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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST : Questions over solicitors self-regulation after Crown Office abandoned prosecution of £500k fraud accused lawyer now struck off for theft of client funds

Scot-Free? Lord Advocate is letting crooked lawyers off the hook say politicians. THE COLLAPSE of an earlier criminal prosecution led by Scotland’s top Law Officer Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland of a Carnoustie based lawyer recently struck off by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) for stealing clients cash including the theft of assets from deceased clients estates, has been called into question by politicians reports the Sunday Mail newspaper.

As the numbers of ‘failed’ criminal prosecutions of solicitors for taking clients funds, or in other cases, millions of pounds of taxpayer funded legal aid, reaches an all time high, concerns are being expressed the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), and Lord Advocate are not applying the law evenly to all, especially when it comes to cases involving crooks in Scotland’s legal profession.

In this latest case, reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper, solicitor Walter Ruark, a former Rotary Club President and church elder used cash to finance loans to other clients and stole cash to pay to another client before "falsifying records to conceal his dishonesty". Also, in a now common fraud typical of many Scottish solicitors who wind up of executries & wills, it was discovered Ruark twice took funds from the estates of deceased clients and falsified ledger entries to cover his tracks.

Walter Ruark was also accused of a £500,000 fraud was accused along with ex-policeman Owen Hughes. Both appeared at Arbroath Sheriff Court in November 2011 yet the case dropped a year later when the Lord Advocate who led the case himself, abandoned the prosecution.

The SSDT findings & report can be viewed online here : Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Walter Forbes Ruark or at the SSDT’s own website here : 1586_Ruark_WF

The SSDT’s Judgement states : The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 20 April 2012 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Walter Forbes Ruark, Solicitor, 42 Ireland Street, Carnoustie; Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of

(1) his failure to maintain accurate and adequate records to show his dealings with client monies and to identify the funds of each individual client, and his failure to obtain authority for payment of client funds to the benefit of other clients; (2) his use of clients’ funds for the benefit of other clients without appropriate authority and his falsifying of records to hide these misappropriations; (3) his having a deficit on his client account; (4) his failure to account for the funds to the executry of the late Mr VV; (5) his repeated delay and/or failure to register or record timeously dispositions, standard securities and discharges whereby the lenders remained unsecured for the funds advanced and clients remained uninfeft; (6) his failure to comply with the terms of the Money Laundering Regulations; (7) his use of funds entrusted to him by lenders and his failure to discharge existing securities for properties re-mortgaged resulting in a loss to the lenders and a claim on the indemnity insurance; (8) his rendering fee notes for work which had not been undertaken; (9) his failure to obtemper a letter of obligation; (10) his failure to respond to correspondence from fellow solicitors and his knowingly misleading fellow solicitors (11) his repeated and numerous failures to respond to the Complainers; and (12) his breach of Rules 4, 6, 8 and 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001;

Disgrace, Dishonour, Dishonesty .. but case DISMISSED

Charges dropped on £500K fraud rap lawyer

By Russell Findlay Sunday Mail 03 March 2013

Politicians have demanded to know why the Crown dropped a prosecution against a £500,000 fraud rap lawyer. Walter Ruark, 62, has now been struck off by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal, who branded him a danger to the public for stealing clients cash. Ruark was arrested, charged and appeared in court but the Crown Office - led by Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland - abandoned the case.

Ruark's former partners in Carnoustie based Gourlay McBain raised the alarm in 2008 but it took five years for him to be banned from the profession. His actions sparked a £666,000 insurance pay out to clients but the Crown did not launch a proceeds of crime case against him.

Labour Justice spokesman Lewis Macdonald said : "The Crown have questions to answer. I believe the Government have not resourced them well enough to pursue every case."But in a case of this kind, there's a public interest in an allegedly fraudulent lawyer being brought to book and not just dealt with by the legal profession. Five years is an inordinately long time."

