr Gordon, the defender, has offered to settle the law firm’s claims, although it now appears the pursuing law firm Kippen Campbell prefers the case continue in the Sheriff Court.

Fee note released during SLCC investigation detailed Kippen Campbell attempted to charge dropped client for dealing with Law Society complaints. As I reported in December 2009, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission began an investigation into complaints made late last year against Messrs Kippen Campbell by their former client, Mr William Gordon over issues related to their representation of Mr Gordon in a personal injury claim. The SLCC’s investigation was ‘complicated’ according to legal insiders, although court documents seen by journalists revealed the law firm had, among its now disputed charges to Mr Gordon, charged a fee note to Mr Gordon for a phone call between the Law Society of Scotland and a partner from Kippen Campbell over a complaint Mr Gordon had made regarding service provided by his now former legal representatives.

Sources at the Law Society said such moves by law firms are severely frowned upon by the regulatory body as solicitors are ‘not allowed to charge clients for dealing with complaints’. Suggestions have since been made that a complete audit be carried out of the law firm involved, and a wider investigation be initiated by the Law Society & SLCC into practices of law firms charging clients for dealing with complaints – a secretive practice which may be contributing to similar cases across Scotland of law firms pursuing clients for fees they claim are due, where the coincidence exists the client has been dropped by a law firm who are themselves subject to complaints & investigations by solicitor’s regulators.

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine may still have to appear as ‘expert witness’ in Perth Sheriff Court over disputed fees & law firm’s conduct. Progress on the case, now more than year on since I last reported on developments, where Jane Irvine, the Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and at least one SLCC investigator faced being called as witnesses to be cross examined on the law firm’s conduct towards Mr Gordon and his personal injury claim, has been painfully slow, with almost no movement other than a succession of postponed hearings at Perth Sheriff Court on the law firm’s own pursuit of fees it claims it is owed.

The fee recovery case being pursued by Kippen Campbell against their former client, has, according to court documents seen by Diary of Injustice, not even been allocated to a Sheriff even after a year of being passed around the local Sheriff court system.

It has recently been revealed by legal insiders close to the case, the constant barrage of court hearings initiated by the law firm who dropped their own client and attempted to charge him for dealing with complaints, has taken its toll on the unrepresented Mr Gordon, whose well being has suffered so extensively his Doctor has been forced to write up to seven times to the court, stating his patient cannot attend proceedings due to failing health.

It has also been alleged that Mr Gordon has been treated with some disdain by local Sheriff court officials, who, appearing not to take Mr Gordon’s predicament as an unrepresented party litigant into account, have failed on numerous occasions to notify Mr Gordon of successive dates of court hearings. The court staff’s failures to notify Mr Gordon of events concerning the case against him have now become so numerous, some claim it is an attempt to ensure his former law firm who are pursuing him for fees they allege are due, obtain a decision in their favour during Mr Gordon’s absence from proceedings he is not being kept up to speed with and may not be aware of.

Details from an investigation carried out by Diary of Injustice into the case can now reveal Mr Gordon, even in his weakened medical state while signed off appearing in court by his Doctor, has been forced on each occasion to ask for access to court interlocutors, detailing motions & events concerning the law firm’s court pursuit of fees they allege are due.

On many occasions interlocutors have apparently been produced to Mr Gordon late, or in what some contend to be a questionable format with some papers provided by court officials appearing to have been adjusted photocopies of earlier postponements. It can also been revealed that curiously, the Sheriff Court wrote to Mr Gordon’s Doctor during his annual leave, and set a date for reply and the next hearing of the case on the same day the Doctor returned to work.

Law Society & SLCC failures over regulation of complaints against solicitors are impacting on clients health. The numerous Doctor’s letters required by Perth Sheriff Court in the Kippen Campbell v William Gordon A334/09 case are now causing concern in terms of their frequency & detail required by the court, to the point some are now questioning just how many times a Doctor should be harangued over the fitness of his client to attend proceedings in cases where the client has a long term medical condition, and when the likelihood is the stressful nature of such a case as it is continuing, against a background of serious allegations of complaints made against a law firm, and allegations of significant regulatory failures by the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are only likely to make matters worse for Mr Gordon’s health.

The Scottish Court Service were asked for comment on what guidance exists to sheriffs & judges on how to handle "Soul & Conscience" style letters from doctors relating to parties in civil law cases.

A response from the Judicial Studies Committee, a division of the Scottish Court Service established for the purpose of supporting the judiciary in the carrying out of their non-judicial functions stated : “No specific guidance is issued to judges in relation to soul and conscience certificates. These tend to appear in support of an absence of a litigant or witness before or during court proceedings. They are tendered ex parte. If an issue arises about the authenticity or content of the certificate it is open to the judge to continue the case for clarification of the issue. The certificate is one factor to be taken into account in determining an application to adjourn or delay a case.”

“Medical certificates, according to Practice Note of 6 June 1968 (found in the Parliament House Book at p. C2002, which is available to all judges), no longer need to bear the words 'on soul and conscience' in relation to an action pending before the Court of Session. They are mainly used when a witness is unable to attend court and they will remove a witness from the court list for up to 30 days.”

“In an opinion of the Court delivered by the Lord Justice Clerk in The Scottish Ministers v Claire Rennison or Smith [2010] CSIH 44, it was observed that 'although certification on soul and conscience is no longer an indispensable requirement (cf Practice Note, 6 June 1968), the absence of it is a factor that we are entitled to take into account' when the second respondent failed to appear.”

