NO MONEY NO JUSTICE: Slow, costly courts, £220K a year judges on junkets & justice staff on the take prompt Scottish Government proposal for 25% hike in court fees

Scotland’s courts to become 25% more rip-off than before. EVERYONE knows the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) and our powerhouse Sheriff Courts & the fabled Court of Session teeter on the brink of consternation, calamity, comedy and collapse at the end of each working legal week.

Every time a member of the judiciary takes time off their busy schedule of frequently flying £5K international holidays on the taxpayer - to perform the actual £200,000 a year job of being a judge and sit and listen to the daily farce and often dodgy evidence presented by Crown Office prosecutors before the Criminal Courts - you would honestly think from their faces - the end of the world had arrived.

Judges are so rich poorly paid these days, they have to conceal their vast wealth with the threat of constitutional calamity if it were revealed - or flog their multi million pound Victorian villas, properties in the country, undeclared holiday homes in Dubai or wherever - to members of their own family – for millions of pounds and avoiding those awful taxes which apply to the rest of us.

Let’s not even talk about the others … week long holidays in Qatar, North America, the far east, or jetting off to New Zealand for a week, then retiring a few days later, the gold Rolexes, collections of valuable items, taxpayer funded security fit for Royalty, extra ermine gowns & hanging around the works of Leonardo Da Vinci in the hope of life eternal.

How about the well paid poorly paid overworked court staff you say? Well, not really.

‘Hospitality’, undeclared deals on the side with law firms and other less talked about financial arrangements for increasing numbers of court staff compensate for the daily struggle of putting pen to paper and reminding the elderly sheriff the one before him ‘is a bad yin’.

So, where does all the money come from to pay for your access to justice and the privilege of appearing before someone festooned in 18th Century fancy dress and surrounded by wood panelling and enormously expensive digital recording equipment - conveniently unplugged so as not to record the daily courtroom farce or your expert witness disagreeing with Lord know-it-all.

The Scottish Government gave the Scottish Court Service a whopping £88.9million of your cash in the 2016-2017 budget. Plenty there to go around.

The judiciary on it’s own receive a staggering £40million of public cash, to groan, grizzle, gloat & giggle as they listen to counsel after counsel, litigant after litigant – while dreaming of appearances & junkets to warmer, wealthier climes.

The Legal Aid budget – once standing at over £160million a year and now allegedly a very very very dodgy £136.9million in the 2016-2017 budget - your cash going on lawyers, criminals and some of the most laughable, inept court hearings in existence.

The Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) – widely regarded by all sides as the pre-eminently most corrupt institution in the entire Scottish justice system – received a staggering £112.5million of your cash. To do what? to cover up it’s own staff and prosecutors leaking case files and evidence to criminals, or snorting cocaine and beating up Police Officers.

And, let’s not forget the £58 million of public cash spent by the Scottish Court & Tribunal Service on new doorknobs, a lick of paint and new scones for the Court of Session ‘powerhouse’ - which must rank as Europe’s slowest, most distorted, most expensive & interest ridden seat of justice, ever.

All this must be paid for, somehow. Loads-a-money. Your money. Certainly not theirs, for they are all public servants paid for by you.

So we come to the Scottish Government’s proposal to go for ‘full cost recovery’, buried in the now familiar loaded consultation papers issued by the Justice Directorate of the Scottish Government.

And, instead of blaming the fee rises on our slow, difficult and inaccessible courts, the Scottish Government instead has chosen to blame budgetary cuts imposed by Westminster.

The Scottish Government Consultation on Court Fees 2016 sets out proposals for fees in the Court of Session, the High Court of the Justiciary, the Sheriff Appeal Court, the sheriff court, the Sheriff Personal Injury Court, and the justice of the peace court. Court fees are a major source of income for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and it has become necessary to increase fees in order to achieve full cost recovery. It seeks views on two options each of which is aimed at providing full cost recovery.

Fee hikes across the board of almost 25% for civil actions in Scotland and alternative targeted rises are being proposed by Scottish ministers – as part of a consultation on Scottish court fees which runs until October.

Court fees have generally been reviewed every three years, with the last round being implemented in 2015, however this time around "the Scottish Government has decided to accelerate the move towards full cost recovery".

The Consultation on Court Fees – open until 12 October 2016 - sets out proposals for fees in the Court of Session, the High Court of the Justiciary, the Sheriff Appeal Court, the sheriff court, the Sheriff Personal Injury Court, and the justice of the peace court. Court fees are a major source of income for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and it has become necessary to increase fees in order to achieve full cost recovery. It seeks views on two options each of which is aimed at providing full cost recovery.

The Scottish Government states “It is necessary to raise fees so that the Scottish Court and Tribunals Service is able to achieve full cost recovery from its courts. We are consulting on two options seeking the views of stakeholders on the best way to achieve this. Stakeholders will be able to provide their opinions on which option is better from the point of view of their own court actions and, if they are an organisation, of their clients. This will help the Scottish Government's decision on which option should be incorporated into the necessary Scottish Statutory Instruments.”

“A review is justified both by the need to end the cost to the public purse of subsidising the civil justice system, and by the introduction of the new simple procedure which replaces the current small claims and summary cause procedures."

Simple procedure will be phased in from 28 November for actions worth not more than £5,000. It is planned to retain existing fee levels for summary cause and small claims actions, so that at present levels lodging a claim for up to £200 under simple procedure would mean a fee of £18, and £78 for a claim above that level and up to £5,000.

If a flat rise is the option chosen, all Court of Session and sheriff court fees will rise by 24%, the amount needed to fund a deficit of £5.4m on gross fee income of £22.2m in 2014-15. That would mean lodging fees of £22 or £97 for simple procedure cases, £119 (from £96) for summary applications and ordinary sheriff court actions, £187 (from £150) for non-simple divorces, and £266 (from £214) for Court of Session or Sheriff Personal Injury Court actions. Hearing fees would jump from £227 to £282 in the sheriff court, and from £96 to £119 per half hour (single judge), or from £239 to £297 per half hour (bench of three) in the Court of Session.

Suggested targeted fee rises, the other option, would raise more money overall. The £18 simple procedure lodging fee would remain unchanged, as would the £150 divorce lodging fee and the £227 sheriff court hearing fees, as well as fees in the recently introduced Sheriff Appeal Court. However there would be a £100 lodging fee for a simple procedure claim for more than £200, £120 for summary applications and ordinary causes, and £300 for a Court of Session action. In that court the cost of lodging a record would almost double from £107 to £200, and hearing fees more than double to £200 for every half hour before a single judge, and £500 per half hour before a bench of three.

The alternative scheme would also see the introduction of graded fees in commissary court proceedings for authorising executors to handle a deceased person's estate. Whereas at present for all estates worth more than £10,000 there is a flat fee of £225, it is proposed to exempt estates worth less than £50,000 but to charge £250 for estates between £50,000 and £250,000, and £500 for larger estates.

