In-fighting, legal aid fraud, theft, & dishonesty typifies poor standards of Scotland's legal profession.

Scotland certainly had an interesting week on the legal front ...

Developments in the World's End trial collapse saw the Lord Advocate & Lord Justice General kiss & make up after falling out over the Lord Advocate's shifting of blame from the usual Crown Office failures to judicial failures ...

The Lockerbie trial - that oh-so-honest international barometer of Scots justice which Westminster & Washington held up as a job well done against terrorism, saw allegations that witnesses were apparently offered millions of dollars for favorable testimony ... not a job well done then as it turns out

The Lord Advocate came in for more criticism she was trying to shield Colin Boyd from the promised inquiry into the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal, where some in the political & legal system decided it was in their best interests to persecute & fit up Shirley McKie, a then serving Detective with Strathclyde Police, than admit the SCRO got it wrong ...

.. and while the Scottish Legal Aid Board reluctantly troubled themselves to investigate a staggering £1.8million pound legal aid fraud, where the wife of the solicitor who was definitely on the fiddle, and committed suicide when investigations began into his activities, allegedly agreed to pay back the £1.8million pounds her late husband falsely claimed in legal aid payments from the taxpayer.

and of course not forgetting the Paralegal who is up in court for allowing a property to be used to sell drugs, and finally, the lawyer arrested in connection with the theft of Davinci's 500-year-old Madonna with the Yarnwinder, owned by the late Duke of Buccleuch.

My my .. .don't we have a great legal profession in Scotland, never out of trouble .. even with each other sometimes.

If they aren't stealing from the clients these days, they are stealing from the taxpayer, or helping themselves to antiquities of significant value .... a common enough occurrence in the Scottish Borders, where I once remember a lawyer's safe stashed with valuables from deceased clients ... if only those families of the deceased clients had done something about it ... or even if only they knew ...

Despite all of this, not much news out of the Scottish Government on reforming the legal profession, and stripping them of their prized regulatory powers, which are to be shared with the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which I'm sad to say, seems to be turning into a fairly crooked affair on it's own after word reached me today that a few of the usual suspects are being appointed on orders of the Law Society of Scotland to make sure crooked lawyers still get off the hook ...

Well, with the polluted incestuous system of 'lay membership' we have in Scotland, which the shiny new SNP Scottish Government hasn't tackled yet, and needs to soon, can we expect anything else ? How can justice be seen to be done with everyone sitting on each others committees ?

I wonder what people will think of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission when to act against the client interest just like the Law Society of Scotland when investigating complaints ... perhaps in the way some of you suggest in comments & emails which, for your own protection, and mine, I simply can't publish !

Perhaps even, clients should form their own investigative commission to look into complaints against lawyers, and then challenge the likes of the SLCC when it might perhaps, carry on the same culture of injustice where the Law Society left off ?

Finally, since it's Friday, here's a 20 minute video challenging the notion of mob rule in Jedburgh, my former town of residence in the Scottish Borders, where the youth have, allegedly run riot, terrorising elderly residents & tourists. The film has apparently been made by some of the young people in the town who want to put their own side of the story - something ex-provost and now SBC Tory Councillor Len Wyse didn't allow much when he was on the Community Council.

A few articles from the Scotsman & Herald this week relating to the above ...

Widow agrees to return £1.8m legal aid cash falsely claimed by solicitor

MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

A SOLICITOR "embellished" claims for legal aid in child welfare cases with false details of sex abuse to fraudulently obtain nearly £2 million, The Scotsman can reveal.

In Scotland's biggest-ever legal aid fraud, James Muir made false claims for public money in hundreds of child protection cases over seven years.

Mr Muir, who kept a low profile in the profession but was regarded as one of the country's most dedicated and experienced specialist child welfare lawyers, committed suicide after the police began investigating.

Details of the case have been kept secret for two years while the Scottish Government's civil recovery unit sought to reclaim the money from his estate.

Yesterday the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) announced that an agreement had been reached with Mr Muir's family that will see £1.8 million paid back to the public fund.

Last night politicians demanded answers over how such abuse could go undetected for so long.

SLAB claimed the "tragic case" was a one-off and insisted it had improved procedures for checking legal aid claims.

Mr Muir's wife Susan, believed to be a serving police officer, has sold the family's luxury home in Bothwell, Lanarkshire, to help pay back the money.

Mr Muir, 45, who ran his practice from his home, worked mainly as a custodian, or "safeguarder", for children and minors too young to manage their own affairs or represent themselves in court.

The Scotsman can reveal that from 1999 until 2005, he made false claims for legal aid in several hundred child welfare cases. At the outset, he was claiming an average of around £1,000 per case, but by the time he was caught, this had risen to £10,000. To justify the soaring claims, he "embellished" detailed application forms to the legal aid board with fabricated details of sex abuse. He even invented statements between social workers and police officers.

The fraud came to light after legal aid staff noticed his payments were steadily increasing.

Strathclyde Police obtained a warrant to search Mr Muir's home and office on 20 April, 2005. Later the same day his body was discovered on a railway line.

A source last night said: "Mr Muir had a niche market, being the only dedicated children's lawyer in the area. All the children existed in his claims, but he made up the grounds of referral from the Children's Reporter and they all, in effect, became sex abuse cases. This allowed him to embellish claims and increase the amount paid."