Labour MP for Central Ayrshire Brian Donohoe said: "The Crown have dropped this case with no explanation and they need to provide one. If what the SSDT are saying is true, he should be in jail, not just drummed out of the Brownies. An independent body is needed to oversee lawyers in the same way doctors are monitored by the General Medical Council. There needs to be a root and branch reform of the legal profession and an end to self-regulation."

Ruark was president of Carnoustie Rotary Club and an elder at the town's Panbride Church. He remained involved with the Rotary Club while facing the probe but has now quit. He and ex-policeman Owen Hughes, 33, appeared at Arbroath Sheriff Court in November 2011 accused of a £500,000 fraud. The case was dropped a year later.

Last week's SSDT report stated "In this case the Respondent [Ruark] misappropriated clients' funds on a number of occasions and also falsified records to hide his dishonesty."The tribunal considered his conduct disgraceful and dishonourable. His conduct was persistent and spanned a long period of time." His dishonest acts taken to cover his behaviour, his lack of response to correspondence and the repeated nature of his conduct disclosed a lack of remorse."His actions presented a clear danger to the public and will inevitably tarnish the good reputation of the profession."

In 2007, a sheriff branded Ruark an unreliable witness when his firm were successfully sued by a client over a botched land deal. Ruark's former partner Alex Small said: "I don't want to say any more than the SSDT report speaks for itself. Only the Crown Office can answer why they took that decision."

The Crown Office said: "It is our duty to keep cases under review and after full and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Crown counsel instructed that there be no further proceedings in relation to this matter. The standard of proof for a criminal prosecution is substantially higher than that required for civil proceedings and tribunals."

LORD ADVOCATE & CROWN OFFICE FIDDLE AS CROOKED LAWYERS ESCAPE JUSTICE

Given the now sizeable number of cases where Scotland’s unfit-for-purpose Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have failed to prosecute solicitors on charges of financial wrongdoing with clients money, and even larger frauds involving millions of pounds of legal aid, there is a clear concern Scotland’s prosecutors are operating a policy of avoiding criminal prosecutions of members of Scotland’s legal profession.

Legal Aid Fraud riddle as Crown Office fail to prosecute lawyers in 14 cases. In a series of reports, Diary of Injustice and the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed a host of cases where Scotland’s Crown Office refused to prosecute solicitors even though significant evidence of legal aid fraud had been handed over to prosecutors by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

The revelations came as a result of an investigation backed up by Freedom of Information requests, reported in more detail by Diary of Injustice here : FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escape justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years

In another case, it was also revealed Thomas Hugh Murray, a Scottish lawyer now based in Lucca, Italy, who is still being chased by the Law Society of Scotland, also escaped a criminal prosecution after Stirling’s Procurator Fiscal Office told the victim “A decision was taken by the Crown Office to take no further proceedings in this case: this decision was not taken lightly as we realise the seriousness of this crime.”

Diary of Injustice reported on the Murray case in more detail and published a copy of the Crown Office letter confirming no prosecution yet referring to ‘the seriousness of the crime’, here : NO JUSTICE for clients as Crown Office & Law Society ‘cosy deal’ allowed FRAUD accused lawyer to slip criminal prosecution & move to Lucca, Italy

NO JUSTICE for clients as Crown Office & Law Society ‘cosy deal’ allowed FRAUD accused lawyer to slip criminal prosecution & move to Lucca, Italy

Crown Office & Law Society 'deal' allowed a ‘crooked lawyer’ to escape justice over client fraud charges. SIGNIFICANT FAILURES on the part of prosecutors at the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service and the lawyer’s regulator the Law Society of Scotland to prosecute solicitor THOMAS HUGH MURRAY over a string of fraud allegations made by his former clients have allowed the one time Stirling based lawyer who has been the subject of several investigations to slip away to the Northern Italian town of Lucca in Tuscany after the Law Society and prosecutors suspiciously failed to pursue charges the struck off solicitor embezzled £18,000 from client Neil McKechnie.