The consultation paper states on Page 8: "We are aware that there will be a tipping point where fee increases may deter people from raising actions", the paper observes. "We do not believe that the level of rises in either option 1 or 2 as proposed will have a deterrent effect as individual fees will still be relatively low, particularly when viewed against the total costs of taking legal action including the cost of legal advice."

Be sure to enter your thoughts in the Scottish Government’s consultation. Go here to do so: Consultation on Court Fees You have until 12 October 2016.

Review of 2010 : Scots legal system ‘remains Victorian’, party litigants, court users & consumers face a continued battle for access to justice

Scotland’s Court of Session still rules over ‘Victorian’ justice system. WHILE 2010 has brought a few, welcome, if ever-so-slightly-forced-by-media-attention reforms & changes in Scotland’s creaking ‘Victorian’ civil justice system, there is still, undeniably a long way to go for the Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament & Scottish Courts in ensuring access to justice, legal services & access to the courts for all Scots, especially those who cannot obtain or afford the services & typically outlandish fees of law firms who offer little in the way of speedy dispute resolution or even a modicum of success in many common types of legal disputes.

Over a year and a half on since the high profile announcement & publishing of the Civil Courts Review, the two year plus investigation of Scotland’s civil justice system undertaken by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, and the high hopes many pinned on a speedy implementation of the hundreds of recommendations made by the Lord Gill, many consumer organisations, court users, and even solicitors themselves see the past sixteen months as providing Scots with little more than a talking shop for justice reforms. I reported on the lack of developments on the Civil Courts Review back in August 2010, here : Civil Courts Review one year on : Scotland’s out-of-reach justice system remains Victorian, untrustworthy and still controlled by vested interests

Lord Hamilton enacted McKenzie Friends in Scotland 40 years after the rest of the UK had the facility. For instance, one of the few tangible-to-court-users reforms enacted to-date has been that of allowing McKenzie Friends to operate in the Court of Session, a right hard won after a campaign mounted by consumer organisations, campaigners, continued reporting by the media, an original recommendation by Lord Gill himself to allow McKenzie Friends, and all spurred on by a ruling in the Court of Session last November which eventually led to the Lord President, Lord Hamilton enacting an Act of Sederunt in June 2010, allowing Scots (who, in April 2010 he branded too ignorant to know what a McKenzie Friend is), a facility the English & Welsh courts & public had enjoyed for a full forty years before and it should be noted that Scottish Sheriff Courts are still to enact McKenzie Friends, expected eventually in February 2011.

Scots Judiciary’s new website – a welcome move in bringing transparency to the judiciary, but like scenery, you cant eat it. Some may say, oh but what about the new Judiciary of Scotland website, the new GUIDE FOR PARTY LITIGANTS ; “Raising & Defending ordinary actions in the Court of Session” (pdf), increased competition by way of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (pdf) etc etc .. but after forty, fifty, sixty plus years, its just not enough to tinker with the curtains and hope everyone falls into line, proclaiming a new era in Scots justice, especially when the UK’s Supreme Court based in London, can, in a few hours, change Scots criminal law in an instant, as I reported in late October, here : Access to justice ? Scots criminal law changed by UK Supreme Court in a day, ‘Victorian’ civil justice reform proposals ‘growing older by the year’

There are, of course, some little gems from the new Judiciary of Scotland website, such as Scots now being able to see for ourselves how much the justice system costs us, despite most of us apparently not having access to it : Part-time Sheriffs beat full-time colleagues & senior judges in expenses claims as Scots judiciary finally publish judicial expenses online although again, these little gems appear to have been reared for publication after a dose of media attention and with the helpful assistance of Freedom of Information legislation.

The Scots judiciary’s shiny new website, as welcome as it is, has existed in an equivalent, perhaps better organised format in England & Wales for years, as well as the guide for party litigants, and the Scottish version Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 asp 16 (pdf) of the Legal Services Act (2007) for England & Wales has been so brutalised, butchered, twisted, tortured & re-written by the Scottish legal profession itself, eventually being passed by msps who were more concerned with doffing their caps to the Law Society’s influence in politics than the public’s right to justice, it has given Scots little more rights or choice against the legal services monopoly controlled by the legal profession after its near two year talking-shop passage in the Scottish Parliament.

Indeed, comparing the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 asp 16 (pdf) and the Legal Services Act (2007) for England & Wales is like comparing a horse & cart to an Aston Martin DBS … with the Scottish Government & Parliament version giving the appearance of trying to fit the Aston’s Bridgestone tyres onto a wooden cart pulled by a donkey, such is the value they place on the Scots public’s access to justice and meanwhile the Law Society of Scotland was busy worming its way onto the Calman Implementation Group to ensure it had a say in giving the Scottish Parliament some tax raising (and doubtless expenses claims raising) powers, while also lobbying for the Society to be made an ‘approved regulator’, giving crooked lawyers an eternal Christmas.

In truth therefore, at the end of 2010, Scots access to justice, access to legal services or even access to the courts itself has changed little at the end of this year, with solicitors, advocates and law firms still effectively the gate keepers of the doors of justice, which remain so obviously closed in the face of anyone the legal profession doesn't care for, or takes a slight to.

Current Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen called for Class Actions two years ago, little happened since. Whatever happened to multi-party actions (Class Actions) being speedily introduced to the Scots justice system so the legal profession could, under the clarion call (made two years ago in January 2009) of the Dean of Faculty of Advocates, Richard Keen QC, take on the might of the banks and allegedly represent & protect the interests of consumers so robbed by many of Scotland’s financial instructions who themselves coincidentally sponsor many events within the legal profession itself ? Nothing, that's what happened, nothing. Class Actions are still being talked about, talked about, talked about … with little movement made on the issue in the past sixteen months Lord Gill originally said Class Actions should become a reality and two years since the dean himself started shouting about it in the newspapers.

Of course, Mr Keen has been busy with other things since January 2009, such as representing the insurance industry against paying out damages in asbestos claims cases & challenging the new legislation (the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009) which brought pleural plaques into the scope of asbestos claims. Mr Keen and the insurance industry, many of whom also coincidentally fund or have financial interests in the Law Society of Scotland’s Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme, the Master Policy, went onto lose their court challenge against the new asbestos compensation laws, as I reported at the beginning of the year, here : Lord Emslie defeats legal challenge over pleural plaques as Insurers ‘big name’ legal team fail to overturn Holyrood’s Asbestos compensation law

Just think if Scots could enter into Class Actions in such cases as asbestos claims, instead of victims having to approach only a few select law firms which end up dealing with the claims on a case by case basis while piling on the fees & time-to-claim-resolution to the point their clients end up dying before receiving any compensation. Of course, we are told it may come in 2011, or 2012 or 2013 … so as the clock ticks on and the years fly by, the next hope for developments in the long running saga of bringing Class Actions to Scotland, apparently lies with the considerations of the Civil Justice Advisory Group, under the chairmanship of the Right Honourable Lord Coulsfield. The CJAG is due to publish a report with recommendations for the way forward in early 2011.

