Battle to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland continues as Holyrood investigates ‘access to justice’ proposals

Petitions Committee told McKenzie Friends proposals must be supported. Earlier this week the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee was told that ending a 39 year peculiarly Scottish ban on assisted public access to justice in the Scottish Courts by allowing the facility of McKenzie Friends, would greatly enhance the legal rights & success of many members of the public who find themselves facing legal action or require the use of the Justice system but for whatever circumstances are applicable to their predicament, cannot afford or obtain legal representation to further their access to the courts.

Petition PE1247 - Bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland, with support from Margo MacDonald MSP.

Margo MacDonald stepped in to support McKenzie Friends Petition. Petition PE1247 : McKenzie Friends for Scotland, was admirably supported by Scotland's independent MSP, Margo MacDonald, who told the Committee that in civil courts, such as small debts & other cases, people can find it impossible to obtain legal representation, finding they end up in court having to represent themselves.

Speaking on the merits of McKenzie friends, Margo MacDonald went on to tell the Committee that in England & Wales, the system of McKenzie Friends had operated successfully for 39 years where individuals who cannot access legal services through a variety of reasons, can obtain the services of a McKenzie Friend, who can assist them during their court appearances where difficulties with legal procedure and other matters can lead an individual to be put at a considerable disadvantage when unrepresented by legal counsel.

Robin Harper MSP supports McKenzie Friends as common sense idea. Robin Harper MSP, of the Scottish Green Party, was first to support the McKenzie Friends petition, calling the proposal "such an obviously good idea & common sense idea that we must continue it and we should ask the Scottish Government directly whether it will introduce a McKenzie Friend facility in Scottish Courts and if not, why not, and will this matter be part of the 8th program of law reform to be held by the Scottish Law Commission".

Nigel Don MSP is Kenny MacAskill's Parliamentary Liason Officer. Nigel Don MSP entered the debate by informing the Petitions Committee that the introduction of the McKenzie Friend facility south of the border, “was not brought in by the British Government, rather it was simply allowed after it went to the Court of Appeal", this in reference to the original 'McKenzie Friend' case which started the whole concept, where an Australian, Ian Hanger QC, at the time, a Barrister, became involved in a case in the London courts, but whose qualifications in law in Australia did not allow him to practise as a barrister in London.

Ian Hanger was sent the brief by the firm of solicitors, Geoffrey Gordon & Co for McKenzie one day prior to the hearing. McKenzie was unable to afford legal assistance, didn't qualify for legal aid, and had not maintained consistent contact with Gordon. Hanger sat with his client to provide what quiet assistance he could from the bar table to a man representing himself. The trial judge asked Mr Hanger to desist from doing what he was doing and this became the basis of the appeal by Gordon against the judgment against McKenzie.

Mr Don went on in the debate to say he felt it was open to the court simply to allow McKenzie Friends in Scotland, and that a 'nod from the Lord President' following Lord Gill's soon to be released review of the Civil Courts system might be the way to go rather than the Parliament going through the legislation process to allow MFs to Scotland.

However, Margo MacDonald responded to Nigel Don's remarks by making clear that something more substantial needs to be done on the issue in Scotland simply because of the 17 year time lags in Scotland in implementing the likes of Sections 25-29, and with the incredible 39 year gap between Scotland & the rest of the UK on the issue of McKenzie Friends it is time for action.

Lord Hamilton could give nod & wink to initiate McKenzie Friends but most feel political legislation is required. Certainly from my own experience in matters of law reform, I feel there must be a legislative process began on the issue of the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, given there has been such resistance to any access to justice reforms by the Scottish legal establishment, some examples of which are the 17 year restriction on small claims limits in the Scottish Courts, to some £750, where the rest of the UK had limits of £5,000 and of course, the 17 year lack of implementation of Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, where Scotland's 'access to justice' legislation was kept off the books by an arrogant campaign from the legal establishment, bent on maintaining market monopoly over the public's access to legal services in Scotland.