Another lawyer, who did not want to be named, added: "If this had been going on in the criminal court, people would have quickly suspected something was going on. But he was basically doing this work on his own and no-one asked questions.

"Everyone thought he was simply working and doing well for himself. When it came to light, I think the legal aid board was embarrassed and furious in equal measure."

Mr Muir was known to have taken on a large workload and on occasions carried out work he did not claim for.

Now, following a long and detailed investigation by the legal aid board and months of negotiations, it is understood that his widow has agreed to give back all £1.8m that her husband received in legal aid over the seven years.

Bill Aitken, the Conservatives' justice spokesman, said: "Little can be done to protect the legal aid fund from deliberate theft but the obvious question is: how was this allowed to go on so long without someone noticing?"

A spokesman for SLAB said steps had been taken to prevent such fraud going undetected for so long. The body's investigation unit had been beefed up with new staff, with closer attention now paid to claims from lawyers working in specialised areas.

Pauline McNeill, Labour's justice spokeswoman, said: "It's important that lessons are learned from this case."

LEGAL AID BILL COSTS TAXPAYERS MORE THAN £150 MILLION

SCOTLAND'S legal aid bill cost the public purse more than £150 million last year.

Criminal cases accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total, but the civil legal aid bill also rose, for the first time in three years. Last year's total legal aid bill was 2 per cent up on 2005 and brought spending to the second-highest ever level.

The figures were disclosed yesterday in the annual report of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It coincided with new proposals from the board and the Scottish Government to change the way solicitors are paid for legal aid in summary - or less serious - cases.

Under the proposals, there will be a "substantial" increase in payments to lawyers in the early stages of a case, with lesser rises for cases going to trial. This is intended to save money overall, as the system is said to favour "not guilty" pleas that are later changed.

The £150 million cost to the taxpayer was made up of £106.6 million on criminal cases, £39 million on civil cases and £4.5 million on children's legal assistance and contempt of court cases.

Over the past five years, total spending has gone up by 11 per cent, or £15 million, mostly because of a £13.6 million rise in the cost of criminal legal aid.

Announcing his intention to introduce the legal aid changes next spring, Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, said: "These proposals aim to save time and expense, to avoid wasted effort and to reduce the demands made on victims and witnesses."

Legal aid winners

DONALD Findlay, QC, has topped the list for legal aid payments to advocates, for the second year in a row, receiving £358,400 last year.

The Glasgow-based law firm Ross Harper topped the solicitors' list, also for the second year in a row, at £1.732 million - and 11 other firms of solicitors were paid more than £1 million each. Top-earning solicitor advocate was Iain Paterson of Paterson Bell Solicitors, with £219,300.

Ten advocates each earned more than £200,000 in 2006-7. They are Donald Findlay QC (£358,400), Ian Duguid QC (£321,600), Edgar Prais QC (£272,500), Mhairi Richards QC (£269,800), Paul McBride QC (£237,800), Gordon Jackson (£228,500), Derek Ogg QC (£213,300), Lorenzo Alonzi (£213,100), Ronaldo Renucci (£212,100) and Thomas Ross (£208,600).

Bill Aitken, the misplaced Tory Convener of Holyrood's only Justice Committee, for odd reasons, stating the obvious .. must have been through gritted teeth, criticising his friends in the legal profession .. now onto the crooked Paralegal .. yes there are plenty of those too ...

Law worker allowed flat to be used as 'drugs warehouse'

GORDON CURRIE

A FORMER employee of Renfrewshire Council's legal department turned a blind eye when she discovered that a flat she owned was being used as a distribution for cocaine.

Claire Feely, 32, a one-time paralegal with the local authority, used details of someone else's identity, taken from the local authority's database, to rent the property in Muirpark Street, Glasgow, then sub-let it to Derek Morrison for £150 a month.

During a huge police operation mounted last summer Morrison, a car dealer, was kept under surveillance, a court heard yesterday.

Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency officers recovered cocaine with a potential street value of over £800,000 during the raids that were mounted.

After gathering evidence, police arrested both Morrison and Feely and detained two others.

Police, acting on inside information, began watching Morrison, formerly of Elliott Street and now of Mossvale Street, Glasgow, over the summer last year.

The final pounce was mounted in August after Morrison had driven to properties associated with student Nikolas Guit, in Glassford Street and Sheila Street; and attended at the home of David Burke, a scene hand, in the city's Aray Street. Morrison, 30, admitted being concerned in the supply of the drug between 1 March and 24 August last year at the flat, described in court as a "drugs warehouse", and at his then home in Elliott Street, Glasgow.

The High Court in Paisley heard that police had found 15 one-kilogram packages of cocaine, concealed in a suitcase kept on top of a wardrobe.

A frying pan, hammer and scales, all stained with traces of cocaine, and various packages prepared for onward sale, were also retrieved.

Feely, who is now working as a hotel receptionist with the Holiday Inn group, was interviewed by police when they discovered her property had been let to Morrison.

She pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of cocaine between 1 March and 24 August at 6 Muirpark Street.

Burke, 35, now of Pitreavie Place, Glasgow, was found in possession of £800 worth of cocaine when officers raided his former address in Aray Street. He admitted he had been dealing and confessed he had a personal drugs habit that cost him £1,000 a day.

In court, he plead guilty to being concerned in the supply of the drug between 24 May and 24 August, 2006, at both Aray Street and Muirpark Street.