Scottish Government eventually agreed to introduce Class Actions & other reforms to civil justice system ‘over years’. The Scottish Government, ‘ever swift’ to claim the high ground in all things Scottish, announced its intentions in late November to implement ‘some’ of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts review recommendations to reform the Scots ‘Victorian’ civil justice system, bringing Class Actions, a new tier of judge & ‘more effective’ case management to Scotland’s courts system, which I reported on here : Scottish Government’s response to Civil Courts Review : Class Actions, more cases to Sheriff Courts, & faster, easier access to justice ‘over years’.

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, author of the Civil Courts Review. The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, in his speech to the Law Society of Scotland’s 60 year anniversary conference last year, reproduced in full here said : “The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that had survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in substance its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and it is failing society. It is essential that we should have a system that has disputes resolved at a judicial level that is appropriate to their degree of importance and that disputes should be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently and without unnecessary or unreasonable cost. That means that the judicial structure should be based on a proper hierarchy of courts and that the procedures should be appropriate to the nature and the importance of the case, in terms of time and cost. Scottish civil justice fails on all of these counts. Its delays are notorious. It costs deter litigants whose claims may be well-founded. Its procedures cause frustration and obstruct rather than facilitate the achievement of justice."

Lord Gill continued : "Unless there is major reform and soon, individual litigants will be prevented from securing their rights, commercial litigants will continue to look elsewhere for a forum for their claims, public confidence in the judicial system will be further eroded, Scotland’s economic development will be hindered, and Scots law will atrophy as an independent legal system.”

This is the 30th of December, 2010 and sadly little has changed, making 2010 another year that access to justice for all Scots was again, denied. Personally, I wouldn’t recommend anyone expect too much in the way of speedy reforms, unless campaigning is stepped up, along with perhaps a few public petitions, court rulings & media attention in 2011 to prompt changes & reforms which should have been introduced in Scotland decades ago, since everyone else had those same ‘reforms’ decades ago …

Readers are as ever, encouraged to download the Civil Courts Review report in pdf format, from the Scottish Courts Website at the following links :

• Volume 1 Chapter 1 - 9 (Covers McKenzie Friends, procedures, advice etc, 2.99Mb)
  
• Volume 2 Chapter 10 - 15 (Covers mainly the issue of Class (multi party) actions etc, 2.16Mb)
  
• Synopsis (215Kb)

My coverage of the Civil Courts Review from its publication to the present, and the pace of reforms to civil justice in Scotland can be found here : Civil Courts Review - The story so far.

Whatever 2011 will bring for access to justice in Scotland, I will continue to report …

Holyrood’s Justice Committee 'to wave through’ latest Law Society proposals for Legal Services Bill as Scots access to justice takes another tumble

Holyrood’s Justice Committee has a track record of saying YES to the Law Society. AS Holyrood’s Justice Committee prepares its Stage 3 consideration of the latest raft of amendments to the Legal Services Bill proposed by the Law Society of Scotland, consumer groups & critics contend access to justice is not expected to be significantly widened or improved by the passage of the Bill, now a weak shadow of proposals originally put forward by UK consumer organisation Which? and the Office of Fair Trading’s subsequent recommendations to break open the monopolistic Scottish legal services market which has long been dominated by solicitors & advocates.

You can read more about the Legal Services Bill at the Scottish Parliament’s website : Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Committee page, the latest amendments lodged to the bill are here : 28 September 2010 (215KB pdf) & here : 30 September 2010 (167KB pdf)

The Law Society of Scotland’s most recent media release on their latest ‘proposals’ to amend the Legal Services Bill stated : “The Society has had constructive discussions with the Government and MSPs during the summer recess about the planned reforms to legal services provision in Scotland, which would allow non-solicitors to have a stake in law firms.”. Many of these ‘constructive discussions’ however relate to the Law Society’s demands it alone remains in charge of regulation, along with added controls over claims funds to compensate consumers as a result of poor legal services, and also the Society having the final say-so on exactly who or which company can provide legal services in the resulting ‘expanded’ legal services market should the Legal Services Bill become law.

The Law Society’s media release went onto quote its President, Jamie Millar, whose own law firm Lindsays is linked to a dishonest firm of Borders solicitors, said : “We have supported the general principles behind the Bill and believe that it will give solicitors new opportunity to adapt their businesses as they see fit to meet the demands of their clients. There has been a great deal of debate which has already led to substantial changes to the Bill, particularly on the percentage of ownership of legal services providers. At Stage 2, the Justice committee voted against 100% ownership and the Bill now states that there must be at least 51% ownership by solicitors and other regulated professionals.

“However there remain a few key areas where we think there should be further amendments. The legal profession has changed hugely in recent years and is much bigger, more specialist and is operating in a highly competitive, global marketplace. However even with these changes, we must ensure that clients continue to have the same level of protection, whether they seek legal advice from a traditional solicitors’ firm or an alternative business structure in the future.

Justice Committee Convener Bill Aitken MSP (Scottish Conservative) has frequently agreed with Law Society proposals to amend Legal Services Bill for further Society controls. Mr Millar continued : “The proposals currently contained in the Legal Services Bill would allow new business structures access to the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund. While we think it is absolutely right that the protections offered to solicitors’ clients should be extended to those who go to a new legal services provider (LP), we believe all regulators should have as rigorous an inspection regime as the Society and also that the Society should have the power to monitor the operation of corresponding accounts rules by other approved regulators where necessary.”

The Society has also recommended that the Bill should take account of a potential breach in the ownership criteria of LPs, which the Bill states must be majority-owned by solicitors and other regulated professionals, due to unforeseen circumstances such as death or incapacity. It also encourages the Scottish Government to make sure that the public protections for clients of confirmation agents are as strong as they can be.

Millar said: “We are pleased that MSPs and ministers agree that will writers and confirmation agents should be regulated in order to assure the public of better service and protection. Indeed, the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill means that Scotland will be the first UK jurisdiction to do so. I commend the government for its approach and would again encourage ministers to make the rules governing confirmation agents as comprehensive as possible."

Communities Safety Minister Fergus Ewing frequently caved into Law Society demands to amend the Legal Services Bill. The Bill also proposes a new overarching Regulatory Committee within the Society. The Society however is concerned that as drafted, the Bill will create a split similar to that of the Law Society and Solicitors Regulatory Authority in England and Wales, which the Government, Justice Committee and the Law Society have endeavoured to avoid as the Bill has progressed. The Society agrees the Regulatory Committee should be independent from Council but has proposed changes to the Bill so that the committee would have autonomous decision making powers, but be accountable to the Society’s Council.

