Law Society of Scotland still against legal services reform & voting rights for members

Democracy is fine, as long as it's not for those who might just be able to vote you out of office - the typical fear of many a dictator no doubt ... and, as it would seem, the Scottish legal profession's governing body - the Law Society of Scotland.

In a typical show of arrogance and lack of respect for even it's own membership, this week has seen the very idea of 'one member one vote' floated in the national media, soon to be followed by wider discussion (albeit the Law Society's own special version of 'restricted discussion') of solicitors voting rights as the debate goes on.

Do as I say but not as I do - and remember to pay your subscriptions and Professional Indemnity Insurance Premiums, has been the typical cry from the Law Society's Drumsheugh Gardens Headquarters in Edinburgh for many years now - keeping individuals such as Chief Executive Douglas Mill, Director of Regulation Philip Yelland (who had to change his own title from "Director of Client Relations", because he has led the profession into the worst position in terms of Client Relations in it's entire history), Committee luminaries such as James Ness, and other 'honourable' colleagues in their accustomed, but undeserved positions of power & influence over the policy of Scotland's entire legal profession. Let's also not forget the armies of crooked lawyers, too numerous to mention this triumvirate have kept in practicing certificates too ... at the expense of many ruined clients.

However, since last year's terrible performance by the Law Society, which set itself wholly against the public and even the Scottish Executive & Parliament by threatening to kill off complaints reforming legislation via the Courts, which was long sought by many to improve client rights in complaints & claims matters, the wheels of the Law Society's control freakery have decidedly started to come off - and not before time too.

This year has seen the assent into law of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, despite the long battle by the Law Society and it's leadership to see it fail.

This year has also seen consumer organisations group together, and generate what became known as the Which? "super complaint" to the Office of Fair Trading, arguing for reform against the monopoly the Law Society of Scotland holds over the legal services market - where if you require legal services, or access to the courts, for the main you have to use either a solicitor or advocate.

The culmination of the OFT's consideration of the Which? "super complaint" was that there is indeed a monopoly on legal services in Scotland, and that the market should be open up to competition as per the reforms suggested to the Scottish Government, which are being worked on for a response

Predictably, the Law Society of Scotland reacted with it's own ideas, and tugged the ear of the Justice Secretary over the lawyers nightmare of implementation of Clementi style reforms of England & Wales coming to Scotland.

If the proposed access to legal services reforms go ahead, lawyers lose their monopoly on legal services, and you can go to a local supermarket to see an off the shelf legal representative, who may only charge you £20 to handle an item of advice which a solicitor member of the Law Society can currently charge you £150 +VAT ... and of course, currently, you don't have anywhere else to go to get that legal advice other than a solicitors office ... so, as is plain for all to see ... lawyers do not want to give that up.

The Law Society, not to be outdone by the OFT, the various consumer organisations, and campaigners all calling for reform, came up with a new proposal to keep control of access to legal services, this time, via a not so obvious method.

Instead of controlling access to justice by way of forcing you to go to see a Law Society of Scotland solicitor or member of the Faculty of Advocates,and pay the earth, for what are claimed to be 'quality legal services' (the same quality legal services which have been generating 5000 plus complaints a year against Scotland's 9,500 solicitors for over a decade), the Law Society of Scotland wants a new method of controlling your access to justice by way of controlling who actually qualifies to be a legal representative in the legal services market, post reform.

This of course, should not be allowed, and based on the failure of the Law Society of Scotland over the course of it's history to protect both the rights of the solicitor and the interests of the client at the same time, while also acting as the profession's self regulator of complaints, cannot be allowed.

Douglas Mill, and the leadership of the Law Society, do not accept the battle is over for control over legal services, as the proposed remit of the approaching Law Society Conference titled : "The public interest - delivering Scottish legal services", to be held in the National Gallery of Scotland on September 28 2007.

I covered issues relating to the approaching Conference in an earlier article, where Douglas Mill himself restricted to a large degree ideas which should be put forward in the approaching debate. Mr Mill also reminded everyone that while issues could be 'debated' - He would have to retain power over who would actually enter the legal services market, with the following quote "most would agree that it is perfectly acceptable - even welcome - for others to compete with solicitors for business, but not to compete as solicitors."

Douglas Mill's efforts to generate a two tier system of legal representation, via further control by the Law Society of Scotland are most certainly not in the public interest - not is his continuation as Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland.

Mr Mill has failed in his term at the Law Society to deliver quality, trustworthy, accountable & transparent legal services to the public, and has led the Scottish legal profession into disaster, with solicitors now commonly ranked alongside rapists & pedophiles in terms of public disrespect ... Those, are Mr Mill's gifts to his colleagues .. with Mr Philip Yelland's reign over Client Relations not that far behind.

It is not in the public interest to have a legal profession widely perceived to be corrupt in it's regulation of it's own members, widely known to be monopolistic in it's control of the legal services market, and widely known to meddle in politics - wholly against the public interest whenever it suits. The Law Society of Scotland, has demonstrated these charges amply over the years, under the reign of the present leadership.

If the membership - the solicitors up and down Scotland who claim to be honourable, trustworthy and to want to operate in the public interest and the interest of the law itself, want to truly clean up their profession, they need to stand up now and be counted - as for their vote to bring the changes necessary, clean up their mistakes of the past, and give Scotland the trustworthy, accountable, transparent, and yes, friendly legal services which the clients and the public of Scotland deserve.

Oh wait a moment, I've been saying that for awhile .. and what should appear but an article in the Scotsman suggesting the possibility of that very thing ... a vote ...

Be honest, solicitors of Scotland, and do some good for yourselves and the country - Vote for a change and take back policy making from the Law Society of Scotland to the membership - and build a better legal services market for all - for your interest, for all our interest.