Given the decades of delay in legal reforms in Scotland, can we trust the issue of McKenzie Friends to a nod & a wink from the Lord President, no matter how well intentioned it may be ? I feel not.

McKenzie Friends must be looked into by the Parliament, with at least an inquiry taking place, and ultimately questions being asked and answered as to why McKenzie Friends have been excluded from the Scottish Courts system for 39 years.

In an update to the McKenzie Friend proposal, Margo MacDonald asked a question of the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill during yesterday's question time : Margo MacDonald: To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce the practice of allowing a McKenzie’s friend into law courts. (S3O-6781)

Margo MacDonald's question to Kenny MacAskill on McKenzie Friends for Scotland brought a dithering response from the Justice Secretary, who seemed to be playing for time ahead of Lord Gill's Civil Justice review.

There is little doubt after watching the following extract of proceedings, that Mr MacAskill is not minded to reform access to justice by any measure of the term.

In response to Margo MacDonald, Justice Secretary MacAskill struggles with delay in mind ahead of Lord Gill’s Civil Justice review.

Dithering Kenny MacAskill needs more than a push to bring in McKenzie Friends.After having watched Mr MacAskill's response to Margo MacDonald's question, I am convinced more than ever that Parliament must look into the issue of McKenzie Friends, hold an investigation and enact legislation which will ensure that McKenzie Friends be allowed in Scotland's courts, because without a doubt, if it is left to the legal establishment, McKenzie Friends will never come to Scotland, just as access to justice reforms will never come to Scotland unless someone outside the legal fraternity talks about it, raises the issue publicly and gets Parliament to do something - just as we all found with the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.

Ian Hanger QC, speaking on the issue to the Scotsman newspapers said regarding the Scottish Parliament’s hearing of the McKenzie Friend Petition that he “would love to address them on the virtues of the McKenzie Friend.”

On asking Ian Hanger QC as to the merits of McKenzie friends, he said : “In our Federal Court the Act dealing with the judiciary under the Constitution is the Judiciary Act. S 55 prohibits representation other than by barristers and solicitors.The Federal Court therefore regard the McKenzie Friend as a useful adjunct to the court process.

Mr Hanger went on : “Once again, I spoke today to the most senior Federal Court judge in our State and he said that overall McKenzie Friends have been very useful. He said that there are cases where the litigant cannot afford a barrister or solicitor and the judge does not think that it is appropriate to ask the profession to act in the particular case on a pro bono basis (as it can do). Of course there will be McKenzie Friends who step out of line, but the judge has the power to do what the judge did to me - prevent the person sitting at the bar table with the litigant.”

On that note, I would think the support and testimony of the original McKenzie Friend, Ian Hanger QC, must be extremely beneficial to the McKenzie Friend petition itself and the rights of all Scots to further their entitlements of access to justice & legal services. I have therefore asked the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee to ask Mr Hanger to speak on the merits of McKenzie Friends, as a matter of importance to the debate.

Law Society's 60th year conference reinforces belief that lawyers hold over public interest legal reforms must be broken

Law Society in its 60th year of ruining client-solicitor relations. SIXTY YEARS on from its formation, the Law Society of Scotland is about to hold its annual get together, however this year is special, at least for the Law Society itself, as it marks 60 years of running the show as far as public access to justice in Scotland is concerned.

While the Society claims 'an impressive line up' of speakers has been arranged to attend its conference, to be held on Friday May 8 and the morning of Saturday May 9, at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, the Society's dual role of 'representing the client as well as the legal profession' once again comes in for a glaring neglect of the client's interests, as a talking shop of personalities gather to congratulate themselves for putting the interests of the legal profession above the public interest, time & again.