It has now emerged via the Sunday Mail newspaper that Murray, the solicitor involved in the client scam has been ARRESTED TWICE by Scottish Police, once over fraud charges and again after an attempt to flee the UK to avoid being prosecuted. However, the charges were dropped after a cosy deal was reached between the Crown Office & the Law Society of Scotland who then failed to act to protect clients.

The now Italian based Tom Murray, who as a solicitor was sequestrated in 2001 in Scotland, continues to avoid any moves to recover compensation for ruining his clients lives even though he has appeared before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) on no less than three occasions, (i) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 01/03/2005 (ii) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 25/11/2005 and (iii) Law Society-v-Thomas Hugh Murray 10/12/2009. Murray was found guilty of professional misconduct in respect of misrepresentation, deception and misleading clients including his failure to tell his clients he had been barred from practising as a lawyer.

However, the Law Society of Scotland and SSDT’s attempts to prosecute Murray over the complaints have been called into question after it was alleged the solicitor appointed by the Law Society of Scotland to prosecute Murray before the Discipline Tribunal may have had a professional relationship with the very same solicitor he was supposed to be prosecuting. The details of what can only be described as a serious conflict of interest between the Law Society’s prosecution of Murray and the accused solicitor only came to light after a secret internal investigation at the Law Society, which is rumoured to have been given contradicting accounts by those involved in prosecuting Murray at the SSDT..

Philip Yelland, Director of Regulation at the Law Society of Scotland & in charge of Client Relations for the past 20 years. The Law Society of Scotland’s Philip Yelland who has been in charge of regulating solicitors for the past TWENTY YEARS, a now notorious two decades which have seem some of the worst scandals involving crooked lawyers in Scotland, wrote to Mr McKechnie, admitting : “Whilst you are quite correct in indicating that the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal considered specifically the failure of the part of Mr Murray to implement the decision made by the Law Society about the inadequate professional service you had received the written decision which would have allowed the Society to take steps to deal with the matter was not issued in December 2009 but was in fact issued by the Tribunal some months later. I should clarify that is normal practice in terms of the Tribunal and that following on from the issuing of the written findings there is a short period of appeal available.”

“What the Tribunal issues under Section 53C of the 1980 Act is the equivalent of a decree and there is therefore no reason to require service of that document on Mr Murray before consideration can be given to enforcement proceedings. As you are aware the prosecution of Mr Murray for alleged professional misconduct was continuing at that point and it is fair to say that immediate action was not taken to enforce the Section 53C order. The Society’s Fiscal however did at that point in time make some general enquiries about the enforcement of the Tribunals’ decision.”

“The challenge around the question of enforcement arises because of the fact that Mr Murray is now resident in Italy. So far as the Law Society of Scotland is aware Mr Murray is not resident in Scotland. Neither does Mr Murray have any assets in Scotland so far as the Law Society is aware.”

“That means that any enforcement proceedings would need to take place in Italy and from previous experience of other solicitors resident abroad the Society has had to look very carefully about the approach to take because of the difficulties arising both in terms of process and procedure and potential cost. That said on Thursday 19 January at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, the Society successfully served a charge on Mr Murray which opens up the possibility of other proceedings. However those will not instantly resolve outstanding matters. Accordingly I have prepared a paper to go to the Society’s Client Care Sub Committee in relation to the enforcement of this order. The reason that I am doing this is that the practicalities of endeavouring to enforce the order are extremely difficult. They are also costly.”

Prosecutors wrote to the solicitor’s victim admitting serious crimes had occurred yet they dropped the charges. The Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service have also come in for stinging criticism in their failure to prosecute the solicitor over the fraud allegations after he was reported to Police by clients who had their money taken by Murray, and although Police did arrest the solicitor over the allegations, twice, the Crown Office came to a cosy arrangement with the Law Society of Scotland who were supposed to act but instead allowed the one time lawyer to slip away to Italy. The Procurator Fiscal’s Office in Stirling wrote to Mr McKechnie, stating : “A decision was taken by the Crown Office to take no further proceedings in this case: this decision was not taken lightly as we realise the seriousness of this crime.” Further attempts to gain further information relating to the refusal to prosecute the lawyer have failed, after the Crown Office refused to release any of the papers it held on Murray, raising suspicions of yet another cover up where the Lord Advocate’s team have taken decisions not to prosecute a colleague from the legal profession.