Articles follow from the Scotsman - on floating the idea of a vote for solicitors which needs to go much further than just appointing a figurehead President .. and an article from the Herald newspaper, on the Law Society's continued resistance to opening up legal services ...

Is now the time for one member, one vote policy?

JENNIFER VEITCH

SOLICITORS reading the latest edition of the Law Society of Scotland's Journal could be forgiven for thinking that John MacKinnon, their newly departed president, had been feeling the pressure of the post. In what turned out to be his last column as president, his parting shot expressed his hope that solicitors should be taking their holidays.

"At the time of writing, the weather remains as fickle as might be expected from a Scottish summer," he wrote. "That being so, I hope everyone is able to take a well-earned break and recharge their batteries for the months ahead."

By the time the Journal dropped through letterboxes last week, MacKinnon had already stepped down, just three months into the job. Last Monday, it was announced he was resigning from the society's council, citing the pressure of work at Brown and McRae, his small Fraserburgh-based firm.

MacKinnon's sudden resignation has seen Richard Henderson, vice-president, who was next in line to take over as president, pick up the baton nine months early. At a council meeting last Friday, it was agreed Henderson will continue in that role until May 2009, while an election for a new vice-president will be held in October.

There is no question of the handover causing the running of the society to grind to a halt. But does it raise issues about its leadership? Has the role of president become too pressurised, particularly for solicitors from small, rural firms? And should it the wider membership of the society have a direct say in choosing who represents their interests?

According to the society, the president's role is to act as a "figurehead". In practice, however, the president has a wide range of duties - he or she is not only expected to chair council and general meetings, but also to work closely with the chief executive to agree objectives and priorities, help identify policy and strategic issues, and play a major role in communicating with the wider public, other professional bodies and politicians.

Before taking over as president in May, MacKinnon had served as vice-president for a year - - but that role is far less onerous.

Most, but not all, presidents have come from larger firms, arguably with more resources to cope with effectively losing a partner for a year, and usually based in or around Edinburgh. However, Caroline Flanagan, who took over as president in 2005, also came from a five-partner firm, albeit one based in Dunfermline.

Ironically, it is the survival of firms such as MacKinnon's, particularly in more remote areas like Fraserburgh, that will be key to the ongoing debate about the advent of alternative business structures and their impact on access to justice.

Simple geography may be one major reason why Henderson had already been playing a greater than usual supporting role. Indeed, some senior figures in the profession had already been mistakenly referring to him as the "president" of the society before MacKinnon's resignation.

It may also be a sign that the process of electing the president does not involve solicitors at a grassroots level. Currently the president and vice-president are elected by the society's council, made up of 44 solicitors who have been elected to represent geographical "constituencies" and up to nine co-opted members, who are in-house lawyers.

The nominations and elections are usually held in November, with the results ratified in December and the new president and vice-president taking over in May each year. The vice-president goes on to become president and, according to latest figures from the society, the president is paid £80,000 a year, while the vice-president receives £40,000.

But one solicitor tells The Scotsman this process is undemocratic, particularly as Henderson, a retired solicitor to the Scottish Executive, is a co-opted, not elected, member.

"Scottish solicitors - 10,000 of us - were not consulted or given a vote," he says. "Solicitors can vote for the appointment of a local solicitor to the council of the society but the choice of president and vice-president - who always takes over the following year - is dealt with behind closed doors. According to the Journal he was co-opted on to the council, which suggests he has even less of a mandate. What about one member, one vote?"

Any changes to the election process would require reform of the society's constitution. The Scotsman understands the issue was last considered in the late 1980s. Douglas Connell, managing partner at Turcan Connell, says: "I have some sympathy with the idea that the governing body should select the person who is best suited to lead the profession. Given everything that has been happening and all the changes we have seen, I think it is time for a much more radical review of the role of the Law Society of Scotland and its governance."

A society spokeswoman says: "The council has looked at the profession nominating a president and agreed that council members should continue to nominate the president and vice-president each year as the profession could feed into that process and express their views to their representative on council. If there is a view that the issue should be looked at again, then a motion can be raised by individual members, at the society's annual general meeting or special general meeting in September, or through their elected representative on council."

and now for the Herald article on legal services market reform, which puts the intentions of some firms, against those of the Law Society ...

‘The horse has bolted on alternative structures’

IAN FRASER

Magnus Swanson, chief executive of the Big Four law firm Maclay Murray & Spens, has weighed into the debate on deregulation of the legal profession. He says there is little point in the profession continuing to prevaricate on whether to introduce alternative business structures, as he believes they are already a fait accompli.

He told The Herald: "The horse has already bolted on alternative business structures - and this is pretty much what I'll be telling the conference."

He was referring to the Law Society's conference, "The public interest - delivering Scottish legal services", to be held in the National Gallery of Scotland on September 28.

Alternative business structures are alternatives to the traditional structures for law firms - whereby partners who are practising solicitors within a firm must own the equity and share the profits between them.

Alternative business structures are due to become possible from 2010 in England and Wales, where they are being ushered in by the Legal Services Bill, currently passing through both houses of parliament. This follows Sir David Clementi's 2004 review of the legal services market.

The reforms are expected to help large law firms to raise money to fund their expansion or reward non-legal staff with equity stakes in their firms. They are expected to enable partners in large firms to make sizeable fortunes by selling out to, for example, investment banks and will also permit household names such as Tesco, Halifax and Norwich Union to compete with traditional solicitors' firms by offering basic legal services such as conveyancing and will-writing.

However, alternative business structures may not see the light of day in Scotland partly because the lawyers' self-regulatory body, the Law Society of Scotland, is unsure about how they might be regulated. Another of its fears is that smaller law firms across Scotland will be effectively wiped out when organisations such as Tesco start offering legal services.