There will probably be not much mention if at all, of the catalogue of corruption scandals hitting the Law Society and Scots solicitors, nor will there be mention of senior officials from the legal profession campaigning against public pleas for legal reforms, nor perhaps will there be any mention made of the recent Law Society 'take over' of the now less than 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Ex-Law Society Boss Douglas Mill claimed lawyers ‘were unloved’ – anyone care to wonder why ? Yes, to be fair, this is a gathering of lawyers, and those who love lawyers. After all, who on earth would attend a Law Society conference if they didn't hold at least some regard for the legal profession ... but on the other hand, since Scots Law has become so infamously corrupt, and easily twisted to political or corporate will, in scandals ranging from the Lockerbie Trial and its heavily biased, fiddled politically-suitable-to-some outcome, to court threats from the Law Society of Scotland itself against legislative legal reforms, to the now unusual, if constant scandals reported in the media of crooked solicitors ruining & pillaging their clients finances clients on a grand scale.

Kenny MacAskill will appear at Conference to praise the Law Society no matter how bad it gets. Some of those announced for the Conference include Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill MSP who will take to the stage with Richard Susskind on Saturday morning, along with the Society’s CEO Lorna Jack, Simon Di Rollo, stable Director of Ampersand, and Graeme Garrett, partner and Compensate Director at Digby Brown, for a panel debate on the future delivery of legal services.

You can be assured that debate will swing the way the Law Society wants it to swing, however some of the sessions during the two-day event give a little glimmer of hope, which include a review of the civil court system by Lord Gill *lets hope he asks why the Law Society campaigned to keep out McKenzie Friends from the Scottish Courts for 39 years, as well as asking why Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 were withheld for 17 years. There will also be a report on the international criminal court by Lord Bonomy.

Ex Bank Chief Sir Fred Goodwin not expected to attend, but RBS still sponsors Law Society. The Law Society's conference, is conveniently sponsored by its own bankers, the Royal Bank of Scotland, however, former RBS Boss Sir Fred Goodwin, who helped collapse the RBS and drive it into state ownership, is not thought to be attending. Sir Fred of course, is a great pal of Douglas Mill, the infamous ex Law Society Chief Executive who was toppled by a confrontation with Cabinet Minister for Finance John Swinney MSP over memos which revealed the Law Society routinely protected crooked lawyers from damages claims.

James Oliver, Relationship Director with RBS, main sponsors of the conference, said: "We're delighted to be sponsoring the Society's 60th anniversary conference. The conference is an important date in the diaries of legal professionals around Scotland and I'm very much looking forward to this year's event."

Oddly enough it was the policies of Douglas Mill during his time as Chief Executive which helped bring about the collapse of public trust in the Scots legal profession, where some of its more senior members seem happier to involve themselves in the covering up of rent boy scandals rather than attending to their duties.

To round off the Nuremberg rally conference more than 100 guests including some solicitors from overseas have been invited to a Homecoming reception at Edinburgh Castle which the Society is co-hosting with the Scottish Government *remember that's the SNP controlled Scottish Government, while an international rugby tournament will take place during the week culminating with a prize – giving ceremony on Friday at the EICC.

Don't expect any issues relating to injustice or the public wellbeing to crop up at this conference ... its all about furthering the aims of the legal profession, most certainly over the public good .. however, if you do feel like getting your point across .. the venue is well known to many.

In a final blast from Richard Henderson, the outgoing President of the Law Society of Scotland, soon to be replaced by Ian Smart, we learn its going to be business as usual, despite the ever growing need for reform of Scots Law .. perhaps I rephrase that and say .. at least as far as clients are concerned, its going to be daylight robbery as usual ..

Richard Henderson writes in the Scotsman, showing us there's no hope for change in a profession which has become too used to getting its own way :

Richard Henderson: Imagination and initiative is key to profession's future

Published Date: 04 May 2009

I JOINED the profession in 1969 – if you count the apprenticeship as part of my professional life, which I think is the right approach.

There were about 4,000 members of the profession then; there are now about 10,000, which is a measure in itself of how different the legal services market is now.

There was a Dr Finlay's Casebook approach to business then. Even Sutherland's Law was set in a simpler world, and certainly law was less complex. European law was an interesting prospect on the horizon, and human rights – well that was something for others and couldn't possibly apply to us could it?