Guit, 32, was found with cocaine with a street value of £3,370 when police went to a second property he had in Glassford Street.

He admitted being concerned in the supply of the drug at both addresses on 24 August.

Yesterday judge Lord Kinclaven was told that a meticulous search of Morrison's home had also revealed correspondence relating to the purchase of another flat in Bulgaria.

Feely, he was told, had not been able to bring herself to tell any members of her family anything about the court case.

The judge remanded Morrison and Burke in custody after calling for background reports, and released Feely and Guit on bail.

All four will appear at the High Court in Edinburgh for sentencing on 31 October.

Law Society kills Petition PE1033 amid calls for review of injustice & regulatory sins of the past

We constantly read in the media of those who commit crimes never showing any repentance for their actions, usually doing their utmost to deny their wrongdoing, even when the evidence is all too plain to see.

And so, it is with the Law Society of Scotland, who never apologise for abusing clients rights when an innocent individual discovers they have been wronged grievously by a solicitor.The Law Society never apologizes of course, because they can get away with abusing clients, and don't see anything wrong with it.They see it as their right, and they have political friends who support it. As long as that is the case, nothing can stop it.

Imagine,if you will, an abuser, facing a law change which would send them to jail for longer, and force them to pay compensation of their victims, called up their political friends to prevent that law being changed, and the politicians said "Oh yes, we will allow you to go on abusing, we support you".

How would the public react to that ? Would those same politicians who shielded the abuser's view of their right to go on abusing & get away with it, last long in political office ? Well, yes, it does happen in a few instances, but for anyone who has fallen victim to the sins of the Law Society of Scotland and crooked lawyers, it has happened all too often.

This is, technically what happened at the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee on 18 September 2007, where, sadly, but not unexpectedly, my Petition PE1033, to call for a review of cases of injustice, caused by the Law Society of Scotland in it's role as regulator of complaints against solicitors, a complaints process which has caused such damage to innocent members of the public, was, for now, closed...

The letter from the Petitions Committee :

I knew it would happen of course, the Law Society, as determined as it is, and as full of hate as it is for anyone who criticises it's position as regulator of complaints against solicitors, would succeed in either delaying or ending what is, an obvious call for the sins of the past to put right.

Here is the Law Society of Scotland's letter to the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee members, arriving at the Parliament, by usual means of dirty tricks, the very same day the Petition was being considered. The Law Society had since December 2006 to make the spurious claims they laid before the Committee ....

The letter from the Law Society of Scotland to the Petitions Committee :

Item 1 of the Law Society's letter, gives a summary of how the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 came into being, which barely passed into law last year, after constant meddling, arm twisting, even threats to take the Parliament to Court if parts of the then LPLA Bill were not amended to the Law Society's interests ... None of that is mentioned in Mr Clancy's summary of how the LPLA Bill progressed through the Parliament and into law because Mr Clancy puts forward the Law Society's view of itself and demands that no one can take issue with it.

Item 2 of the Law Society's letter, the shorter part, and in the usual style of the Law Society when answering it's critics, attempts to sideline the reforms & additional powers I asked for in Petition PE1033, which were to either give extended powers to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to review & resolve past cases of complaint mishandled by the Law Society of Scotland, or, form an independent review commission with a similar remit.

There is of course, nothing at all, no mention whatsoever in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, of any such reforms or extended powers to which I called for in Petition PE1033, as is plain to see.

The Law Society claim further, in the letter, that

"The Parliament passed the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 on 14 December 2006. Mr Cherbi submitted his petition on 15 December 2006.

Mr Cherbi’s wish to make changes to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission could have been considered by the Parliament on 14 December had he promoted amendments to the Parliament.

The Act received the Royal Assent on 19 January 2007 and is in the process of implementation. In the Society’s view, the Act should be given the opportunity to be fully implemented and to be put into operation before its amendment should be contemplated. "

Really ? I think you jest Mr Clancy, and you know it full well.

So Mr Clancy wants to give the LPLA Act an opportunity to be "fully implemented and put into operation before this amendment should be contemplated."

The same LPLA Act which his colleague, Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill threatened to bring down with legal action against both the Scottish Executive & Scottish Parliament unless it was amended to suit the needs of the legal profession.

Does perhaps, Mr Clancy have plans for the progress of implementation of the LPLA Act to which we are not privy yet ? ..

Perhaps, as one of the rumours circulating from the Justice Department being that somewhere along the line, the Law Society will support a challenge by one of it's solicitors against the LPLA Act and the SLCC on the grounds that particular legislation or operation of the SLCC has ... breached that particular solicitors Human Rights ? ..... just the same as what happened with Temporary Sheriffs, then we see the SLCC suspended in it's function while the Law Society of Scotland come back to self regulate the legal profession for its own interests as it has always done ?

This is one of the scenarios which has been under consideration by politicians in the event that Douglas Mill and the Law Society decide yet again to threaten to kill off the LPLA Act & the function of the SLCC .... so, better now to look at either implementing the aims of Petition PE1033 as an 'amendment' or more simply, have the Justice Secretary convene a review commission to carry out the terms of Petition PE1033 .. sooner rather than later.

If I had put forward amendments to the LPLA Bill, the Parliament would have considered them and thrown them out quicker than the speed of light, on orders from the Law Society because such amendments would effectively call into question many many cases of poorly & deliberately mishandled complaints by the Law Society of Scotland over many years.