Swanson said the Law Society of Scotland's conference on alternative business structures should not bother to examine whether they are good thing or when they should be introduced in Scotland, but instead focus exclusively on "how we establish practical regulation to cope with alternative business structures". This looks un- likely to be the case. Despite a recent warning from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill that the Scottish Executive wants the society to deliver "concrete proposals" at this event, the society continues to bill the gathering as a talking shop on the merits of alternative business structures.

In the August issue of its Journal, the Law Society of Scotland billed the conference as a "discussion forum", offering its members the chance to air their views in wide-ranging debate on alternative business structures, including whether these should be introduced at all. Rather than suggest it will present concrete proposals at the event, the Law Society referred to having proposals at a "white paper" stage by December 31.

Douglas Mill, chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, concedes he does not expect conference to reach any consensus.

He said: "We wouldn't expect unanimity of view either within council or in the wider profession. High street firms will have a different perspective to big firms."

Michael Clancy, the Law Society's director of law reform, said: "The conference is the key in formulating ideas It's an opportunity to have an educated level of debate, with representations from stakeholders, and to let different voices within the profession be heard."

However, Swanson believes it would be wrong for Scottish-based law firms to be penalised through any failure to introduce alternative business structures. He said it would be "real shame" if firms that struggled to transform themselves into UK players in the past two decades - including Dundas & Wilson, Maclay Murray, McGrigors and Shepherd & Wedderburn - were forced to become English domiciled because of any intransigence from the executive and the Law Society.

Roddy Bruce, a partner at the leading corporate law firm Dickson Minto, which has offices in Edinburgh and London, said: "If (Clementi reforms) happen in England and give an advantage to English firms, then we would have to have the same treatment here."

Alan Campbell, managing partner of Dundas & Wilson, has also said it would be a wasted opportunity for the Law Society to launch another "talking shop" on alternative business structures.

He recently said: "The Office of Fair Trading (in its response to Which?'s super-complaint) has effectively said to both the executive and the Law Society that they must up their game. However, they don't really appear to have got the message yet."

Crown Office failures in murder trial spark calls of injustice and need for reform of Scotland's failing prosecution service

The Scottish Executive is changing it's name to the Scottish Government. A good thing for Scotland - finally we have our own Government, rather than a glorified Regional Council which has since 1997 until May of this year, kept its own party political allies in well paid unaccountable positions up and down the country. Hopefully the new Scottish Government won't follow the ways of the old Executive, and put Scotland first, before it's own paymasters or arm twisters out to keep things as they have 'aye been'

However, another area of power in Scotland needs reform - and much more than just a name change -that area of power is of course, the Crown Office

As one currently serving MSP described it, not so long ago ... the Crown Office "is one of, or perhaps the most corrupt institution in Scotland".

That's quite a charge against the country's prosecution service, but as we have seen from the levels of injustice in Scotland, which have reached staggering proportions for the small country that we are, it is an accurate indictment of our prosecution service, which is unaccountable, lacks transparency, honesty, and freewheels on it's own power base, occasionally being used by the powers that be to victimise the very victims of injustice even further to silence criticism against it's function.

Can the Crown Office in it's present form be trusted with the criminal justice system in Scotland ?

The answer to that, may lie in so many examples of Crown Office incompetence, failure, prejudice & corruption in cases such as the Lockerbie Trial, the Surjit Singh Chhokar murder case, the Dunblane Massacre Inquiry, the unexplained & poorly investigated death of Annie Borgesson, countless prosections against Crown Office staff, conveniently let go from the courts - on suspicious grounds, to name but a few of the cases over the years, and, a staggering mismanagement of the criminal justice system in Scotland which has produced a widely held belief, that the answer to this question, is a resounding NO.

I certainly don't think the Crown Office can be trusted with handling the criminal justice system in Scotland. It's power has been used against me more than once, in attempts to silence my criticism of the legal profession, and my taking issue with the the spitefully handled, mismanaged investigation into my mother's death at the Borders General Hospital back in 2000. However, that didn't work, given a thankful exposure of the Crown Office's behavior & corruption at the time by a journalist, and I must admit, a wee helping hand from a disgruntled Police Officer now out of the force and full of information on who is less than trustworthy in the Crown Office ...

If however, as many people have before, ask the Crown Office to prosecute a crooked lawyer who will deliberately set out to ruin the lives of their clients for financial gain - they will do nothing ... so much nothing that the Crown Office won't even admit to prosecuting any members of the legal profession and even deny such statistics are ever kept ...

If you are going to bring a new Government to Scotland, Mr Salmond, you will have to bring a new prosecution system to Scotland too - and make it transparent, honest, and accountable. The only way to do this is to get rid of that corrupt behemoth in Chambers Street and start afresh - as the amount of injustice & sheer corruption in the Scottish justice system clearly demonstrates.

Here are a couple of examples from the Sunday Herald, of how the Crown Office performs, or rather, fails to perform for the good of Scotland when it comes to our justice system.

In the first of the following stories, the Crown Office seems to have been at the fiddle when it has come to disclosing documents to the accused's legal team .. something many people will be familiar with in Scotland ... and do any of you think that such failure to disclose crucial witness statements & evidence could be accidental ? The probability of such is surely remote ... in essence, the Crown Office knows what it's doing .. and so do the Police but why is this tolerated ?

You can find out more about the first example involving the case of Brendan Dixon HERE

Now for two stories from the Sunday Herald, showing just what we, the people of Scotland have to put up with in the justice system - a culture of injustice which too many people at the top have got used to. Surely it's now time to end this culture of injustice in Scotland.

Mystery over ‘significant’ witness at murder trial

By John Bynorth Men found guilty could have been denied a fair trial, says lawyer

THE DEFENCE lawyers of two men who were found guilty of murdering an elderly woman were not told that a potentially "significant" witness - who gave evidence for the prosecution - was seen outside the victim's house on the day her body was found.