“Consideration is being given by the judiciary to whether further procedural guidance on medical certificates would be desirable in light of the Rennison case.”

Taking into account cases such as the one reported on here today, there is clearly a need for further procedural guidance on medical certificates & doctor’s letters are now required for Scottish courts, and it seems, retraining for court staff in how to deal with party litigants. After all, just how many times can someone be asked if they are ill or liable to recover in time to pay off fees their solicitors claim are due, even when complaints against the solicitor’s service have been made and the fees themselves are in significant dispute …

Legal Complaints Chief Jane Irvine to appear at Perth Sheriff Court as Law Society investigates Tayside law firm Kippen Campbell

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in the dock over complaints. PERTH SHERIFF COURT will shortly see a first for board members & officials of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who are to appear as witnesses in a case involving Perth law firm Kippen Campbell, who are currently being investigated by the Law Society of Scotland over a complaint made by a client who was being represented by the law firm in a personal injury claim against Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd & Reg Vardy plc.

In the dock : Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Documents revealed today show the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine and at least one SLCC investigator are to be cited as witnesses to justify their investigation into the Perth law firm after parts of the SLCC’s complaints investigation were filed at Perth Sheriff Court in connection with a legal action launched by Messrs Kippen Campbell against their former client, for alleged outstanding but disputed fees.

Fee note released during the SLCC’s investigation shows Kippen Campbell tried to charge for dealing with the Law Society over complaints. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission began an investigation into complaints made late last year against Messrs Kippen Campbell by their client, a Mr William Gordon over issues related to their representation of Mr Gordon in the personal injury claim. The SLCC’s investigation was ‘complicated’ according to legal insiders, but it has now emerged in court documents seen by journalists that the law firm had, among its now disputed charges to Mr Gordon, charged a fee note to their client for a phone call to the Law Society of Scotland over the actual complaint made by Mr Gordon, an action which sources at the Law Society say is severely frowned upon by the regulatory body as solicitors are ‘not allowed to charge clients for dealing with complaints.

Leading figures from Scotland’s legal profession said this evening the move to cite senior officials of the regulatory body as witnesses in a courtroom ‘was unprecedented’ and would shine a much needed light on the poorly performing Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which apparently has yet to show one single success for ‘protecting consumers’ against rogue solicitors & law firms in Scotland.

A legal insider said this evening : “After a year of scandal at the SLCC I doubt very much any of them want to be dragged into a court to explain exactly what it is they do for people but many solicitors and consumers I’m sure will welcome the opportunity for the SLCC’s officials to be questioned under oath on their work.”

A spokesman for a consumer organisation said he was delighted the SLCC may be held to account for its work in an open court. He said : “The SLCC to my knowledge have no successes to show after over one year of operation and all the millions of pounds of money both from the public purse and the legal profession they have taken in.”

He continued : “It is about time someone was able to get a firm idea of exactly what the SLCC stands for, what it does and how it does it. Unfortunately however, it seems in this case the defender, Mr Gordon does not have legal representation and might not be able to ask the same level of technical questions that an experienced solicitor may ask. I would hope this imbalance is corrected immediately to respect the infirmed defender’s Article 6 right to a fair hearing in court.”

SLCC Media release on Perth Court case initially lied over knowledge that officials would be called to give evidence. When questioned about the court appearances, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s Chair, Jane Irvine, initially denied knowledge of the case, saying : “The SLCC are unaware of the situation and therefore have no comment to make.” However, after further investigation and media enquiries, the SLCC backtracked on their initial claim to know nothing with Jane Irvine issuing the following statement : “The SLCC has a duty of confidentiality to all parties involved in all complaints and this is under Section 43 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. In general terms, if an action is raised, either party can submit SLCC documents as evidence without being obliged to inform the SLCC. With regards to the citation of witnesses, the SLCC would not be aware what witnesses either side chose to cite unless a citation was issued to a member of staff or Member.”

Roseanna Cunningham MSP called in to help constituent’s complaint amid SLCC delays. It has also emerged that Perth MSP Roseanna Cunningham has been called in to help the constituent’s complaint with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, after it emerged the SLCC had not apparently fully understood what had actually happened to the client, causing concern the law complaints body had failed to address all the issues put before it, and in a strange twist, a trail of documents between the SLCC and Mr Gordon reveal the law complaints body was slow to involve Ms Cunningham in the loop on the progress of their investigation and findings, despite receiving letters from Ms Cunningham early on in the case.

Law Society are now investigating law firm over fee charges. The media attention to the story has now prompted a new development, with an SLCC investigator announcing : “I have also now heard from the Law Society and am pleased to confirm it has accepted the SLCC’s recommendation to look further at your complaint that Messrs Kippen Campbell charged a fee in relation to dealing with your complaint to the Law Society. I understand the Law Society will be in touch with you to obtain information and evidence.”

No one was available at Kippen Campbell for comment this evening.

My advice to anyone dealing with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. if you feel your complaint has been poorly dealt with, and you are fighting a legal case based on issues the SLCC has considered, make sure like Mr Gordon, you cite the relevant SLCC personnel or even board members as witnesses to justify whatever they have said or done in terms of their investigation into your complaints against solicitors & law firms.