The Society has also proposed that amendments to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, to take account of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, should include registration and subscription by firm, currently done on an individual solicitor basis, to allow the organisation to update its processes and lead to potential benefits for members.

President of the Law Society of Scotland Jamie Millar again commented : “The Bill has opened the door to change some of the structures within the Society itself which will help improve the services we can provide for members as well as ensure that our regulatory processes continue to improve. We shall continue to press for amendments to ensure high standards in legal services once the Bill is enacted and that there continue to be proper protections for the public where things go wrong.”

Law Society of Scotland member solicitors & the Faculty of Advocates have long dominated Scotland’s legal services market with no competition. An official from one of the UK’s consumer organisations scoffed at the Law Society’s proposals and interference with the bill. He said : “I think this is a very poor showing from the Scottish Parliament, who have virtually said yes to anything the Law Society proposed. Given the Law Society and its member’s stranglehold over consumer’s access to justice in Scotland is the very problem the bill sought to remedy, I doubt Scots will see any improvements in legal services north of the border as a result of this bill being passed.”

A legal insider this morning branded the Legal Services Bill “a waste of parliamentary time” and went onto accuse the Law Society of yet another instance of regulatory capture similar to the influence the Society has exerted over legal profession’s ‘other regulator’, the much weakened Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Regulatory capture Regulatory capture is a state of affairs which occurs when a regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favour of its own members commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

As things stand the Law Society of Scotland is the only regulator applying to be an ‘approved regulator’ in terms of the Legal Services Bill’s requirements for regulation of the resulting expanded legal services market. I reported earlier on the prospect of this widely seen anti-consumer development here : Christmas for Crooked Lawyers : Law Society say ‘make us approved regulator’ and we will continue to protect dishonest solicitors who rip-off clients

Consumers should be in no doubt as spectators to the Legal Services Bill’s progress have warned … there will not be a significant improvement in choice of legal services in Scotland as a result of the proposals as they now appear, with the prospect that several years from now, we will still be talking about a distinct lack of access to justice in Scotland for those the legal profession wish to keep out of court …

You can read my own coverage of the Legal Services Bill here : Legal Services Bill for Scotland - The story so far and decide for yourselves how much the Scottish Government's proposals for improving access to justice will really improve YOUR access to justice ...

Holyrood’s Justice Committee votes against majority non-lawyer ownership of law firms, saves investors from Scots legal world's organised crime gangs

Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee voted against non-lawyer ownership of law firms. INVESTORS can breathe a sigh of relief at the result of a vote at the latest Justice Committee hearing of the Scottish Government’s beleaguered Legal Services Bill, where last Tuesday, MSPs voted through an amendment written by the Law Society Scottish Government to restrict non-lawyer ownership of Scottish law firms to 49%, throwing out the Scottish Government’s initial proposals that non-lawyers could end up owning 100% of law firms if the ‘alternative business structures’ as originally proposed in the Legal Services Bill had become law.

The problem with the original proposal, allowing non-lawyers to invest or even totally own a Scots law firm raised the question who would actually want to buy in to any Scottish law firm with the kind of poor regulatory & client treatment record which is so typical of providers of legal services in Scotland’s currently solicitor only dominated legal services market ?

Who for instance, would want to invest in a law firm with over thirty partners which is currently facing 21 separate complaints investigations (5 of those involving embezzlement of client funds), 20 negligence claims, 9 claims against the Guarantee Fund & 2 criminal investigations ?

Luckily for the law firm in the above typical example, and noting many others have similarly poor complaints records, they wouldn’t have to disclose such information to potential investors and of course, the Law Society of Scotland would never volunteer such detailed information which may slightly discourage any investors with an ounce of common sense from touching a Scottish law firm with a barge pole …

This is certainly one vote on the Legal Services Bill which may well end up saving outside investors a lot of money, as most Scots law firms are seen as poorly performing & untrustworthy, holding among the worst rates of client complaints & consumer dissatisfaction in the modern world, where it has become more the norm than the exception for clients to be ripped off after engaging the services of even the most famous law firms in Scotland’s legal services marketplace today.

The Justice Committee’s latest stage two debate on the Legal Services Bill, during which several amendments were debated as well as the non-lawyer ownership issue (Amendment 317), can be read in full here : Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Robert Brown MSP (LibDem) voted in favour of restricting outside control of Scots law firms. Robert Brown, speaking in favour of Amendment 317, put forward by the Law Society to restrict outside ownership of law firms said : “Amendment 317 is designed to ensure that there is a majority holding in the hands of solicitors or other regulated professionals. It is the compromise position that was debated and supported by the Law Society of Scotland. I hope that it has the merit both of being reasonable and, as the convener indicated, of being common ground on which the profession can regroup, to some extent.”

Mr Brown continued : “I do not pretend that it is the perfect solution—there are issues with all the potential solutions—but it provides further protection against outside control, which is, rightly, of concern to many solicitors. Last week we debated issues relating to the rights of minority investors. It is certainly the case that influence is as relevant as control. Nevertheless, amendment 317 would put a brake on the extent to which law firms can be taken over by outside interests. The committee should apply that brake.”

I for one am certainly in agreement with Mr Brown on this issue. Unsuspecting members of the public & potential investors must be protected from pumping their money into some law firms whose business models border (or even surpass) that of organised crime. Perhaps an amendment should be raised prohibiting law firms from accepting any outside capital investment, thus saving a lot of people from a severely dodgy investment in very dodgy law firms …

Fergus Ewing, Minister for Community Safety argued in favour of external ownership of law firms. The Scottish Government’s Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing, once again apparently standing in for the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill who has all but disappeared from the Legal Services Bill debate put forward the Scottish Government’s view, claiming the Legal Services Bill would usher in effective regulation : “I emphasise that the bill contains a particularly Scottish solution. It is important that we have a robust regulatory regime. I can recall having been involved in debating no more robust regulatory regime as a member of the Parliament for the past decade. That regime will also be obtained at virtually no expense to the taxpayer. That contrasts with the position down south, where the Legal Services Board's implementation costs to 31 December 2009 were £4.58 million and its budget for running costs in its first full year, which began in April 2010, is £4.74 million. Similar costs here would not be as high as that, but would be comparable.”

Mr Ewing, you must be kidding. Regulation without expense to the taxpayer ? Even the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission received a whopping £2million from the taxpayer, effectively a public gift to the legal profession which your Ministerial colleagues now refuse to talk about or demand returned to help protect public services now on the verge of being slashed due to the UK’s budget deficit.

Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are anti-client when regulating complaints against lawyers. Robust regulation of the legal profession in Scotland is simply not possible, as all reforms to regulation to the present date have been compromised by the Law Society and so willingly voted through by politicians in the Scottish Parliament. The new broom of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has become little more than the anti-client front organisation for the Law Society of Scotland and rogue lawyers the Law Society always wanted it to be, leaving the reforms of the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 firmly in the rubbish bin. The same is already happening with the Scottish Government’s plans for a ‘robust regulatory regime’ for the Legal Services Bill which has been steadily re-written by the legal profession itself.

Without much surprise, the Law Society of Scotland welcomed the Justice Committee’s vote to retain Law Society member majority ownership of law firms, thus ensuring the society’s continued influence & control over consumers choice of legal services in Scotland.

Jamie Millar, President of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “A number of key amendments were debated today and I am very pleased that the committee has agreed that there should be a majority ownership of new legal services providers by solicitors and other regulated professionals. It’s clear that MSPs on the committee have listened carefully to the issues and concerns raised by the profession and others, particularly those about external ownership, and what has been agreed today is very much in accordance with the Society’s own policy on ABS ownership.”

The Lord President Lord Hamilton is once again ‘a buffer’ between the Government & legal profession to maintain lawyers independence (from independent accountability). Mr Millar also said that the Society was pleased that the role Lord President of the Court of Session was to be enhanced and that his consent would be required in the appointment of approved regulators. He echoed the comments of Robert Brown MSP who said the role of the Lord President was an important ‘constitutional buffer’ (in other words, a well practiced drain-blocker, immovable by any means in existence) between the government and the legal profession and necessary to preserve the independence of the profession.

With the dreaded inclusion of the Lord President in all of this, at the behest of the Law Society of course, lets hope the Lord President doesn’t take 40 years to come to a decision (as he did with McKenzie Friends) on whether approved regulators (the Law Society of Scotland being the only ones applying) are functioning properly or not – and since the Law Society hasn’t managed to regulate the legal profession properly in the past 60 years, we doubtless can expect a continuance of the Law Society of Scotland’s style of crooked self-regulation when or if the Legal Services Bill manages to pass into law.

So, obviously the Law Society is pleased with it’s re-write of the Legal Services Bill after all that fuss & pantomime between so-called ‘factions’ of the Scots legal profession wanting to break away if they didn’t get their way … and then getting themselves elected to the Law Society’s ruling council after things went their way ….

My advice to consumers ?

The Legal Services Bill as it is being re-written by the Law Society of Scotland, will not benefit consumers of legal services in Scotland one bit, so much that now, some of the consumer organisations which are responsible for the Legal Services Bill’s very existence, now choose not to issue comment on the bill's progress nor have those same consumer organisations chose to campaign against any of the Law Society sponsored re-writes of the Legal Services Bill, which was initially claimed would bring free choice of legal services to consumers in Scotland.

Clearly, for honest, dependable legal services, consumers are going to have to look elsewhere, as the Scottish legal profession under the regulation of the Law Society of Scotland & SLCC couldn’t be trusted with an exploded oil well, which I’m sure they would argue was nothing to do with them as similarly appears to be the case in each of the 5000 complaints & grievances filed or expressed by clients against solicitors & advocates each year in Scotland.

My advice to investors looking at putting their money into Scottish law firms ?

Take your investments elsewhere ! There are billions more opportunities and safer havens around the world for your money than investing in Scots law firms with poor regulator records who would much rather dance the tune of the Law Society of Scotland than give you a good, stable, dependable return on your investment. You would be well advised to avoid investing in what many corporate & private clients of Scots law firms, through their own bitter experiences of using solicitors in Scotland dub ‘the organised crime of the Scottish legal services market’.

You can read my own coverage of the Legal Services Bill here : Legal Services Bill for Scotland - The story so far

Law Society to fight legal aid cuts on ‘access to justice’ ticket as Scots struggle to find law firms handling legal aid work

The Scottish Legal Aid Board has often been the cash cow of the legal profession. LEGAL AID – Described by some as a state funded route to justice for those who cannot afford it, however, in reality something which has been grossly abused by many law firms & solicitors over the years who have neither represented the interests of their clients nor given those who cannot afford a solicitor an effective route to our courts, is unsurprisingly facing huge cuts in its budget as the recession looms large over the UK’s public finances.

While talk of cuts to legal aid may seem an unimportant subject these days, since many law firms in Scotland claim to have given up legal aid work altogether, the threat of a few thousand pounds less in the pockets of solicitors is apparently still enough to galvanise the Law Society into its well worn call for unity among its members to ensure any cuts to the legal aid budget in Scotland are as minimal as possible.

Law Society issues legal aid plea over expected cuts. Cue the expected, if comical Press Release from the Law Society of Scotland, who typically raise the threat of a “damaging effect on access to justice” if there are significant cuts to Scotland’s legal aid budget. Doubtless we can expect the threat of the oh-so-damaging ‘lightning strikes’ at Scotland’s Sheriff courts, principally in the Glasgow area where solicitors will yet again walk out, leaving criminal cases clogging up the system due to lack of legal representation etc just as has happened in the past .. and just as has happened in the past, there will be compromises and emergency payments from the Scottish Government & Westminster to soothe the wallets minds of our esteemed legal profession across the country …

An official from a consumer organisation today claimed that with so many law firms across Scotland giving up legal aid work it was difficult enough for consumers to find a solicitor willing to take on a case with legal aid funding.

He said : “It is all very well for the Law Society to ask its members to come together to fight legal aid cuts but what has the Society said about its many member firms who have given legal aid work up, making it impossible for many consumers to find a solicitor in their area who will take on a case with legal aid funding.”

He continued : “The problem here is that legal aid is only payable to solicitors, and the Law Society want it keep it that way, blocking anyone else from coming into the legal services market who might take legal aid cases. Since many law firms have or are giving up legal aid work, its time to break open the monopoly over legal aid payments, to ensure consumers across Scotland can find a legal services provider who will undertake legal aid work if Law Society member firms don't offer it.”

One client who reported his solicitor to the Law Society of Scotland for legal aid irregularities and is yet to hear back about his complaint said the legal aid system in Scotland was “poorly policed” and was little more than “a Law Society controlled public handout to bankroll solicitors who end up doing nothing for their clients”.

The following release is how the Law Society see their role in the expected battle over cuts to the legal aid budget :

Law Society warning over legal aid

Scottish solicitors have been urged to form a united front to fight a looming threat to legal aid budgets – because any cuts will have a hugely damaging effect on access to justice.

New Westminster Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has indicated that the legal aid budget for England and Wales is in his sights when he looks to identify cuts – although it has been frozen for the last six years and the Coalition Agreement states that a "fundamental review" of Legal Aid is planned.

In Scotland, while the legal aid system is not subject to Westminster control, it is certain to come under massive scrutiny, according to Andrew Alexander, the Law Society of Scotland’s Legal Aid co-ordinator.