Judicial review was 15 years away, and feudal reform, while probably desirable, was the stuff of pipe dreams. And as for devolution, it was barely in sight.

There was no mention of deregulation, "Big Bang", or most crucially, of the seismic changes that the "information superhighway" would bring.

The solicitors' profession has faced profound changes over the 30 years I have been part of it. Society has developed in an increasingly global market, with information from around the world at our fingertips, influencing our options and choices. Solicitors, working in house and in private practice, have responded well to change and provide a comprehensive range of services both domestically and internationally, for private clients and large corporations.

Despite the challenges, solicitors are providing access to justice for clients, often in very difficult circumstances in which resources are scarce and demand outstrips supply.

But change is a constant, and the pace of that change continues to gather. At the centre of that change lies the market, and today's market is a very different place not only in terms of scale but also in terms of scope and access. Greater specialisation has developed across the whole market spectrum to address changing demands.

The internet has revolutionised the market, and as a result, clients are developing, or will develop, a more demanding approach. Online services will be expected, even if for a long time face-to-face service is also required. Clients have the capacity to be better informed and will come for services knowing more of what they should receive.

That in turn will transform the services solicitors provide. Systematising the operation, commoditising the product, packaging legal services; all of these will mean that, inevitably, legal services will begin to look different.

Bespoke service will remain, but is unlikely to be the norm. The recession is proving to be a catalyst for that change. We will emerge from recession with more regulation; but we must avoid over-regulation that will stifle recovery.

Getting the balance right is a major challenge. Within the next ten years the changes will become obvious, as new markets open up along with new methods of working.

A highly respected and successful international solicitor recently told me that good use of technology means he can write opinions, keep in touch with clients in the office and research information wherever he is in the world.

Anyone can access the entire UK statute book, connecting to the freely available statute law database; yes, freely available, and free to all.

Against such a background of developing change in demand and delivery, the profession must be agile and respond quickly and appropriately. That means looking at how we are organised, whether our structures restrict or empower, and ensuring that our systems and processes respond as the market requires.

New business structures are already being developed. Internet-based clearing houses, directing clients to online providers, are opening up. It is a short step from there to clearing houses for multi disciplinary services.

The profession's success in the market will, as justice minister Kenny MacAskill says, depend on the imagination and initiative of the profession itself. But I know that the profession has both of those in abundance as it looks forward to the next 30 and 60 years.

• Richard Henderson is president of the Law Society of Scotland.

Legal Aid Board 'brought into disrepute' by Legal Services Chief's criminal charges over rent boy scandal

SLAB brought into disrepute by criminal conduct of its staff. The good work of the Scottish Legal Aid Board in providing access to justice for thousands of poor Scots and their families, has been stunningly brought into disrepute by the disgraceful public conduct of its Legal Services Chief, Douglas Haggarty, who was arrested for a liaison with a 'rent boy' in the famous St Enoch's Glasgow shopping centre.

Sunday Mail exposed legal aid chief’s criminal charges of soliciting a boy prostitute. Douglas Haggarty, who is Chief of Legal Services at the Scottish Legal Aid Board, has sat on various Scottish Government consultation groups which included the most senior members of the legal profession, the Law Society of Scotland, and even senior Police officers. Haggarty participated in the review of the Practices and Procedure of the High Court of Justiciary, chaired by Lord Bonomy, titled "Improving Practice”, and has duties at the legal aid board which include lecturing lawyers on their public conduct.

SLAB Board member Paul McBride asked Crown Office to drop charges against Haggarty. It also emerged from the Sunday Mail's expose that Paul McBride QC, a senior board member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board was representing Haggarty on the criminal charges of soliciting a teenage boy in public, McBride proceeding to ask the Crown Office to drop the charges against his client, on the grounds 'there was not enough evidence to convict', and now the Procurator Fiscal in the case has decided against court proceedings and will handle the case by way of a fiscal fine or other means, in order no doubt to avoid too much bad publicity for Haggarty and McBride, both well known members of Scotland's legal profession.