However, investigations now being carried out by independent law journalists into the Thomas Murray crooked lawyer scandal have now revealed the involvement of a prominent Scottish Sheriff in Murray’s sequestration which dates back as far as 2001, and allegations surrounding the fraudulent use of cheque books belonging to a building company and other activity which may warrant a criminal investigation. More details on these new revelations will follow in further articles.

A friend of Mr McKechnie, one of the solicitor’s victims who lost tens of thousands of pounds due to Murray’s actions, spoke to Diary of Injustice today. The friend said it was clear the Law Society and the legal establishment have gone out of their way to avoid taking any substantive action against Murray, branding their “feeble efforts to prosecute the solicitor” as little more than “an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”

He said : “The Law Society has ignored the SSDT's Legal Order for enforcement to demand payment of erroneously taken money as fees plus the maximum compensation allowable under law, despite the Society having around a dozen opportunities to do so face to face with Mr Murray. He [Tom Murray] should be arrested on 23rd February, when he appears at the Court of Session”

Mr McKechnie’s health has suffered significantly as a result of dealings with Mr Murray and the situation has been made much worse by the Law Society’s failure to resolve the matter. However, Mr McKechnie is now being assisted by his local msp, Keith Brown (SNP) who is also the Scottish Government’s Transport Minister.

The Sunday Mail reports :

LAWYER's ITALIAN JOB : LUCCAN FOR ME ? Victim's fury after £18k fraud probe solicitor jets off to new life

Feb 12 2012 Exclusive by Russell Findlay, Sunday Mail

A LAWYER accused of stealing a client’s cash dodged paying compensation by quitting Scotland for Italy. Tom Murray is holed up in the town of Lucca in Tuscany after watchdogs did not pursue allegations that he embezzled £18,000 from a client.

Murray, 49, has three times been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal but never struck off. One victim, Neil McKechnie, 43, has accused the legal establishment of protecting Murray.

Murray was arrested by fraud squad detectives in 2007 over claims he stole more than £18,000 from Neil. Weeks later, he was arrested again for allegedly trying to flee the country. But charges were dropped after the Crown Office agreed that the Law Society should take action.

Following the decision, Helen Bruce, of the Crown’s victim unit, wrote to Neil, stating: “This decision was not taken lightly as we realise the seriousness of this crime.” Neil, from Dunblane, said: “Anyone with the misfortune of being the victim of a lawyer should realise that self-regulation is self-protection.” In 1999 Murray was accused of ripping off Stuart Usher, who later founded pressure group Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.

It took six years for the SSDT to rule Murray “acted dishonestly” and “deceived” Stuart by charging £3500 for work which was not done. Murray was ordered to work under supervision for three years. He was back before the SSDT later in 2005 for concealing his 2001 bankruptcy from a German client. The SSDT found him guilty of “misrepresentation, deception and misleading the client” and suspended him for five years.

Murray faced a third SSDT hearing in 2009 in relation to Neil’s complaints. He was found guilty of ignoring an earlier order to repay Neil £3049 fees and £1000 compensation. But the more serious accusation of the £18,000 embezzlement was abandoned. Last month the Law Society’s Philip Yelland wrote to Neil, stating: “The challenge around the question of enforcement arises because Mr Murray is now resident in Italy.”

Murray, who has worked in Dundee, Glasgow and Stirling, and his partner Linda Kilgour rent a £750-a-week apartment near Lucca. The lawyer has hit back against his former client with allegations of harassment. He served a writ demanding £15,000 damages from Neil. But Neil claimed he was medically unfit to defend himself so Murray won by default.

Neil said: “I have suffered serious illness as a result of my dealings with this man. I am now a 22st recluse with depression and diabetes.”