Mr Alexander said it was time to fight to protect both criminal and civil legal aid now – rather than waiting for cuts to happen. Civil legal aid in particular had already been “cut to the bone”, he added.

“The freezing of the English legal aid budget for six years has amounted to almost a 20 per cent cut in real terms,” Mr Alexander said. “The pressure to deliver justice to a fixed budget has placed the justice system in England and Wales under extreme pressure – and solicitors are being paid later and later.”

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) delayed some payments to legal aid practitioners until April and its new financial year. Also, the LSC is now routinely delaying payments to solicitors, and the Law Society in England and Wales has needed to advise banks of the consequent cashflow problems for legal firms.

The attempt to drive down costs at the LSC has led to tendering proposals for criminal work that would see around 500 firms receive contracts for criminal work in England and Wales: the remainder of the 1,700 criminal firms south of the border would, from 2011, leave the market."

“Whether these tendering proposals go ahead under the new Government, it is clear that cuts to the Legal Aid system in England and Wales are likely to be severe,” said Mr Alexander. “In Scotland, the Law Society will strongly defend the interests of solicitors in criminal and civil Legal Aid practice, just as these practitioners strongly defend some of the most vulnerable in society at the most vulnerable stages of their lives.

“It is vital that the profession is united in facing this challenge: not just Legal Aid practitioners but also solicitors working at Law Centres and at voluntary organisations, bodies which rely on public funds to provide assistance to the public.

“We could find ourselves in a double dip recession and the Society will fight any cuts toe-to-toe.”

Mr Alexander said reforms to speed up justice and reduce costs had to continue: the Society's criminal negotiating team had substantial input to the summary justice reform process, and are now active in monitoring and evaluating its progress. He stressed that these recent reforms had delivered bigger savings than predicted and that work would go on to encourage early pleas to save money and time.

He warned that civil justice was under particular threat: “We need to say enough is enough and work to protect all areas – but civil justice, in particular, is in danger.”

The Law Society of Scotland has recently met with Lord Bach, former Legal Aid Minister for England and Wales; with Helen Edwards, current Director General at the Ministry of Justice in London; with its counterparts at the Law Society of England and Wales; and will shortly be visited by Ministry of Justice officials from New Zealand. In fighting for access to justice in Scotland, learning lessons from other jurisdictions will be vital.

"Legal Aid was intended as the fourth pillar of the welfare state," Mr Alexander concludes. "It remains vitally important that people who are unable to afford representation have that paid by the state. This is a concept that is intuitive – 68% of people in a recent YouGov survey agreed with this principle – and one which the Society will strive to maintain."

As you can see from the above Law Society media release, the legal profession’s representative body has been busy, readying itself to fight for the pockets of its own members … just don't expect the Law Society to fight for the rights of clients .. who will clearly come out last again in this annual game of catch the legal aid handout …

Incidentally, I do know a few law firms who still take on legal aid work, one of which works tirelessly for its clients … so its not all bad … there is at least one law firm in the whole of Scotland who can be approached to handle a case without clients fearing their legal aid is going to be ripped off, as well as their own finances …

‘Consumer blueprint’ for future of civil justice in Scotland launched but how long must consumers actually wait for fairer deal on access to justice ?

Consumer Focus Scotland publish policy for Civil Justice reform. CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM gains yet another ‘boost’ as Consumer Focus Scotland publishes a new report providing their version of a ‘consumer blueprint’ for the future of the civil justice system in Scotland. “Making Civil Justice Work for Consumers” sets out various policy positions on civil justice and highlights the key areas of the system that are priorities for much needed reform, as we learned last year from Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review

The principles underpinning Consumer Focus Scotland’s approach to civil justice are that the system needs to be user-friendly, affordable and accessible to ensure that when required users are able to enforce their rights and settle their disputes.

The report, which can be downloaded here : . Making Civil Justice Work for Consumers: The consumer perspective on making the civil justice along with a summary of the report here : Making Civil Justice Work for Consumers : A Summary, proposes a four-step approach to removing barriers to access to justice:

* A public legal education strategy
* Joined up and appropriate advice services
* An emphasis on informal means of resolving disputes
* More user-friendly formal dispute resolution processes

Head of Policy and Solicitor at Consumer Focus Scotland, Sarah O’Neill, said that the report’s approach is aimed at establishing a civil justice system that better meets the needs of consumers:

Sarah O’Neill : “The Gill Review has already outlined a vision for making Scotland’s civil courts fit for the twenty-first century. This report, informed by years of research and policy development, sets out a four-step approach to reforming the wider civil justice system to ensure that it better meets consumers’ needs and delivers access to justice.”

“Most of us will use the civil justice system at some point in our lives. For many their interaction with it will be difficult and unwelcome because of the stressful issues they are dealing with. Whether facing a divorce or a dispute over access or residence of children, debt recovery, a consumer dispute or a housing problem, the public’s experience of the civil justice system has too often been that it doesn’t properly support them to resolve their dispute in the most appropriate way, at the appropriate time.”

“The present system focuses too much on the needs of the professional users of the system, such as solicitors, advocates and judges, rather than those of the ultimate users, those who become involved in civil disputes. We believe that implementing the steps set out in this report would give Scotland the user-friendly, affordable and accessible civil justice system that consumers desperately need in the twenty-first century.”

Step One of Consumer Focus Scotland’s report, highlighting the need for a Public Legal Education Strategy for Scotland would seek to ‘educate’ consumers on their legal rights & entitlements in Civil law, allowing Scots to make informed choices about which legal services best meet their needs, enabling consumers to:

a) recognise they have a problem
b) recognise the problem has a potential legal remedy
c) identify a course of action to pursue that remedy, be it taking action themselves, or seeking help from an appropriate source

The report states : “Recent research commissioned by Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board pointed to an urgent need for better information for the public and wider access to support services in all courts. A consistent message emerging from this research was that few people knew what to expect and many were deeply concerned about understanding the language and procedures of the courts. Crucially, what no research can do, however, is indicate how many people are put off pursuing their case as a result of their preconceptions about what’s involved. We therefore believe a public legal education strategy is critical to improving access to justice for consumers in Scotland.”

Step Two of the report highlights the issue of "’Joined Up and Appropriate Advice Services’ where Consumer Focus believe “An important feature of a just and inclusive society is the ability of all of its members to enforce their rights, meet their responsibilities and resolve their disputes. Fundamental to this is the need for consumers to have access to high quality legal advice, at an affordable cost. Such advice should be provided on a client-led basis, and consumers should have access to the most appropriate services to deal with their problem, be that from a private, public or voluntary sector provider. We believe that this ‘complex mixed model’ of advice provision best serves consumers by providing a range of services to suit their particular personal and legal circumstances.”