I have been asking since 1999, since the Justice & Home Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament first examined whether to investigate regulation of the legal profession, that the sins of the past be put right.

To clearly show the long history of this matter, you can read the submissions of myself, and many others to the Justice 1 Committee 'regulation of the legal profession' hearings in 2003 and again, submissions from myself and many others to the Justice 2 Committee consideration of the LPLA Bill during 2006.

Clearly, at least one MSP out of them all, should have proposed the issue of dealing with injustice caused by the Law Society to clients whose complaints were poorly or deliberately mishandled by the law Society of Scotland - there was ample evidence, after all .. but not one MSP was brave enough to raise it as an issue, despite every MSP in the Parliament receiving letters from constituents on problems with 'crooked lawyers'.

Why on earth would I, and many others, have been campaigning over the years, since 1994 actually, for an end to self regulation of the legal profession, the creation of an independent regulatory body to deal with complaints against solicitors, and as obvious to all, a clean up of the injustice of the past by the Law Society who either poorly or deliberately in many cases, mishandled complaints against solicitors ?

Petition PE1033 - Reviewing mishandled complaints against lawyers :

Here are the details from the Committee Official Report on how my Petition PE1033 was considered :

Legal Profession (Complaints) (PE1033)

The Convener: I thank committee members and the public for their patience. We have heard from two petitioners and we must now give appropriate consideration to a series of petitions.

PE1033, which was lodged by Peter Cherbi—I hope that I have pronounced that right—calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek an effective, transparent and wholly independent means of reviewing cases of alleged injustice, caused by actions and decisions of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates that relate to the regulation of complaints made by members of the public against the legal profession, either by giving powers to the new Scottish legal complaints commission or by setting up an independent review commission. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the Parliament's e-petition system, where between 9 February and 2 June it gathered 46 signatures and three comments.

Do members have views on how to deal with the petition? We have received a letter from the Law Society of Scotland, which is one of the organisations that we might contact as part of our consideration. I will not pre-empt the discussion by talking about what the letter says. That would be

Col 120

unfair to members, who have not seen the letter, because it arrived this afternoon.

Nanette Milne: I have seen the letter from the Law Society of Scotland. I think I am right when I say that significant legislation has been passed; the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 has not yet been fully enacted, but it will establish the Scottish legal complaints commission. I confess that I do not know the detail around that, but I know that the Justice 2 Committee in the previous session of the Parliament took detailed evidence on the issues.

Given that the new arrangements are not yet fully up and running, would it be a little premature to consider the petition at this stage? Might it be better to deal with it as part of post-legislative scrutiny? I am interested in what members think about that.

15:30

Rhoda Grant: I was about to say much the same thing. It is important to let legislation bed in and, when significant changes have been made, to ascertain whether the new system is working. After that, the new system can be reviewed by the appropriate committee of the Parliament.

The Convener: Do members agree?

Tricia Marwick: Despite the raft of legislation that has been passed, it seems that dissatisfaction remains about the legal profession, which might or might not be lessened when all legislative provisions are in place. It might be worth while to write to the Law Society of Scotland or the Scottish Government about the petition, to ask whether it is anticipated that all the petitioner's concerns will be addressed when all provisions are in force. I suspect that all the petitioner's concerns will not be addressed. We might ask what further provisions could be considered.

Robin Harper: We must acknowledge that there is a group of people in Scotland—a relatively small number, I hope—who, for personal reasons, are deeply disturbed by the treatment that they have had from lawyers. The depth of their feelings should not influence committee members as much as the sensible approach that Nanette Milne suggested, which is to wait until the legislation that has been passed is in force, before considering what can be done in the context of post-legislative scrutiny.

The Convener: Two distinct approaches have been suggested: to seek further views on the appropriateness of the petition in the context of existing legislation and to ask whether existing legislation will address the petitioner's concerns; or to wait until post-legislative scrutiny takes place.

Col 121

Nanette Milne: Are the two approaches mutually exclusive?

Robin Harper: I do not think so. We can do both.

The Convener: I hope that the approaches are not mutually exclusive. I am trying to find healing words.

Nanette Milne: We can do both, ideally.

The Convener: Are we not closing the petition?

Fergus Cochrane (Clerk): If the committee decides that existing provisions are sufficient to deal with the concerns that are raised in the petition, it can close the petition on that basis.

John Farquhar Munro: Can we take advice from the Scottish legal complaints commission?

The Convener: The issue is whether we can close the petition at this stage on the basis that we can revisit it if issues emerge from post-legislative scrutiny or comments made by the Government, the law officers or anyone else.

Fergus Cochrane: If you close the petition, you close it.

The Convener: That is what I was trying to get at. What do members want to do?

Tricia Marwick: I would not want to go to the wall on this. A few members think that the legislation needs to bed down and I would not divide the committee on that. We might say to the petitioner that we will close the petition at this stage, but if he wants to come back to us after the provisions have been enacted and have bedded in we will consider more specific points at that stage.

The Convener: That seems a sensible way to resolve a difficult issue, given the journey that has been taken. We might recommend closing the petition on the basis that we expect to hear something about post-legislative scrutiny. We can remind the petitioner that if his concerns have not been appropriately dealt with in the new legislative framework, the opportunity remains for him to lodge another petition. I thank members for their helpful contributions.

