Officials pull FOI disclosures as Guarantee Fund "chancer" emails show Law Society anti-client bias has migrated to Legal Complaints Commission

Pressure is mounting from all quarters for believable explanations from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after the publication of a series of emails obtained under FOI laws, depicted commission members & senior officials condemning consumer groups, law reformers and clients of solicitors who have submitted claims for compensation against 'crooked lawyers'.

Consumer groups and some inside the legal profession itself are angry that such anti-client sentiments are still so virulent at the SLCC, created in 2007 and intended to be a new beginning for regulating complaints against the legal profession, after the Law Society of Scotland's total failure in complaints role which has caused record levels of cronyism in covering up complaints against crooked lawyers.

Diary of Injustice : anti-client feelings run deep at the SLCC. While officials at the Scottish Government's Justice Department have privately expressed anger at the conduct of several SLCC board members over 'bile' expressed against consumer groups, and rants over boozed fuelled nights, some officials are now worried the comments made by Margaret Scanlan which apparently are ‘personal opinions’ made against the personal characters of claimants to the Law Society of Scotland's "Guarantee Fund", may amount to the same type of conduct & intervention which eventually ended the career of ex Law Society Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, who himself was brought down after appearing before the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee, Mill openly arguing with John Swinney about the content of his own memos - which also detailed clients claims against crooked lawyers.

Memos of a feather flock together ? SLCC’s Margaret Scanlan's email echoes Douglas Mill's policy against Master Policy client claims :

One official who did not wish to be named said "People who read these emails may have good reason for thinking the same client bashing closed ranks sentiment which came out at J2 from Douglas Mill has now crossed over to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Some here feel the way that members have acted at the Commission has badly damaged its reputation & credibility."

He went on : "There has been a briefing about the weekend media coverage in the Sunday Mail and on 'A Diary of Injustice in Scotland' and I heard that orders have been given out to the SLCC to prevent such embarrassing documents from being disclosed in the future."

Coincidentally, a Freedom of Information request which was due to be delivered to me on Monday 16 March, was pulled at the last minute by the SLCC's office Manager, after the blaze of publicity in the weekend press & online media of board members booze fuelled antics & personal enmity expressed towards consumers. Suspicious are high that orders have been given to prevent documents being disclosed which could further embarrass the beleaguered law complaints body.

The SLCC official, when asked why the FOI disclosure had been pulled said : "The contents of the FOI request I am dealing with … are being pulled for scrutiny by me alone no other agencies have been involved."

A legal insider this morning however said that if the SLCC were removing documents considered controversial simply because problems had been exposed in the organisation, they could well be in breach of the Freedom of Information Act, and should be investigated by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

He said : "Just because a public body finds itself at the heart of a scandal of its own making, doesn't mean it can go around removing or destroying evidence of what its people are up to in order to avoid further damaging disclosures in response to Freedom of Information requests.I think the Information Commissioner should be looking into this as a matter of urgency."

Jane Irvine, Chairman, SLCC. Jane Irvine, the SLCC Chairman was asked for comment on the Scanlan email which took issue with the personal character of a claimant to the Guarantee Fund. She said : ”The remark you refer to in the email sent by Margaret Scanlan to Eileen Masterman has been taken out of context. If you read it again you will see that Mrs Scanlan was referring to Lending Institutions. Her remark was a personal opinion regarding one individual who has not been involved with either the SLCC or SLSO.”

However, if the individual has not been involved with the SLCC or SLSO, it begs the question why details of the claim have been brought up and why Scanlan apparently has detailed information on the claim in the first place and felt it necessary to apply personal opinions on claimants characters to the SLCC’s discussion on its monitoring role of the Law Society’s Guarantee Fund & Master Policy insurance schemes designed to compensate clients for the actions of rogue solicitors.

Jane Irvine was then asked if the SLCC is now prepared to identify the individual concerned in Margaret Scanlan's email to Eileen Masterman and inform them of matters regarding Mrs Scanlan's personal opinion on their claim to the Guarantee Fund, which has now been made public in the media. No response has yet been received to that request.

Kenny MacAskill – distancing himself from scandal mired SLCC. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was asked for reaction to the scandal, however his spokesman issued a terse statement on his behalf, seeking to distance the Justice Secretary who had himself, personally appointed the SLCC board members who have now brought the law complaints body into disrepute.

A Scottish Government spokesman said on MacAskill’s behalf : “The SLCC has been established as an independent body to oversee complaints against the legal profession. Having established the SLCC as an independent body, it would be wholly inappropriate for Ministers to provide a running commentary on issues concerning it.”