The Sunday Herald has learned that, despite being identified by a "credible" witness who didn't take the witness stand, the man, who has served time in prison and was admitted to a hospital's psychiatric ward two days later, was not interrogated about the claims at the trial of Patrick Docherty and Brendan Dixon for the murder of 91-year-old Margaret Irvine four years ago.

Docherty's solicitor, Graham Mann, who uncovered previously unseen police statements by the man and the woman who saw him, said this may be because the Crown Office did not disclose the nature of the man's alleged involvement.

Alternatively, he said the police may not have revealed to the Crown the full details of the man's status to the investigation. The man was not questioned about the allegations that he was seen outside the house during his brief trial appearance.

Mann insisted that the failure to cross-examine the man, because the defence teams appeared not to possess the full details, could have denied Docherty, 41, and Dixon, 38, a fair trial.

Police witness statements reveal the female witness, a 35-year-old restaurant worker, picked him out from a photo identification as one of two men she became suspicious about outside the house in Galston, Ayrshire, as she drove past, on the day Irvine's body was found.

The information emerged during Docherty and Dixon's appeal against their convictions. Documents show the man, now 32, was "witness 23" in court documents and gave evidence for the prosecution at their 2005 trial at the high court in Kilmarnock.

We revealed last month how the woman, who would have provided information that "witness 23" was seen outside the house, was not called by the Crown. She appeared in court documents as "witness 22", despite not being called. The woman has refused to speak to the Sunday Herald about the case.

Knowing that he had been formally identified as being at the scene would have enabled the pair's defence team to ask him about why he was there and perhaps bring an ex-girlfriend, who claimed he was three miles away at her home in Hurlford, to testify in court.

Mann also wants to find out if the police spoke to the "suspect's" ex-girlfriend and if they did, why that information wasn't passed to the defence. He said: "It appears there is a possibility the prosecution commenced this trial knowing that a person was identified with certainty by a completely independent Crown witness as being at the home of the victim on the day her body was found - and they didn't pursue that person as a suspect.

"It's also significant this man gave a statement saying he was not very far away on the day of the murder. The Crown called him to give evidence, yet didn't call this restaurant worker. They didn't have any reason to disbelieve what she said, so why wasn't she called?

"The big question is whether the police gave that information to the Crown. If the police did, I find it hard to believe that information would not, in some guise, have been passed on to the defence.

"The defence - either through a failure by the Crown or police - appear not have this information at their fingertips, effectively denying them a line of inquiry which may well have proved significant." Mann added: "Our justice system demands full disclosure' and public confidence would be destroyed if they thought the Crown was selecting evidence."

Strathclyde Police and the Crown Office refused to discuss the case.

... and now for a very disturbing report from the Sunday Herald on the suffering of children in some Scottish Care Homes - a terrible injustice again which needs action by the authorities and the guilty punished for their terrible crimes.

It was our duty to protect these children in remand homes. Instead they were sexually abused by staff for years’

By Neil Mackay Former Glasgow ‘borstal’ at the centre of the latest child abuse scandal

ON THE eve of a watershed government report explaining why children in Scottish care homes from the 1950s until the 1990s were allowed to be sexually abused, the Sunday Herald has uncovered yet another disturbing scandal.

It centres on the sexual assault of children that lasted for decades in government-run Scottish remand homes and assessment centres - the country's equivalent of borstals. Although children were abused at a number of borstal-type institutions in Scotland, the worst site appears to be a former Glasgow borstal called Larchgrove.

The details are coming to light just as the Scottish Executive is preparing to publish the Historical Abuse Review, which is meant to draw a line under a series of shocking revelations about sex abuse in care homes run by independent organisations such as the Catholic Church and charities such as Quarriers.

Des - not his real name - was put in Larchgrove 27 years ago as a boy. He was detained for playing truant from school to avoid bullying.

"I was in there between 1978 and 1979," he told the Sunday Herald. "The sexual and physical abuse was terrible. This was perpetrated both by staff - although not all of them - and also by people who didn't work there.

"I complained at the time, ran away and was dragged back screaming. Nothing was ever done. I still wake up screaming, sweat running off me, because of the abuse I suffered."

Des said he ended up a heroin addict through using drugs to "block out all the pain and abuse I suffered there". He's now been clean for six years and is happily married. He was the first of many people spoken to by the Sunday Herald who confirmed the routine abuse of children at Larchgrove.

Reg McKay, a former director of social work who is now a best-selling crime writer, said he was aware of the abuse of children at Larchgrove from the very beginning of his career.

As a trainee social worker in the mid-1970s, McKay came face-to-face with boys who provided evidence of sexual abuse at the infamous borstal.

McKay was the social worker for three teenage boys who were locked up in Larchgrove. In 1976 they told him that they had witnessed other children suffering sexual abuse at the hands of both male and female staff. "These kids weren't bad boys," said McKay. "They were deeply disturbed - from dysfunctional homes. They had some very serious personal problems and were at risk of turning to offending or falling into drug misuse.'' One boy told McKay that the most dangerous time in Larchgrove was just after lights-out when the boys were put to bed. The boys were housed in small dorms holding six to eight beds. Staff would sometimes call boys from their beds. Often this was for valid reasons, such as administering medicine, but at other times it was simply to abuse them.

McKay says that on some occasions female staff took the children from their beds to be abused. The women provided the children with a false sense of security, ensuring that they didn't panic or scream on their way to be abused. The women were "either standing by or taking part" in acts of abuse, McKay added.

"I knew this was happening back then as I heard the allegations personally," said McKay. "The kids trusted me and had no reason to lie. When I reported the allegations to management I expected a full investigation to take place for the sake of the boys who were being abused.

"It was our duty to protect these kids and we clearly failed them. I went on to report what I was being told up the chain of command. I raised the allegations with senior members of social work staff. As far as I know there were at least three internal investigations, but nothing happened. There were no sackings, no charges - nothing.