Sadly, I think only Tricia Marwick MSP actually understood what Petition PE1033 was all about, and what I was asking for in it, rather than accepting the Law Society explanation in their letter, ideally timed to keep scrutiny of the issue to a minimum.

I do thank all of you who signed the Petition on the Parliament's website. I am sorry of course, for letting you down but the battle goes on, to bring redress to those who suffer & have suffered injustice at the hands of the legal profession in Scotland.

Well, I can only but try again of course, and to assist that somewhat, and given I heard a whisper the Petition was to be closed (amazing, isn't it), I wrote to the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill several days before the Petitions Committee met, asking that he consider the aims of Petition PE1033, with a view to his office implementing the calls for review & resolution of past injustice caused by the mishandling, deliberate or otherwise, of complaints against solicitors by the Law Society of Scotland.

Mr MacAskill could do that. He does have the power to either call for a review & resolution of past injustice caused by the legal profession against members of the public, by way of putting together a Commission, or himself, putting forward extended powers to be passed by the Parliament, just as the Law Society have occasionally done in the past, using Solicitor MSPs to put forward & promote legislation when it suited them to do so

My letter to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill :

The Law Society of Scotland know of, and apparently have, a copy of my letter to Mr MacAskill, so I can imagine they will try and flummox him with the same deadly poison they laid before the Petitions Committee.

However, I hope that Mr MacAskill, a member of the legal profession himself, will see sense and give, what are 'healing powers' to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to clean up the Law Society of Scotland's sins of the past. After all, cleaning up the sins of the past, isn't such a bad thing to do now, is it ?

Law Society 'not acting in the public interest' as lawyers fight legal services market reforms

The news from yesterday's Law Society of Scotland "Public Interest" debate at the National Gallery in Scotland, is that lawyers will try to delay as long as possible the OFT's recommendations for opening the legal services market in Scotland.

The Law Society agreed to come up with it's own recommendations by February 2008, while the OFT expects a response from the Scottish Government by December 2007. Of course, the Law Society is used to doing things as it likes, so it will take longer. I hope the OFT call them to book on that one.

While the Law Society still determines the profession's policy towards such issues, well known divisions have emerged with some legal firms preparing for the inevitable when the current monopolistic legal services market, controlled by the Law Society of Scotland forcing the public to use a solicitor or advocate when requiring legal services or access to courts, is finally opened up to new competition.

I am of course, a supporter of opening the legal services market, but not for the aim of generating vast profits for new firms to come in and replace the legal profession in representing clients interests.

I am rather, a supporter of opening the legal services market to ensure that everyone, and I mean e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e, has access to justice and access to legal services, without prejudice, and without having to suffer the whim of the Law Society and lawyers deciding whether a particular individual should have such access to legal services & access to justice - as is presently the case.

There is a problem though, in this rush to open the legal services market, which I have been saying all along - that problem is one of regulation and maintaining quality, trustworthy, accountable and fully regulated legal services offered by the incoming firms to the legal services market.

This problem was highlighted yesterday by the in-house lawyers for the Law Society (wolves within wolves ?) and the Herald newspaper reports it as follows :

"This was evident during a question-and-answer session attended by Julia Clark of Which?, architect of the super-complaint. She was howled down with cries of "rubbish" when pressed by a representative of the society's in-house lawyers' group over precisely how banks and building societies offering legal services would be policed.

"You proposed this, you should have some sort of concept about how this will work," Clark was told."

Indeed yes, Which? and yes, the OFT too, do need to tackle the regulatory bull by the horns, and particularly the OFT, must come out of it's shell on regulation and recommend that a fully independent regulatory body be formed to police the new firms coming into the legal services market, rather than allowing the Law Society of Scotland to control or deal with new non-solicitor firms coming into the legal services sector, as it is currently campaigning for. To allow the latter to happen, would equal the disaster which has become the Scottish legal profession.

Why should the Law Society of Scotland, have any right to claim a foothold in regulating an opened legal services market, when its own failures and prejudice against clients and the public in general, have caused the harm to people that it has ?

Why should the Law Society of Scotland be allowed to regulate an opened legal services market, when it has campaigned for so long to keep that market closed for its own members to make as much money as possible ?

Why should the Law Society of Scotland be believed in anything it says, after it's disastrous performance as self regulator of solicitors, and protector (as it claims) of the public's interest in legal affairs ?

The answer of course to those questions is that the Law Society has no right, no claim, no credibility and no purpose to be involved in regulating what will be a new legal services market where many firms, banks, individuals and others will do the work currently undertaken only by lawyers.

The problem is though, that no one seems to be thinking ahead to that very matter, of regulating the incoming firms to the legal services market, and I don't buy arguments that firms, such as Banks, Building Societies, and yes, even the likes of Tesco, can be relied upon to either police themselves or rely on the regulations which govern their respective sectors.

It is time for a new fully independent regulator of legal services in Scotland to emerge, and with the opening of the legal services market, the Justice Secretary, OFT and campaign groups, consumer groups etc must get together and come up with a solution to that, avoiding letting the regulatory operation slide unwillingly back to the Law Society of Scotland, who currently are the only regulators of the legal profession in Scotland.

The easy solution of course, is to give more regulatory powers to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, extending their remit to cover anyone who will act in the legal services market, whether that be a solicitor, banker, accountant, or a qualified individual without a professional affiliation.