SLAB board member Paul McBride QC, last year earned over £217,000 in legal aid fees while representing clients in the Scottish courts, and only last week, made a blaze of publicity for himself where he criticised the Labour party for the Damien McBride email smears against the Conservative Party, after which he transferred his allegiance to the Conservatives after his 'lifelong support of the Labour Party.

However, it transpired the day after McBride's announcement of a shift to the Conservatives over his own views on ethics, he wasn't even a subscribing member to Labour , and some now believe he may have been earmarked for a senior legal position in any future Tory administration in Scotland. So, not ok to smear politicians, but rent boys in toilets ? well that's another matter …

However, criticism of McBride's involvement in representing Douglas Haggarty in the rent boy scandal came from colleagues in the legal world today, as a legal insider speaking on the news, pointed to a possible conflict of interest in a matter which many now feel brings the Legal Aid Board into disrepute.

He said : "The Legal Aid Board lecture solicitors on their legal aid claims but it looks like there are plenty loose canons at the Board itself.The Legal Aid Board do not seem to want to comment, but clearly Douglas Haggarty's conduct has brought SLAB's work into disrepute and he should now be sacked."

He went on : "I think eyebrows will be raised that Douglas Haggarty was able to secure legal representation from Paul McBride QC, who is also a senior member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. In the eyes of many that may well constitute a conflict of interest and Mr McBride should have refrained from involvement in the case."

A client who is currently fighting a legal action with legal aid said "I have had contact with Douglas Haggarty in the early stages of my claim when I asked for documents relating to my solicitor's submissions to the Board.I did not receive very good replies and had to ask several times for the information I was after."

She went on : "I am totally disgusted to learn that people who conduct themselves in public in this manner are at the heart of our legal system and I find it a disgrace the matter is not to proceed to court. If it had been anyone else other than a lawyer who did it, I'm sure they would have been sent through the courts system but again we see one law for the lawyers and another for the rest of us."

For my part, well I am not surprised by Mr Haggarty's antics. There are many 'personalities' in the legal world and some at the very heart of the Scots legal establishment & even the Law Society of Scotland who seem to prefer the haunts of toilets and rent boys despite the fact that some of them have wives & families who know nothing of their sick partner's secret and perhaps deadly conduct, which has in at least one case known to me, impacted fatally on the health of their family.

QC was accused in 2006 of flashing to child, but charges were dropped. In a similar case a couple of years ago, a senior Advocate, Mark Strachan QC, was charged with similar offences, involving a 13 year old boy, but the case was dropped .. as seems to be common when it comes to catching members of Scotland's legal profession engaged in criminal activity. I reported on the Mark Strachan case here, where you can also read the Daily Record’s expose : Disclosing the regulatory history of lawyers in Scotland to help give choice to the consumer. You can also read the BBC version of Mr Strachan’s criminal charge of flashing at a 13 year old boy here : Advocate charged with indecency

Clients surely have a right to know their solicitors criminal records, just as much as their solicitors regulatory records. Many clients of solicitors I’ve spoken to today certainly agree with that, while all expressed a view that if they learned their solicitor had been charged with a criminal offence, they would not use them for legal representation of any kind.

In a statement issued late today, a spokesman for the Legal Aid Board said in response to queries on Mr Haggarty’s choice of SLAB board member Paul McBride QC as his lawyer : “It is a matter for Mr Haggarty who he should engage to represent him. Any involvement by Paul McBride QC in representing Mr Haggarty is unconnected with his role as a Board member. Board members are non-executive, appointed by Ministers and are not employees of the Board.”

A legal source retorted by saying : “It seems the heavy guns were brought out in Mr Haggarty’s favour but I can’t always get a QC of Mr McBride’s stature to represent my clients when they are in need. Strange.”

The legal profession which Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill famously said on camera he would defend his legal colleagues to the last, against their detractors most certainly needs a clean up, not only of its criminal element, but also of its morals and ethics.