"To be blunt, many of the homes where children were being kept in those days were worse than something out of Oliver Twist. I can even remember staff taking money from children. These were kids who had nothing in the first place."

McKay says that he recalls the same allegations resurfacing about Larchgrove in the 1980s. "Allegations of child sex abuse were being made against many similar institutions at the time. As far as I know, nothing was done about these claims either."

McKay says that some managers "hated" him for reporting allegations of abuse and demanding investigations. "Many social workers found themselves in the same position: raising concerns and allegations with management then having no power to ensure the right action was taken," he added. "It was bloody frustrating - especially when you or a colleague went back to the same institution a year or two later and heard similar allegations."

Later, as McKay's career as a social worker progressed, he led two investigations into allegations of sexual abuse at Kerelaw - another institution for detaining children who'd broken the law. Glasgow City Council also ran this facility for vulnerable children. Kerelaw closed last year amid allegations of abuse.

Glasgow City Council admitted that 40 of its employees had been alleged to have been involved in the sexual or physical abuse of children at the home. The council also said that some of those suspected of abusing children at Kerelaw were still working with children in care.

At the end of his investigations into abuse allegations at Kerelaw in the 1980s, McKay recommended that the claims be passed to the police immediately and that those accused of assaulting children be suspended with no pay. "Once again, nothing happened," he said. "And once again, I have no idea why."

Frank Doherty, founder of the Scottish organisation In Care Abuse Survivors (Incas), was sent to Larchgrove for 28 days in the late 1950s. He'd previously been in care in the notorious Smyllum orphanage in Lanarkshire where many children were abused. He used two words to sum up his memories of Larchgrove: "Getting battered."

Doherty was sent to Larchgrove for "petty criminality", he said. The physical abuse he suffered at Smyllum had left him a mental wreck so he was in no state to withstand the violence at Larchgrove. "Going into Larchgrove after being in Smyllum set me back years as I'd already been battered and tortured. Larchgrove was just another Smyllum. I saw regular physical violence in Larchgrove and I was often on the receiving end of it."

Tommy "TC" Campbell was another child inmate at Larchgrove. He knew boys who were abused and spoke of warders trying - but failing - to sexually abuse him. Campbell was wrongly jailed for life for the deaths of six members of one family in a firebug attack during Glasgow's infamous "ice cream wars". He was jailed in 1984 and his conviction was not quashed until 20 years later.

Campbell has always admitted that he was a tearaway as a teenager. He ended up in Larchgrove borstal in the mid-1960s aged 14 for truanting, trespassing and stealing eight pence. "Everything was brutal. The staff were just like screws," he said. "They thought nothing about giving you a wallop. There were also a few child molesters among them." It was common for boys who misbehaved to have their trousers pulled down before being beaten with a cane on their backsides.

Campbell says he knew of a number of boys who were sexually abused. He also named one warder who preyed on the weakest boys in the borstal. The warder would single out bed-wetters and other vulnerable children, believing they were less likely to inform or resist.

"They'd target the weak ones," he said. "They wouldn't go for the boys who were rebels or who were tougher lads as they wouldn't stand for it. They'd go for the ones with no mum and dad - the ones who were in there for care and protection. It was the worst place the state could have sent them.

"Everyone knew what was happening. You'd see boys being taking out of showers or their dorm and then the boys would tell you what happened to them. It was a terrifying place. You'd see boys in total terror - crying and withdrawn."

Campbell said that at the beginning of his time in Larchgrove there were attempts made to sexually abuse him. "Three different warders tried it with me," he said, "but they realised very rapidly that I was not one to try it with." Campbell later butted a warden for physically assaulting him.

"The whole place was mentally and psychologically oppressive. We were starving all the time - there were fights over a slice of bread." Campbell says that the children were even fed tins of pet food. "It was like Colditz. Boys were always plotting ways of escaping, although you'd be badly beaten for trying." Many boys were deliberately disruptive because they hoped they would be transferred to an adult jail and get away from the abuse at Larchgrove.

Tom Shaw, who is heading up the independent review of historic abuse for the Scottish government, said his report - due out shortly - investigated the flaws in the care system that allowed paedophiles to abuse children. He said that the revelations about Larchgrove underscored the need for the review. "It shows the point of our work," he said.

The review will highlight failures in the system which can be used by victims of abuse to sue the state for failing to protect them while young. However, no individual homes or perpetrators will be named in order not to prejudice future criminal trials.

Referring to the claims of abuse at Larchgrove, Shaw added: "What we don't know is how many more people may still want to come forward to tell their story."

Law Society policy on open legal market reforms at odds with solicitors & public alike

Question : Who wants to keep the legal services market closed to anyone other than it's own members ?

Answer : The Law Society of Scotland - particularly a select few who control it, such as Douglas Mill and the rest of the monopoly brigade.

Question : Who wants to open the legal services market ?

Answer : A host of consumer organisations, the OFT, commercial competitors, victims of injustice, and yes, even some solicitors themselves.

Clearly, the Law Society of Scotland are against the masses on this one - although you wouldn't think it if you were to believe the propaganda coming out of it's headquarters at Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh, where Douglas Mill, Philip Yelland, and colleagues are hard at work putting more spin on the Law Society's policy towards the recent OFT recommendations on legal services market reform than any politician could ever manage !

Earlier this week, Douglas Mill authored an article in the Herald newspaper, supposedly, accepting the need for debate and a grudging acceptance there will be change in the way the legal services market in Scotland is currently structured - where if you need to use legal services or require access to the court, you have to invariably use a solicitor or an advocate, thus restricting your access to justice.

The Law Society of Scotland has put up a strong fight on the battle to maintain the monopoly on legal services, but alas, change is coming, and the sooner the better for both the legal profession, and the general public.