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were praised in the report as a significant step forward. A surprise in the report is praise for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where the report comments (almost unbelievably) : “There have been a number of significant improvements in this area in recent years. The establishment of an independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been a significant step forward, giving consumers greater confidence in the independence and impartiality of the complaints system.”

Compare that ill-deserved, bizarre, compliment, with the reality : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveals it passed most complaints about lawyers back to Law Society, has failed to act on Master Policy report

Consumers are more likely to lose out at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, after revelations board members & senior staff ‘hate’ complaining clients. Actually not one individual who has contacted myself or the general media about the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would back that statement up, and aside from any fiddled, seasonally adjusted, massaged or spun-out-statistics provided by the SLCC on their work to-date, the factual experiences of those dealing with the beleaguered quango support the notion the SLCC is more of a front for the Law Society than an organisation consumers should trust to regulate complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’.

Both consumers and solicitors in general believe the SLCC has been a giant step backwards, as all the evidence to-date seems to indicate beyond any reasonable doubt. The SLCC is mired in scandal, indecision and extrudes an anti-client venom bordering on the hatred of consumers, which would rival the world’s most deadly, if heavily intoxicated snake.

Step Three of the report, referring to an “Emphasis on Informal Means of Resolving Disputes”, puts forward ideas for alternative venues of dispute resolution outside that of the court, where consumers invariably end up in a tangled, complicated web of legal & court processes most view as being in place to defeat the individual’s access to justice.

The report in this regard states : “While most people agree that the courts are an important way for people to enforce their rights, on the whole, those involved in disputes are more interested in finding a resolution to their problem or obtaining compensation for harm or loss than necessarily enforcing their legal rights. We also know that people would generally prefer to avoid becoming involved in legal and court processes. Those who actually end up in a court or tribunal tend to express high levels of dissatisfaction with the process. The Paths to Justice Scotland research found that fewer than half of those whose dispute was resolved by a court or tribunal thought the decision was fair, as opposed to 80% of those who reached an agreement”

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review proposals welcomed by Consumer Focus Scotland. Finally, in the report’s ‘Step Four: More User-Friendly Formal Dispute Resolution Processes’, Consumer Focus Scotland states its welcome for Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review criticisms & proposals : “We have welcomed the recognition by the review that the current court system, in providing a system that is ‘slow, inefficient and expensive’ is failing to deliver justice. While there have been a number of developments aimed at improving the court system, many of which have had benefits for consumers, the civil courts review’s analysis was that this piecemeal reform has left a system which is not fit for purpose.”

Scots have already had to wait 27 years for Class Actions. Support for Class Action litigation gets a much needed mention in the report, which states : “Consumer Focus Scotland believes the initial focus for reforms must be to make those changes which will have the greatest impact for consumers. We hope that the recommendations within the civil courts review for such a procedure to be introduced will be taken forward in early course. This recommendation, together with other proposals for a proposed Consumer Advocate and for multi-party actions contained within the UK Government’s Financial Services Bill, has the potential to bring about real benefits for consumers. It will make a remedy a practical possibility for consumers, particularly where large numbers of people have each lost small amounts which it would not be economic to litigate about individually.”

McKenzie Friends, already kept out of Scotland for 40 years due to lawyers campaign against assistance for unrepresented party litigants in court. The use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s court system gets a mention : “There is also an urgent need to make the court system simpler and more accessible for individual court users. We believe there should be a comprehensive overhaul of all current court processes, to make them easier to use and simpler to understand. This not only includes simplifying the content and tone of court forms but also allowing the use of ‘McKenzie Friends’ to offer unrepresented litigants moral support and other assistance. These would be important steps to encourage more consumers to make use of the processes that exist to help them.”

Rights of Audience in Scotland have been held back for over 17 years due to legal profession’s campaign against consumers increased access to justice. The report also goes onto recommend reviews to rights of audience for non-lawyers in Scottish Courts, stating : “We also think there is merit in reviewing rights of audience for lay representatives with a view to making the rules as uniform and cohesive as possible. We believe this would add clarity for consumers, the courts and the advice sector and may encourage greater use of lay representatives where a consumer cannot afford, or otherwise access, a solicitor.”

Law Society & Faculty of Advocates have always resisted reforms to increase consumers access to justice. All in all, not a bad report, but is this just another report after another report and another report ? Will the reforms being endlessly talked about actually happen this time ? For one thing, you can be sure the legal establishment and the legal profession, will fight many of these reforms all the way, tooth & nail, because many of these reforms amount to a loss of income to solicitors & law firms. As we all know, the legal profession do not take kindly to losing out on ripping off consumers & clients as they have been used to doing in Scotland for .. well .. decades … and as just about every ‘reform’ for giving consumers a better deal against Scotland’s notoriously poor legal services market have been effectively butchered by whichever administration was in power at the time … well .. don't expect improvements anytime soon.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill : THE greatest obstacle to reforming Scotland’s legal profession, regulation & consumer access to justice, even believes he owes his Government’s election success to the legal profession. You can also be sure the Scottish Government will drag its heals on these ‘consumer friendly’ reforms for as long as possible, due to there being far too many ‘lawyer lovers’ in the current administration, who even believe their elected office is due only to the work of the legal profession who .. rather than apparently how we, the electorate voted the last time around …

Lawyers squabble over control of legal services monopoly & regulation as Scots consumers forced to wait for wider access to justice

Law Society’s argument to maintain closed shop legal services weak. The debate on the Legal Services Bill, which aims to open up Scotland’s monopolistic legal services market, currently dominated by solicitors & the Law Society of Scotland, took another twist at the weekend with the appearance on television of the current President of the Law Society, Ian Smart & the Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly, where chiefly, the concerns of the profession itself were debated, rather than how consumers would ultimately benefit from long needed changes to the way we choose our legal representatives & access justice.

A clip of the interview, from BBC Scotland’s The Politics Show, passed onto me makes for interesting viewing for all those concerned about how the legal profession wish to keep their business market stitched up as the long held monopoly which lawyers have been used to maintaining over the public’s access to justice.

Both Mr Smart & Mr Dailly appeared not so interested in the lot of the client, (who is after all paying for them to offer legal services as a business, rather than some noble cause which serves the community) more the representatives of the legal profession, minus anyone from the consumer lobby, appeared to focus on the internal squabble for control of the Law Society itself, and its current dual roles of representing solicitors as well as regulating them, and of course its alleged claims to represent the clients best interests, claims which we all know to be .. well … a deceit.

Law Society President Ian Smart & Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly on Legal Services Reform.

From the debate I note Mr Dailly brings up the well known issue of supermarkets & banks price fixing their services & products. Well of course we all know the legal profession does exactly the same, and gets away with it time & again as there is no recourse to question solicitors bills (false, padded, or genuine) other than submitting the account to an almost bogus audit to the auditor of the court, who also usually happens to be a solicitor.