The Sunday Mail reports :

Exclusive: Legal aid chief arrested with rent boy in shopping centre toilet

May 3 2009 Derek Alexander

A LEGAL Aid boss has been arrested in a public toilet with a rent boy.

Douglas Haggarty, 57, was arrested in a shopping mall after being found with the teenage prostitute.

He is the head of legal services at the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) - where his duties include lecturing lawyers on their public conduct.

Haggarty was arrested in British Home Stores in the St Enoch Centre, Glasgow.

Security guards alerted police after the known rent boy was seen following Haggarty into the shop's toilets. Both men were arrested and Haggarty was charged with soliciting in a public place.

The procurator fiscal started summary proceedings against Haggarty. But his lawyer Paul McBride QC - who sits as a member on the Scottish Legal Aid Board - asked the Crown Office to drop the charges, claiming there was not enough evidence to convict.

The procurator fiscal has decided to scrap court proceedings and deal with the case by a direct measure. These are powers available to prosecutors to deal with cases quickly. They include issuing a fine, compensation order and written warning about future conduct. The powers available to procurators fiscal were extended last year.

The rent boy also had court proceedings against him dropped and was issued with a direct measure.

Haggarty, who lives in the Merchant City area of Glasgow, started work as a solicitor in 1975. He helped Lord Bonomy compile his 2002 report on improving the practices and procedure of the High Court.

Haggarty submitted a paper to a Scottish Parliament finance committee on criminal procedure in 2003 and has been a member of other High Court review teams.

The legal aid chief, who declined to comment, has been off work sick since the incident in January. A slab spokesman said: "The Board is aware of the case and that it has not been prosecuted. It's not appropriate for us to comment further."

Haggarty isn't the first SLAB boss to be arrested and dogged by controversy.

Dr Richard Scott, former head of SLAB, was twice arrested over incidents with his wife. Arrest In January 1997 he was charged with three assaults but only convicted of breach of the peace and disorderly behaviour.

Six months later Scott was arrested again when police were called to his home but the Crown Office decided not to bring criminal charges. Scott stood down as head of SLAB in 1999.

McKenzie Friend proposal gains friends as consumer organisations rally to support petition’s hearing at Scottish Parliament

Which? supports McKenzie Friends in Scotland. In a show of support for the Scots public and advocates of wider access to justice in Scotland, consumer organisations such as Which? and Consumer Focus Scotland, and law reform groups are rallying to support the 'McKenzie Friend' petition I reported on late last week, which is due to be heard at the Scottish Parliament on 5th May 2009.

Diary of Injustice reported earlier on McKenzie Friend petition. As I reported late last week, Mr Stewart MacKenzie, of Perth lodged a petition at the Scottish Parliament “seeking to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a McKenzie Friend facility in Scottish courts as a matter of urgency.” The move is long overdue in Scotland, after it emerged through investigations that McKenzie Friends have been allowed in the English courts for some thirty nine years, while sadly, Scots have been excluded from the ability to utilise the services of a qualified individual at their side during court appearances which might not be possible due to the lack of unrestricted access to legal representation in the Scottish courts system, currently controlled by the Law Society of Scotland.

Which? lodged glowing support for McKenzie Friends at Holyrood Petitions Committee. The letter from Which? is clear in its terms of support for the introduction "as a matter of urgency" of McKenzie Friend facility in Scotland. Julia Clarke, on behalf of Which? writes : "We are concerned that the inability of legal litigants in Scotland to be able to draw upon the support of a 'McKenzie Friend' in court is likely to prove a distinct disadvantage to those unable to find legal representation. The system, as you may know, has successfully operated in England and Wales for many years, allowing those who cannot access legal representation to draw upon the expertise of agencies and individuals who can provide such support. Indeed, McKenzie Friends are routinely permitted and are only denied where the judge believes it is fair or in the interests of justice to do so."