However, while the general public will be less restricted in their access to legal services & access to justice after Scotland gets it's home brew version of the Clementi reforms of England & Wales, the solution to those who seek legal representation in cases involving things such as negligence, claims for damages and other issues generated by the poor service of the likes of solicitors, accountants and the like, is not guaranteed to be resolved by this opening up of the legal services market.

Taking the current example of trying to recover damages from a crooked lawyer by using another lawyer to sue the crooked lawyer - Everyone (except the legal profession) accepts that just doesn't work.

A victim of a rogue lawyer can (if they are lucky), secure legal representation, then go from lawyer to lawyer to lawyer over many years, trying to chase the original crooked lawyer for damages, while the legal profession, managed by the Law Society of Scotland, has a laugh making sure their case gets nowhere. That's what happened to me, and that's what has happened to many many people up and down the length of Scotland.

It's the same for many other professionals too - try suing one of Scotland's legion of crooked accountants managed by ICAS, and see how far you get ... not very far would be the answer, as certainly the actions of crooked accountant Norman Howitt demonstrated in my own case .. and is typical of many who try to sue an accountant .. or other professional who is lucky enough to have an unaccountable, self regulatory governing body hell bent on protecting them against any charges of poor service or claims for compensation.

Getting back to the issue of how the legal profession is to proceed on legal services reform, as I said Douglas Mill appeared in the Herald on Monday, accepting the need for debate, while restricting the terms of the debate to remind all that while ideas could be put forward, those ideas would have to correspond with the Law Society's wishes in this matter .... along with the noted restriction that while the legal services market may be opened up .. the Law Society will still control who becomes a solicitor or who enters the legal profession - this to be done chiefly by controlling the qualifications issue and carving out a new role for itself as regulator of all in the legal services market.

Allowing the Law Society to remain in control - or even have partial control of the legal services market is not an option the public should allow, given the disgraceful demonstration by the Law Society over the last few decades of it's corrupt handling of regulatory issues, where for the main, it has protected crooked lawyer after crooked lawyer, and ensured claims for damages against the least or the most negligent solicitors have been thwarted at every turn, by denying the ruined clients access to justice & legal services.

Surely an organisation which claims to represent those who use the law as a business model, while also claiming to protect the clients interests, then actively restricts and prejudices the public's access to legal services & access to justice when it is not in their professional interest to see such rights allowed, cannot be allowed to continue to manage those who provide such legal services as a business model.

In the following article, you will see a different view of how the OFT's proposals on opening the legal services market are being interpreted by some members of the legal profession, where the attitude of some seem to be at odds with policy put forward by the Law Society of Scotland.

Be careful however, because at the end of the day, these are still the same legal firms, many with disgraceful complaints records who are trying to cleanse themselves on the decks of free market reforms ....

What the client really needs, are clean firms being formed by clean people, who are willing to work transparently, honestly, and with accountability .... How many existing legal firms could claim to do that ?

Oh, and to complete the week's coverage on legal issues, the Law Society of Scotland President resigned - due to "pressures" of the job.

It seems Mr MacKinnnon must have had enough of his strings being pulled by the Chief Executive ...and is off back to his firm to concentrate on work there. The president's role is largely a figurehead anyway and has no power ... although many past presidents of the Law Society of Scotland have notably used their lack of power to support the practices of many a crooked lawyer against a poor ruined client ....

Scotsman article on the solicitors own view of legal services market reforms follows, then the short report on the resignation of the now former Law Society President John MacKinnon :

Prepare for the end of the closed shop by rebranding and merging - as we have

IAN TURNBULL

THE legal profession in Scotland is facing challenging times. The recent OFT recommendations and the imminent deregulation of the legal profession, creating a level playing field between Scotland and England, will firmly confine our current ways of working to the archives.

Tesco Law, Virgin Law, EasyLaw: you name it, we can expect it. Firms with impeccable consumer credentials will be all over our business before you can even say "so long, closed shop".

Gillespie Macandrew, like many others, welcomes this culture of openness and breakdown of barriers. We believe in competition and we're focused on serving consumers' interests. But we're not complacent, and we need to be ready.

That's why we've just invested £100,000 in a comprehensive facelift (or re-brand, as the marketing people like us to call it). We've also invested in a training programme for our people to face the new challenges.

After extensive research among staff, peers and existing and potential clients, we have developed a revitalised corporate identity that will allow us to not only weather the onslaught from new providers, but also accelerate our growth while continuing to deliver a professional holistic offering across our existing client-base.

As well as helping us stand out in a crowded market, our re-brand also reflects the firm's expansion and diversification. The new logo champions our three key practice areas: law, property and finance.

The research indicated our public profile has been on the low side and Gillespie Macandrew is viewed as a "traditional" law firm. In reality, the truth couldn't be further removed: hence the new identity.

Our business has changed dramatically as a result of five very different acquisitions over the past three years, which have retained our Scotland-wide services and increased our business exposure to the Edinburgh market. It was important for us that the new identity reflected our aggressive growth and communicated the personality of our business, notably that of Hunters, the recognised and trusted estate agency, which we acquired in 2006.

The rebrand positions the new-look Hunters Residential as a pivotal element of our business, with matching brand identity and design work.

Our ability to give mortgage advice is again a recent addition to the stable. In June we launched a new financial services division, which broadens our existing work into specialist mortgage and pensions consultancy while complementing the private client department's estate and tax planning, trust management and investment capabilities.

This was rapidly followed by the acquisition of Haig Scott, the three-partner Edinburgh law firm, which was the springboard for the launch of our specialist housebuilder property team.

This new deal signifies a burgeoning trend of consolidation in the market. With mounting compliance and regulatory issues, the pressures of running a small practice are becoming all-consuming, and increasingly small and medium firms are under commercial pressures to merge and focus on niche specialities. By joining a much larger entity, the red tape is no longer an issue for the partners who can get on with the day job.