I think we need less of those one sheet A4 letters with four lines of text on it, charged at £160+VAT each which solicitors are so famous for charging clients for (usually around 10 or more at a time over at least a year and nothing achieved in the client’s case) and more competition where consumers will be able to shop around for legal services rather than be ripped off by the current crop of … well .. for the want of a better term, qualified robbers ?

Fortunately for Scots, there are more sensible forces in the debate on legal services reform such as Which?, who have done a lot of work to bring the Legal Services Bill to the Scottish Parliament, after the whole process was kicked off by the Which? “super-complaint” to the Office of Fair Trading, which you can read about in a previous report, here Consumers call for OFT Inquiry to investigate restriction of legal services in Scotland

Which? recently did a survey of consumers, supporting the notion that most Scots wish to see a more open legal services market, and be given freedom of choice on who represents their legal interests, rather than being forced to use a solicitor who can basically charge what they want (that old price fixing model solicitors have been used to all these years).

Which? research concluded most Scots want more open legal services market & independent regulation (click on images to view larger versions)

For consumers to be able to trust & depend on legal services, independent regulation is a must, considering the disgraceful history of the Law Society of Scotland and now the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on the subject of regulating complaints against solicitors.

Sadly the Scottish Governments Legal Services Bill currently lacks any significant proposals for independent regulation of legal services in Scotland, as the Law Society seems to have easily arm twisted the likes of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill into backing away from that idea for now … but the campaign goes on to bring fully independent regulation to Scotland’s currently ill served legal services market.

Consumer survey reveals most Scots want independent regulation of lawyers, legal services, & introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scottish courts

Which? consumer survey reveals Scots want independent regulation of lawyers. MOST SCOTS feel lawyers & legal services should be INDEPENDENTLY REGULATED, according to a survey carried out by the consumer group Which?, echoing their evidence to Holyrood’s Justice Committee during hearings on the Legal Services Bill, which aims to widen public access to justice by opening up Scotland’s long closed monopolistic legal services market, currently controlled by the Law Society of Scotland and its 10,000 member solicitors & law firms.

The Which? survey (pdf) found that around seven in ten Scots (71%) think that legal services should be regulated independently and around six in ten (59%) think it is important that lay people should make up the majority of a profession’s regulator or disciplinary board.

McKenzie Friends for Scotland also supported by most Scots in Which? survey. An even greater percentage of Scots (85%) of those polled supported the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, where people responding to the survey thought it would be useful if a scheme was introduced in Scotland whereby people that couldn't find or afford a lawyer to represent them in court could have the help and support of a knowledgeable non-lawyer or friend in court (known as a McKenzie Friend) if the judge allows it.

Which? survey found majority support among Scots for independent regulation of legal services & McKenzie Friends facility for Scottish Courts :

Which? principal public affairs officer, Julia Clarke, commenting on the results of their survey said : “We think it’s vitally important that legal services in Scotland are regulated by a fully independent body as we feel this is the only way consumers can have complete trust in the system. However, the Legal Services Bill will deliver great improvements for people using legal services in Scotland, and we also look forward to party litigants having the right to the support of a McKenzie Friend in court.”

The Legal Services Bill which came about after Which? lodged a super-complaint with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) about legal services in Scotland, arguing that existing regulation of the industry was harming consumers’ interests, will enable Scottish consumers to access legal services from a range of organisations, not just traditional law firms.

Scottish Government reluctantly proposed access to justice reforms. The Scottish Government however, have been very reluctant to reform legal services in Scotland, due it seems to the likes of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s well known & publicly expressed loyalties to the legal profession and opposition to independent regulation of lawyers. The SNP administration have went onto changed their mind several times over whether to reform legal services in Scotland, and only after the Office of Fair Trading response to the super-complaint, agreeing the reforms proposed by Which? to the Scottish legal services industry would benefit consumers, have the turtle-slow & varying proposals by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill become a bill for Holyrood to consider.

A Scottish Government insider said earlier this week the Law Society remained of the view it should regulate legal services in Scotland, and warned that society officials were continuing a behind the scenes campaign to retain its regulatory powers in the face of stiff public opposition.

He said : “There has been voluminous correspondence & meetings with the Law Society over the regulation question. Clearly they want to keep control even though the general public experience with the Law Society handling complaints is mostly negative.”

You can read an earlier report I wrote on the Law Society’s attempt to remain as regulator of Scotland’s legal services market, here : Consumers & Govt insiders brand Law Society ‘too crooked’ to regulate ‘Tesco Law’ expansion of legal services in Scotland

Law Society ‘very bitter’ at losing control over pace of McKenzie Friend debate. A legal insider at the Law Society of Scotland itself said this morning that officials were “very angry” over the pace of the McKenzie Friend issue, which is rumoured to have taken the Law Society by surprise in just how fast the matter has progressed from a petition under consideration at the Scottish Parliament to actual case law where the first use of a McKenzie Friend in a Civil Court action in Scotland was allowed by Lord Woolman during November 2009.

He said : “Personally I view McKenzie Friends as a good thing for Scotland and I welcome the results of the survey by Which? which show most people are in favour of the practice.”

The source also revealed there has been heated discussion at the Law Society’s Edinburgh Headquarters over the McKenzie Friend issue, with senior figures left “very bitter” at losing control over the progress of the McKenzie Friends petition, some apparently fuming with Parliament for “letting this one slip through the net”, effectively smashing the Society’s grip over rights of audience in Scotland.

The legal insider continued : “You might not be surprised at just how far the Law Society have went to prevent the McKenzie Friends issue from entering the public domain and use in the court. I understand several MSPs were privately sounded out by society officials, intent on negatively influencing any wider support at Holyrood for a McKenzie Friend law but it seems the speed of the debate, the Court of Session decision, and publicity over the lack of McKenzie Friends in Scotland has overtaken the society’s blocking tactics this time.”

You can read more about the Law Society of Scotland’s opposition to McKenzie Friends in Scotland, here : 'Control Freaks' at Law Society say “No” to McKenzie Friends as Holyrood submission signals resistance to Lord Gill's civil justice review

You can read my earlier coverage of the Legal Services Bill, here : Legal Services Bill (Scotland) : The story so far

On the matter of McKenzie Friends for Scotland, you can read my earlier coverage here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland : The story so far

Independent regulation of solicitors and the wider legal services market is as I and many others have been saying for years, a must, if consumers are to have the full protection we deserve in Scotland’s legal services market.

At the end of the day, legal services is a business, as lawyers are in it to make money, not simply to uphold the values of justice.

If consumers are to have confidence, and trust in that business, it must be independently regulated by the formation of a body with no ties whatsoever to the legal profession, or sympathetic self regulators who have their own interests in continuing the quagmire of ‘crooked’ self regulation which the Law Society of Scotland have practiced for years, directly against the consumers best interests.