However to have power and authority in an opened legal services market, the SLCC will have to be given the full regulatory remit it should have had in the first place, also considering conduct complaints as well as service complaints, the latter of which the SLCC currently can only investigate, after interference from the Law Society during Parliamentary consideration of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which saw a reduced complaints remit pass to the SLCC, sharing regulation with the Law Society in a distinctly unhappy marriage not in the public interest.

The OFT to a certain extent, understand there needs to be a fully independent regulatory body for legal services, but the problem is getting the OFT to say it.

If they say it for Scotland, they will have to say it for England & Wales, admitting what many a client who has had the misfortune to be forced to make a complaint to the Law Society north or south of the border - and that is that lawyers, regulating complaints against lawyers, does not work, is invariably prejudiced, lacks accountability, lacks transparency, and has no scale of redress for the hurt, financial damage and personal damage that such issues cause the client, while the solicitor happily goes on practicing law.

Again, quoting the Herald newspaper's report on the debate, the OFT were critical of those supporting the current solicitors monopoly on legal services.

"As expected, defenders of the status quo were given short shrift by Sean Williams, executive director for markets and projects at the OFT.

He was asked whether the watchdog would act to block wealthy organisations such as banks from elbowing their way into the legal services market through what one delegate called "predatory pricing".

Williams countered by demanding to know why Scotland's legal services sector should be protected from competition if this was in the interests of clients.

"To say we should prohibit entry by very major suppliers because they have deeper pockets is a route to a smaller profession," Williams said."

Sean Williams is indeed correct in his response.

Why should Scotland's legal services market be protected from competition, if competition was in the interests of the client - which it certainly is, providing wider access to justice and legal services currently denied by solicitors & advocates. Why should the likes of Banks and other 'wealthy organisations' be prohibited from entering the legal services market ?

The answer of course is there is no reason other than filling the pockets of members of the Law Society of Scotland, to maintain the current monopoly on legal services, forcing me & you to use a solicitor to access legal services or get to court. It is in our interests, the client, to open up the legal services market and allow us to choose who will represent our legal affairs - whether that choice be a solicitor, or a legal agent from a bank, or even a supermarket legal service.

As long as strong, effective independent regulation is provided to oversee the opened legal services market, enforcing standards of service and qualification, while giving the public an independent route for pursuing complaints against poor service or conduct issues, and making financial claims for compensation against such poor service or conduct issues, the problems we have seen in the past with the likes of the Law Society of Scotland allowing virtual armies of crooked lawyers to remain in practice will not be an issue.

If of course, the Law Society of Scotland had done all this from the very start, administered complaints properly, dealt with clients who took issue with poor legal service in a non adversarial manner, enforced & maintained standards vigorously, paid compensation to those who were ruined by poor service from solicitors, and worked from a willingness to resolve issues generally, rather than going hammer and tongs against clients at every turn, the issues which now face the legal profession would simply not exist.

How sad particularly, the membership of the legal profession have done nothing to rectify their regulatory body's shortcomings. So much could have been achieved, put right, healed, and confidence restored to legal services in Scotland, but sadly, the impotice for change and reform, has to come from outside.

Following article from the Herald newspaper :

Law Society promises recommendations

PAUL ROGERSON, City Editor

The governing body for Scottish solicitors has pledged to issue landmark recommendations by the end of February which could trigger a revolution in the way legal services are delivered in Scotland.

Speaking at a landmark conference in Edinburgh, Law Society of Scotland president Richard Henderson conceded that the organisation needs to respond quickly to urgent calls for reform of Scotland's closed shop, which prevents organisations such as banks and supermarkets from offering legal services and bans Scots lawyers from seeking external capital or forming partnerships with other professionals.

A society consultation paper discussing the reform options is planned for late October. Henderson said the ruling council plans to issue draft policy recommendations by the end of February.

Yesterday's event at the National Gallery of Scotland, "The Public Interest, Delivering Scottish Legal Services", was acknowledged to be one of the most important forums the society has ever staged.

In England and Wales, reforms collectively dubbed "Tesco Law" are set to take effect in 2010 and Scotland is under pressure to produce its own blueprint for change.

As The Herald reported yesterday, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is obliged to act after the OFT upheld calls by consumer watchdog Which? for reform of Scotland's legal services market.

A "super complaint" lodged with the OFT in May by Which? had recommended the watchdog address fears that the current regulation of Scottish legal firms is hindering competition in the market, restricting choice and pushing up the price.

MacAskill must respond to the OFT by December. He told yesterday's conference that he expects Scotland's legal profession, not its government, to plot the way forward, but left the society in no doubt that he expects action soon. "You do not have the luxury of endless time to decide," said the Justice Secretary. "I shall be meeting Law Society officials within the week and expect to hear a positive outcome."

The debate around so-called "alternative business structures" is a deeply divisive one among lawyers. There are fears that many small Scots firms could be wiped out by a competitive free-for-all and that permitting external ownership could compromise professional integrity.

This was evident during a question-and-answer session attended by Julia Clark of Which?, architect of the super-complaint. She was howled down with cries of "rubbish" when pressed by a representative of the society's in-house lawyers' group over precisely how banks and building societies offering legal services would be policed.

"You proposed this, you should have some sort of concept about how this will work," Clark was told.

As expected, defenders of the status quo were given short shrift by Sean Williams, executive director for markets and projects at the OFT.

He was asked whether the watchdog would act to block wealthy organisations such as banks from elbowing their way into the legal services market through what one delegate called "predatory pricing".

Williams countered by demanding to know why Scotland's legal services sector should be protected from competition if this was in the interests of clients.

"To say we should prohibit entry by very major suppliers because they have deeper pockets is a route to a smaller profession," Williams said.

Lawyers Legal Aid quit plan - in truth a protest over reforms to the legal profession

Convenient headlines for the legal profession in the run up to Friday's 'Public Interest' debate at the National Gallery of Scotland on opening access to legal services, as the Law Society of Scotland runs big with headlines threatening that 90% of Scotland's solicitors will quit civil legal aid, leaving legal advice deserts where the poor wont be able to hire a lawyer on civil legal aid.

Those legal aid advice deserts have existed for years - even when lawyers were getting what they wanted from the Scottish Legal Aid Board, it was just that lawyers didn't want to take on particular clients, or cases, as it wasn't in their best interests, or the interests of their profession, to do so.

A simple cure for that is to open the legal services market up and allow the incoming competition to claim legal aid for representing people in their legal affairs, but has been demonstrated over the years, the Law Society of Scotland has faought to prevent anyone other than their own member solicitors from obtain legal aid payments.

Protecting their markets again ? even when it comes to legal aid payments ?

Surely this is yet another good reason to deregulate the legal services market and ensure that any legal adviser, whether they are a member of the Law Society of Scotland or not, can claim civil legal aid, thus ensuring more competition and choice for the sections of the public who are denied access to justice & legal services - either through their poverty, or the whim of the legal profession who simply don't want their cases to proceed.

This is what the Law Society of Scotland's Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, thinks of anyone claiming civil legal aid to take on a crooked lawyer (he cancels their legal aid claim)

This is what Philip Yelland, Director of Regulation, thinks of anyone taking on the Law Society of Scotland on civil legal aid (he demands the lawyers dont take instructions from their client)

Ultimately of course, these threats of quitting legal aid comes from allowing the legal profession to run itself and basically control and ruin the chance of any reforms to its practices, which politicians have invariably put forward, only after long arduous campaigns from consumer organisations & the public.

The legal services market reforms as proposed by the OFT should be implemented without delay, and if Kenny MacAskill is up to giving Scottish consumers the same rights as those in England & Wales, breaking the Law Society of Scotland's members monopolistic hold on everyone's access to justice, access to legal aid, and access to legal services, then the competition can take up representing clients on legal aid, if solicitors don't want to do it.

Additionally, and for the good of the public interest, make the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission the full independent regulator it was originally intended to be, before the Law Society of Scotland and MSP allies interfered to split service & conduct regulation between them - and ensure there is a requirement by all legal firms to accept legal aid clients, or they will simply not qualify for a practicing certificate.

I would point out that while there seem to be enough lawyers crying about little legal aid, the Law Society's own report on this, actually showed increases in legal aid payments, which I pointed out in earlier coverage of the legal aid scandal here : Lawyers protests over low legal aid fees revealed to be fake as Law Society's own research points to increase

Of course, there are some lawyers who will go to any lengths to get legal aid, as a tabloid sting on a lawyer who was bribing clients to fill out legal aid forms,revealed here : Lawyer caught in media sting bribing clients to defraud Legal Aid Board - the tip of an iceberg

One other thing I note from the Scotsman article below "In the meantime, regulations have been laid in parliament this week ....."

Great isn't it, that the legal profession can snap its fingers to the Scottish Government & Parliament, and amazingly, legislation is tabled almost immediately to suit them - but victims of disgraceful corruption by the legal profession have been writing to MSPS for over two decades, and only last year, secured the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 to slightly address complaints against lawyers ...

Based on that, is it the lawyers who command MSPs and the Parliament, or the electorate these days ?

Reform the legal services market Mr MacAskill - take regulation completely away from the legal profession while cleaning up its sins of the past and make it a requirement that if a legal firm wishes to practice law, they must accept a quota of legal aid clients, or they don't get their practicing certificate renewed.

Articles from the Scotsman & Herald follow, and some good comments available on the newspapers own respective websites via the headline links :

Nine out of ten law firms 'plan to quit' civil legal aid

HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR

THE future of civil legal aid in Scotland was thrown into doubt today by the publication of a survey showing nine out of ten law firms are so disillusioned with the system they are preparing to withdraw from all such cases over the next four years.

Lawyers across Scotland are frustrated with the bureaucracy, the way payments are worked out and, above all, with the low rates of pay under civil legal aid.

As a result, the number of law firms still offering their services for civil legal aid has gone down, with most of the remaining 736 firms preparing to pull out in the next four years.

Civil legal aid is provided to those who cannot afford the services of a solicitor in non-criminal cases. The most common use is for divorce, but women being abused often need legal aid to get court orders to keep their abusers away. Civil legal aid is also provided for adoption cases, debt and child law.

The survey also suggests that only a rethink of the system will prevent its wholesale collapse.

Oliver Adair, the convener of the Law Society's Legal Aid (solicitors) committee, warned that the most vulnerable in society would suffer if, as now seems likely, solicitors withdraw their services.

And he added that the 2003 reforms to the system, which were supposed to increase access for the most vulnerable, might end up doing the opposite.

The Law Society conducted the survey after hearing increasing amounts of anecdotal evidence of dissatisfaction with the reforms that were introduced by the previous Scottish administration.