The result is that Gillespie Macandrew now boasts 22 partners and more than 150 people specialising in a range of niche disciplines: from licensing to tax planning; intellectual property to residential property. This year our turnover is set to exceed £10 million for the first time. A giant step from the £3 million that we recorded back in 2003.

In these exciting but uncertain times, our new brand values of reliability, approachability, vibrancy and partnership are designed to fuel our next stage of growth. With Clementi in England and pressure to follow in Scotland, consolidation and consumer demand shaping our world, my rallying cry to the profession is to be clear what you stand for and develop a robust brand that allows you to beat the newcomers at their own game.

Gillespie Macandrew is ready to do business in an open shop.

• Ian Turnbull is the managing partner at Gillespie Macandrew

and now .. for the end of John MacKinnon's Presidency .. just a few weeks after he took the role on ...

Law Society president quits job over pressures

THE President of the Law Society of Scotland is to step down from the post with immediate effect, it emerged last night.

John MacKinnon is to leave office because he feels he cannot cope with the demands of the high-profile post and his job as a partner with law firm Brown & McRae, based in Fraserburgh.

The President of the Law Society is a figurehead who represents its 10,000 members in Scotland. Mr MacKinnon took up the post in May, at a time of great change in the profession. Big issues include the creation of the independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and so-called Tesco law - the call to allow basic legal services to be provided from outside the profession to widen consumer choice.

The society's vice-president, Richard Henderson, becomes president and the society will appoint a replacement for him as soon as possible.

Law Society Chief - Debate legal services reform but lawyers must retain control of the legal profession

Douglas Mill, the Law Society of Scotland's Chief Executive has made a less than convincing appeal for solicitors to retain control over their monopoly of legal services in the face of legal services reform.

Appearing in Monday's Herald newspaper, Mr Mill made the case that the Law Society of Scotland "has been at the heart of the debate for a number of years", alleging through a rather unusually long commentary that the legal profession in Scotland have been major players for the good of both the public & profession in the face of the impending reforms to the legal services market in Scotland.

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth, as Douglas Mill particularly, has been at the heart of blocking any reforms to the way the legal profession in Scotland does it's business and made its vast profits over the years, at the expense of transparency, accountability, honesty & client care.

Last year, 2006, clients finally got a slight advantage in dealing with solicitors in Scotland, by way of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which aimed to bring a measure of independent regulation to client complaints against solicitors amid a swathe of evidence the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates had corruptly handled complaints procedures for many years, promoting interests of solicitors over that of the client, and ensuring little or no compensation was ever paid to cover an almost routine culture of theft from clients funds, be it in overcharged fees, theft, or embezzlement, which have become almost as common in the legal profession today as 'taking a breath'.

The LPLA Act 2007, brought about by long campaigns by many, including myself, and several consumer organisations, had a rough ride through Holyrood, with every dirty trick tried by the legal profession to kill it off - from bringing in English Peers such as Lord Lester of Herne Hill - who authored legal opinions against the passage of the bill, to the raging threats of Douglas Mill to take legal action against both the Scottish Executive & Parliament if the LPLA Act was indeed passed - citing the loss of a lawyer's "Human Right" to regulate complaints against colleagues.

The 2007 LPLA Act did of course, did pass the legislative process at Holyrood, although with some amendments brought in by certain MSPs so obviously sponsored by the Law Society itself, some of those amendments very dangerous in their aims, such as a few put forward by Conservative MSP Bill Aitken, who unsuccessfully demanded that fines which the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission could impose on crooked lawyers be reduced from £ 20,000 to £ 5,000.

Clearly Bill Aitken MSP, who is now the Convener of the sole Justice Committee at Holyrood, is no friend of the general public or victim of crooked lawyers when it comes to reforming the legal profession - and will no doubt resolutely stand to defend his friends in the legal profession from any further reforms which benefit the public far more than lawyers. This this very fact was demonstrated only a couple of weeks ago when Bill Aitken publicly demanded again, that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill should not follow the OFT's recent recommendations to reform the legal services market in Scotland

Getting back to Douglas Mill's commentary on the legal services debate, there is sadly nothing new in his attitude towards the interests of the client, and certainly he is making no attempt to clean up the Law Society's 'sins of the past' which have seen client after client ruined to protect many lawyers with appalling service & conduct records, who go on to fleece & ruin more clients, unaware of their past. Douglas Mill is happy with that - it's been one of his many anti client policies pursued at the Drumsheugh Gardens HQ of the Law Society over the years, and has brought much profit to a dishonest, unaccountable legal profession, while throwing the interests of the client firmly into the waste bin.

However, the idea of controlled 'debate' publicly put forward by Mr Mill all comes down to this, as he fails to hide even in his own words from the article : "most would agree that it is perfectly acceptable - even welcome - for others to compete with solicitors for business, but not to compete as solicitors."

Open up legal services, but control who becomes a solicitor. What use is one without the other ?

Half measure reforms where the Law Society of Scotland remain in ultimate control are of no benefit to the public, and only seek to preserve the present monopoly maintained by the legal profession.

Mr Mill is trying to steer the debate on open market reforms away from breaking the solicitors monopoly on legal services such as courtroom representation and other long prized money making monopolies exclusive to the legal profession, which have earned many legal firms vast profits over the years - including of course, controlling how claims of compensation against rogue lawyers are handled via the use a solicitor to sue a solicitor route...

This is a form of 'controlled debate'. nothing particularly new to Douglas Mill and the Law Society, who have long blocked any public scrutiny over their function as the governing body of Scottish solicitors, and so-called 'protector of the clients interests' - the latter of which the Law Society of Scotland have performed well.

Last January, when the Law Society's Chief Accountant Leslie Cumming was attacked in a 'hit', organised it seems by Mr Cumming's own solicitor colleagues to thwart investigations into crooked lawyers, Douglas Mill and the Law Society 'High Command' took the opportunity to publicly call for the censorship & arrest of their critics - on the pretext that debate into the Law Society had caused the attack on the now retired Mr Cumming. This was a bizarre, fortunately unsuccessful move by the Law Society, typical of the desperation felt at their headquarters on their lack of control over public criticism.