It might well be the Justice Secretary wants to distance himself from the goings on at the SLCC, but its his responsibility as Justice Secretary to clean up the mess his own appointed members have caused both the organisation and the further damage to public respect in the legal profession, which obviously cannot police itself or even be involved in any matters of regulation of legal services in Scotland …

MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members 'booze culture conduct' reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has lost credibility. Stunning revelations in the weekend media coming on top of my article of last Thursday on further scandals at the SLCC show that senior law figures within the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who were personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, appeared to have taken the ‘booze culture’ into their duties at the multi million pound joint taxpayer & lawyer funded independent’ SLCC which is supposed to deal with complaints against 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 ..”

So, despite suffering from a hangover after ‘being on the razzle’, there was still time for SLCC board members to throw the public out the door once again on rights against crooked lawyers … but even worse was to come as new emails reveal a more serious scandal :

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 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 esposed by **** (censored) but is a complete chancer in my opinion."

Margaret Scanlan's comments, directed against a claimant to the Guarantee Fund, appear to reflect a level of feeling many at the Law Society of Scotland are known to have against members of the public who dare to either complain or make a claim for damages against their rogue lawyer. More seriously, Scanlan's email comments in her capacity as an SLCC board member may have potentially damaged claims to the Guarantee Fund, and sources say today, she could face the possibility of legal action over her comments disparaging the individual involved in the claim she was referring to.

A legal insider hit out at Scanlan's comments against claimants to the Guarantee Fund, claiming her words "were wholly out of place and since the SLCC hadn't even began its monitoring role of the Guarantee Fund & Master Policy, the comments against an actual claim should not have been made."

He went on "There is an all-out attempt by the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers to block any substantial monitoring by the 'independent' commission of the Guarantee Fund & Master Insurance Policy. Many meetings have taken place already between the senior members of the SLCC, the insurers, and the Law Society, who have put the profession’s own views forward on how the fund & insurance operates "perfectly well" in their own eyes."

"People who have actually tried to make a claim against the Master Policy or the Guarantee Fund have been blocked from attending the SLCC to give their actual real life experiences on what happened to their claims, probably because most financial claims against solicitors fail due to Law Society meddling with clients legal teams and court access which obviously no one wants to hear about at the commission."

The legal profession’s ‘point of view’ on how the Master Insurance Policy actually operates, is as you know, slightly askew from the truth of the matter, which I have reported previously in articles such as the following : Law Society boss Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints.

Eileen Masterman, SLCC Chief Exec. Insiders to the SLCC reported over the weekend that Eileen Masterman, the SLCC’s Chief Executive apparently did not reprimand the poor conduct of board members, and rather than keeping above the bitter exchanges, agreed with lawyers hostile sentiments towards consumer groups. It is worth noting Eileen Masterman had a long history of involvement with the Law Society of Scotland prior to her joining the SLCC as Chief Executive, having actually served on Law Society committees on the flawed regulator which the SLCC was designed to replace.

Justice Secretary MacAskill appointed ‘on the razzle’ hung-over lawyers to the SLCC. Given the state the SLCC currently finds itself, where decisions taken by Mr MacAskill's appointees have restricted its investigations of consumer complaints against crooked lawyers to issues which occur only after 1st October 2008, millions of pounds of taxpayers money has evidently been wasted on a commission which is self serving, and has no obvious intention to deal with the sins of the legal profession, which the Law Society of Scotland has so far failed to clear up after decades of being the self regulator of all Scottish lawyers.

A client of a solicitor the Law Society is currently investigating over complaints of poor service & severe misconduct agreed the SLCC needs to be reformed in the wake of recent scandals and said “This SLCC is just another version of the Law Society and is full of lawyers and others who just want to close ranks with their legal world friends no matter how crooked they are.This commission needs to be cleaned up and made to do what it is supposed to be doing, not what the Law Society and crooked lawyers want it to do.”

One solicitor today who did not wish to be named said the comments against the Guarantee Fund claimant made by Scanlan in her capacity as an SLCC board member may amount to possible defamation of the so-far unidentified claimant, who now faces the prospect their claim against the Guarantee Fund will not be met.

He said “There may be cause for the claimant to sue the SLCC for damages over the Board members accusations. At the very least the matter merits a full investigation and an apology to whoever Margaret felt strongly enough to refer to in this way in her emails.”

While recent news leaks show SLCC board members engaged in some kind of free for all party-on approach to their duties & mission to offer increased consumer protection against crooked lawyers, I would remind you all from two previous articles the same board members were quick enough to threaten resignation if they didn’t secure greater perks from the taxpayer, such as personal insurance cover and increased pensions, which you can read here :

Legal Complaints Commission in crisis amid funds shortage & resignation threats over lack of insurance protection &

Complaints Commission 'unfit for purpose' as secret meetings with insurers & pensions take focus over consumer protection against crooked lawyers

I’d say the conduct of the SLCC to-date is evidence enough if more were needed the SLCC needs a clean up of its present structure which appears biased towards the legal profession it was put there to regulate, and a representative element from consumer organisations & actual users of legal services added to its staff & board.

The Sunday Mail reports :

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."