The reforms were supposed to make the system simpler and more accessible for those most in need, introducing standard block fees for lawyers for set amounts of work and allowing lawyers to be paid for at least some of their work before the case was completed.

The basic fee is £19 for a block of work, and although the rates vary depending on the type of case, the kind of work involved and the court, it works out roughly at £52.60 an hour for work outside court and £60 an hour for representing clients in court.

However, the survey found 92 per cent of lawyers who provide services under civil legal aid were planning to end the service in the next four years. Most believe that they are getting so much less now, in terms of legal aid fees, that it does not make any sense to stay within the system.

When asked their reasons for either giving up or considering quitting civil legal aid, 80 per cent of lawyers said it was because the system was "financially unviable" and 60 per cent also complained about bureaucracy.

For most firms, civil legal aid amounts to only a small part of their work, so it would not be difficult for them to pull out.

While the Law Society survey stopped short of warning of a crisis, Mr Adair did admit that there were very serious problems ahead unless something was done to reform the system.

He said the funding system was not flexible enough to cope with cases which needed a lot of work. "Unfortunately, the people who will be the worst affected will be the most disadvantaged in society. The people who need help the most will not get access to it if lawyers pull out of the system," he said.

"Instead of improving access to justice, it would appear that the changes are having the opposite effect."

But Colin Sim, from the Legal Aid Board, said a review of the fee level had been started and it would be decided by ministers in the near future.

Mr Sim said: "There have already been changes and there is a review of the fee level under way. It is now a matter of the fee level to give an appropriate fee for solicitors, but it is unlikely to match the increases in private fees over recent years."

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "We are aware that civil legal aid fee levels are a major concern for solicitors. That is why the Scottish Legal Aid Board is reviewing the fees paid to solicitors undertaking civil legal aid work to see if the block fee arrangements are providing an appropriate level of remuneration.

"In the meantime, regulations have been laid in parliament this week which will improve payments for undefended (non-divorce) civil actions in the sheriff court. This should make it more financially viable for solicitors to take on work such as seeking a protection order."

and now for the Herald's version of the same story ...

Nine out of 10 law firms ‘to drop civil legal aid’

DAVID LEASK

Nine out of 10 law firms offering civil legal aid work will drop the service within the next four years, a poll revealed yesterday.

Most said they could no longer afford to do the work after reforms they claim have already turned huge swathes of Scotland into "advice deserts".

The survey, by the Law Society of Scotland, is the latest evidence of growing discontent among lawyers about the way fees are paid for civil legal aid.

Oliver Adair, a Larkhall solicitor who chairs the society's Legal Aid Committee, said the poll backed anecdotal evidence from across the country. Lawyers, unhappy with the system of block fees for civil legal aid work, are simply declining to take new cases, especially in complex family law.

Mr Adair said: "What we are talking about is a potential problem with access to justice for the most disadvantaged people."

The Scottish Government and Scottish Legal Air Board (Slab) yesterday acknowledged lawyers' concerns and said they were reviewing fees, something welcomed by Mr Adair. However, he added: "The survey results would suggest they have not done enough."

The Law Society survey, of more than 100 firms, found that 92% of those offering civil work for legal aid intended to stop doing so within the next four years. Fully 38% said they would drop the business within a year.

Only 3% of firms polled said reforms of 2003 - when the system of block fees was introduced - had increased their income from civil legal aid. Some 70% said their earnings from such business had fallen. Many firms said the amount of legal aid work they were doing had increased - mostly because rivals had dropped the business.

Of those planning to drop civil legal aid, four out of five said it was for financial reasons.

One firm said: "When it costs £60 or so an hour to pay qualified legal staff to undertake legal aid work, one would have to regard it as pro bono to undertake it at the silly rates offered by Slab."

Another said: "If the funding is not forthcoming, the scheme will simply wither away. That cannot be allowed to happen in a caring legal system."

Other firms said they would only do legal aid work for the most vulnerable, children and adults with incapacity. Money was not the only gripe. Some companies also complained that they were tied up in red tape.

The way lawyers were paid for civil legal aid changed in 2003. Until then they always received a "time and line payment". They still do for some work, from £53.60 to £68 an hour. Most of their fees, however, come in blocks of £19 with no hourly rate.

The Law Society sent the questionnaire to all firms registered to carry out civil legal aid, although not all responded.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said a review of fees was being carried out, and is due to be completed next month. "We're aware civil legal aid fee levels are a major concern for solicitors. That is why Slab is reviewing the fees paid to solicitors undertaking civil legal aid work to see if the block fee arrangements are providing an appropriate level of remuneration.

"In the meantime, regulations have been laid in parliament this week which will improve payments for undefended (non-divorce) civil actions in the Sheriff Court."

The spokesman also said Slab officials had been in talks with the Family Law Association to look at how lawyers should be paid for the kind of complex cases that are not suited for a block payment. Improvements could be made by the end of the year, he said.

The government has already made some moves to fill gaps left by private law firms pulling out of civil legal aid. Slab, for example, appointed a salaried lawyer based in Inverness, not least to help women who are the victims of domestic violence.

The Law Society poll follows a separate survey carried out by Mori more than a year ago. Mori spoke to around half of all firms then taking part in the civil legal aid scheme.

A spokesman for Slab said: "In our survey 62% said they were certain to or likely to still be doing legal aid work in three years time. Nineteen percent said they were not likely to and just 9% were certain not to."