Which? believes a McKenzie Friend would be ‘highly beneficial’ and result in fairer hearings through lack of legal representation in Scotland. Which?, who have campaigned on legal issues for Scots consumers for a number of years, went on in their letter of support to say : "Which? believes that where litigants cannot afford to, or are indeed unable to find, legal representation, the right to use a McKenzie Friend would be highly beneficial and could only result in a fairer hearing and outcome for members of the public in this situation. At the moment we are concerned that individuals are unfairly disadvantaged where they represent themselves in court, but are unable to take a McKenzie Friend with them to help support them during what can be a very difficult experience."

On the subject of the well known difficulties in obtaining legal representation in Scotland, particularly where solicitors exhibit a ‘lack of willingness’ to represent clients interests, Which? added : "Ideally of course, we are keen to ensure people have good legal representation, but in our experience, it is not always possible for litigants to find a lawyer willing to represent them, even where they have a strong case, and many people simply cannot afford legal representation. In such circumstances it is quite inequitable that they should be denied some support and we can see no reason why the Government should not permit this."

"Although some recent improvements have permitted construction litigants this facility, all other legal litigants are currently denied this support, which would improve access to justice and consumer redress in Scotland. Which? is the UK's largest independent consumer organisation, a charity funded by sales of our magazines and other services, and represents the consumer voice on many issues including legal services. We support Mr Mackenzie's petition and ask that you support it too."

Which? have played a significant role in recent legal reforms in Scotland which helped bring about the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which in turn created the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, designed to bring an element of 'independent' regulation to complaints against solicitors, which have traditionally been handled poorly and rather corruptly by the Law Society of Scotland during its decades long reign as self regulation of Scotland's legal profession.

Consumer Focus Scotland also support McKenzie Friend facility in Scotland. Consumer Focus Scotland, formerly known as the Scottish Consumer Council, also support the introduction of McKenzie Friends to the Scottish courts system, and referred to the issue in their response to the Scottish civil courts review. Sarah O'Neill, a Principal Policy Advocate with Consumer Focus Scotland reiterated the organisation's stance : "‘We would welcome recognition by the Scottish courts of the need for discretion to allow some form of ‘McKenzie friend’ to accompany and possibly represent a party litigant in appropriate cases’."

Justice Secretary 'will wait & see' over petition. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was asked for reaction on the McKenzie Friend petition, being reminded that the McKenzie Friend facility has been available in the rest of the UK for some 39 years previous. A spokesman for Mr MacAskill responded by saying : "We have no comment at the moment. As you will be aware, the petition will be considered by the Public Petitions Committee who will decide whether there should be further action. If the Committee ask Mr MacAskill for his opinion he will give it at that stage."

John Swinney has been asked to attend & speak at McKenzie Friend hearing at Holyrood. As I reported in my earlier article of late last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney MSP, who happens to be the constituency MSP for Mr MacKenzie, has been asked to attend the Petitions Committee hearing of 5th May to speak on the merits of McKenzie Friends, and on his experiences of representing constituents who have endured long suffering predicaments at the hands of the Law Society of Scotland and legal firms, which have been exacerbated by a well known policy operated by the legal profession of denying anyone access to justice in the Scottish courts where the subject matter of the case may conflict with the interests of the legal profession at large.

Mr Swinney's office was contacted for a media comment but has yet to issue a formal statement on the Cabinet Secretary's intentions, however, given consumer organisations have already come forward and glowingly supported the McKenzie Friend petition, Mr Swinney is widely expected to speak or issue some kind of support on his constituent's behalf.

The McKenzie Friend issue is of significant interest to many throughout Scotland who find it difficult or impossible to engage the services of a solicitor or gain access to the courts, either through the cost of such services, or more often obstruction from the legal profession who find it difficult to represent clients in cases which conflict with the general policies laid down by the Law Society of Scotland, particularly when it comes to members of the public attempting to sue another solicitor, as I have widely reported on previous occasions.

I am of course, also supporting the McKenzie Friend petition, and urge readers, and anyone experiencing difficulties in obtaining access to justice or access to legal representation to support the McKenzie friend Petition 1247 by contacting the Petitions Committee via their email at : petitions@scottish.parliament.uk .