Controlling debate by arresting those who put forward debate, is more akin to Nazi Germany than Scotland, Mr Mill .... but then debate is a one way street in your world, isn't it ?

Only this past weekend, we saw how the Law Society of Scotland deals with public 'debate' and how it has long operated a policy of censorship over the debate into reforms in an article I covered here : Wikipedia manipulated & censored by Law Society of Scotland in propaganda war against critics & reformers

We recently saw again, how Douglas Mill and his colleagues reacted against the Which? "supercomplaint to the OFT on opening up legal services reform. That reaction, was certainly against the idea of giving any advantages to the public when dealing with solicitors

It is up to us, the public, not to allow the legal profession to control & restrict the debate into how well earned reforms, brought about by the efforts of a wide front of consumer organisations, campaigners, the media, and our own Parliament, are implemented for the betterment of Scottish society.

The legal profession could also do itself some good, by healing the damage it has caused to its clients in the past, as well as voting in a new leadership which will take it away from unprecedented levels of complaints, higher than ever levels of fraud, lack of trust & public disrespect which have been the hallmark of the Douglas Mill years.

Here is Douglas Mill talking through somewhat gritted teeth on the possibility of reforming the legal services market .... a slight stammer seems to indicate a little reluctance to step up to the altar of accountability & free market reforms ?

Herald article follows :

Legal services market reform needs broadest possible input

DOUGLAS MILL

Readers of The Herald could be forgiven for thinking that reform of the legal services market had only appeared on the agenda in the past month or so. Certainly, the flurry of letters to the editor and stories on the news and business pages - in The Herald and elsewhere - might suggest this is the case. Not so for the Society, or a number of others who have been at the heart of the debate for a number of years.

A brief recap may be useful at this point.

The provision of legal services has been a subject of discussion for some time, though it rose to prominence - in the UK, at least - with Sir David Clementi's independent review of legal services in England and Wales, which published its findings in 2004. The same year, the Research Working Group on the Legal Services Market in Scotland - on which I represented the Society, along with the director of law reform, Michael Clancy - carried out a similar analysis. After detailed deliberation, the working group reported last year.

Among its findings, it concluded that intervention was unnecessary and the forces of supply and demand should dictate further changes to the legal services market. The Society raised with the previous Scottish Executive the issue of driving forward the research working group. However, the elections intervened. It is encouraging that the new Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill MSP, has responded to the issue with some enthusiasm, while also highlighting the need to deliver a Scottish solution appropriate for the Scottish marketplace.

Meanwhile, the Department for Constitutional Affairs at Westminster decided to go further than Clementi, outlining its plans for alternative business structures, or ABSs, in the Legal Services Bill. Recognising that any change south of the border would impact on Scotland, the Society remained heavily involved in all aspects of the debate: setting up an ABS working party; having monthly discussions among our Council members; staging question-and-answer sessions at faculty meetings up and down the country; ensuring regular liaison with the Faculty of Advocates and our Big Four firms. Indeed, Douglas Connell, from Turcan Connell, made a constructive contribution by putting forward a positive set of proposals for a form of limited multi-disciplinary practices.

In June, we staged a successful event in London for our members there, with ABSs taking centre-stage. At the same time, we have been gearing up for a major conference, The Public Interest - Delivering Scottish Legal Services, to be held in Edinburgh on September 28. Indeed, the subject of ABSs arises at events beyond our shores, and will likely feature at the Chief Executives of the European Bar Associations conference, to be hosted by the Society next month.

It is also likely to be on the agenda at the International Institute of Law Association Chief Executives conference in Singapore in October. The International Bar Association in Singapore, the following week, will be another platform where ABSs will be discussed.

All this amounts to a considerable effort on the part of the Society. Rightly so, because the issue is of sufficient importance to demand such attention. We should never forget that this does not just impact on the legal profession - we are determining the future of a sector that contributes £1.2bn turnover a year to the Scottish economy, employing 30,000 people. A productive debate on the future of legal services in 21st century Scotland, based on evidence rather than perception, requires the broadest possible input if it is to be of value, which is why we welcome interested newcomers and seasoned veterans alike to the discussion.

The speakers at our Edinburgh conference - which will include the Justice Secretary - can outline some potential business models and give their views on the best way forward. For the Society's part, we are keenly aware of the competing interests involved, which include ensuring access to justice, competition in the legal services market and consumer protection. We are eager to take all those views into account in reaching, as far as is possible, a consensus on the issue.

We understand the justifiable concerns of those who say that high street and rural firms would find it hard to compete with, for instance, a supermarket chain providing legal services, and may be forced out of business.

Yet we also realise that the big firms are competing in a global marketplace. The success of the big firms is something to take pride in - they should not be hampered. Equally, we don't want to affect the availability of lawyers in certain parts of the country or the viability of our consumer protections. It is worrying that it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract young lawyers to small and even medium-sized towns. Despite that, most would agree that it is perfectly acceptable - even welcome - for others to compete with solicitors for business, but not to compete as solicitors.

The solicitors' profession has more capacity for change now than at any time in the recent past. Solicitors are more consumer-focused, better qualified and harder working than ever before. They are increasingly accessible, accountable and successful - we should all be proud of that. I know I am.

But the Society is only one player here. This is a matter for everyone in the solicitors' profession and, indeed, the whole of civic Scotland. Ultimately, the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament will make their own judgments on the way ahead and the Society will play its full part in assisting the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament to make the right decisions for Scotland and Scotland's legal system.

But whatever happens, the profession's core values of integrity, independence and confidentiality must be maintained.

# Douglas Mill is chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland