Thursday, August 27, 2009

Censorship & ‘frequent flyers’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal attempt to write off consumers evidence in Master Policy report

SLCCVictims of crooked lawyers branded "frequent flyers" & “biased” by anti client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. A bungled attempt at censorship of documents released under Freedom of Information laws by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, reveals that board member David Smith, who is also the husband of Scotland's Supreme Court Judge Lady Smith, has hit out at ruined clients of crooked lawyers who gave their experiences through invitation to the SLCC’s recent Master Policy investigation, branding victims "frequent flyers" and claiming the ‘ground breaking’ investigation carried out by the University of Manchester research team into the infamous Master Policy insurance scheme for Scotland’s 10,000 solicitors, had ‘paid only lip service’ to duties the commission is supposed to carry out involving the monitoring of claims for financial damages made by members of the public against the growing ranks of crooked lawyers in Scotland.

David Smith SLCC - Frequent FlyersDavid Smith, SLCC solicitor board member criticised ruined victims of crooked lawyers. Mr Smith, himself a retired solicitor who served with Edinburgh legal firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, said in incompetently censored emails to the SLCC's Chief Executive : "I have read through the Report and it is quite clear that it is of only limited value because of time (and funding ?) constraints and the fact that the claimants interviewed were all frequent flyers." Mr Smith went onto repeat the insults further, stating : "I suspect that when we go public we will be seen by the claimant lobby and consumer organisations to have achieved nothing and that we have paid only lip service to our monitoring role. Conversely I think LSS and the profession will think we have achieved nothing as the research has only focussed on the frequent flyers who have longstanding grievances against LSS/the profession."

Eileen Masterman SLCC - clients are biasedSLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman branded participants in SLCC investigation as ‘biased’ but said nothing about how biased lawyers views were. Eileen Masterman, the SLCC’s Chief Executive joined in the criticisms against members of the public who had given up significant time and made huge effort to participate in the SLCC’s investigation of the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, branding them ‘biased’, saying : “It has not been possible to interview a representative sample of claimants with regard to the Master Policy and it is very likely that the sample used is biased. Many of the claims the researchers were informed of are long standing. Without current data it is difficult to say whether the problems alleged are persistent and that pursuing a claim is currently as difficult as has been alleged by those claimants spoken to.”

Scottish Legal Complaints CommissionSLCC board members think little of participants in Master Policy investigation. A member of the public who participated in the SLCC's sponsored survey hit back at Mr Smith's comments saying : "Oh well if that's what these people think of us then why are they still on the legal complaints commission and being paid for it ? Why did the SLCC ask for people to contact them in the first place if all that was going to happen was a steady stream of insults and the usual no action at the end of it ? I think the SLCC should be apologising to all of us at least and let us have a fair hearing instead of all this name calling."

He continued : "Wouldn't we be better with someone on this commission who respects what ordinary people have had to go through to try and get justice against a crooked lawyer because I’m sure Mr Smith and his friends will know very well that trying to claim against a crooked lawyer is impossible in Scotland and life is made very difficult for anyone who tries.”

Margaret Scanlan - Called to the Bars - Sunday Mail  15 March 2009 emailInsulting comments against victims of crooked lawyers & consumer groups were expressed earlier in the year by solicitor & SLCC board member Margaret Scanlan. A senior official at one of Scotland's consumer organisations today expressed disgust at the revelations. He said : "I fail to see how these continuing poor attitudes expressed towards consumers by board members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will help address the historical problems of poor and biased self regulation of Scotland's legal profession." He continued : "It is going to be almost impossible for the SLCC to work with the public if people realise the underlying attitudes at the commission are biased against consumers and the fact is we have already seen other commission members and senior staff make similar unnecessary slurs against particular members of the public and certain campaign groups. These kinds of comments do not belong in an organisation which was created at great public expense to independently investigate complaints against members of the legal profession in Scotland."

Law SocietyLaw Society might be ‘requested’ by SLCC to hand over Master Policy documents but no power exists to compel them to do so. After twice branding victims of crooked lawyers who had participated in the SLCC Master Policy investigation as "frequent flyers", David Smith then went onto put forward a proposal that the SLCC should 'request' further documents concerning the Master Policy from the Law Society which had earlier been denied to the SLCC and their research team. I reported on the research team’s lack of access to documents in an earlier article here : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers

However, since the Law Society and its insurers Marsh UK who run the Master Policy, had refused to hand over required documents for the SLCC investigation, Mr Smith stated later in the same email (again blacked out by the SLCC) : "If we continue to get resistance from the LSS (Law Society of Scotland) we need to require them to supply reasons under Section s39(4) AND we should make the Scottish Ministers aware of our concerns and highlight the need for greater powers to make this monitoring role actually work."

Section 39(4) of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 laughably states that : “(4) Where a relevant professional organisation fails to provide information requested under subsection (3), it must give reasons to the Commission in respect of that failure.” which means the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, for the all the £2 million pounds plus of taxpayers money lavished on it by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, actually has no powers at all to require the Law Society hand over the real evidence of how claims against crooked lawyers are treated in Scotland, and thus indicates a complete failure of the law, allowing effective oversight of the legal profession in Scotland which the public had been promised in the 2007 LPLA Act.

A legal insider said today : "I am somewhat concerned that such sentiments are being expressed against the investigation because no one at the SLCC wants to hear the actual truth of just how corrupt the claims process is against a lawyer when the Master Policy is involved. Perhaps what we are seeing is an attempt by the SLCC to write off the work of the University of Manchester team because they actually did their job and produced a very good report which is difficult to refute from a factual standpoint.”

Jane IrvineJane Irvine, the SLCC’s Chair was asked for comment, and to review the censored FOI documents. Jane Irvine, the chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was asked to review the content of the heavily redacted FOI disclosures. However, she replied by way of an FOI review stating “The response provided to your FOI request was correct” and amazingly did not comment on the failure of the SLCC’s attempts at censoring information contained in the disclosures, which were justified with specific references to FOI exemption rules.

A leading FOI expert this afternoon said he thought the SLCC’s attempt at censoring references to participants in the survey as possibly being in violation of the law on FOI disclosures, and recommended the matter be sent to Scotland's Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion for investigation.

He said : “Notwithstanding the fact the SLCC bungled the redactions on the documents disclosed under FOI, there is cause for concern some of those redactions have occurred simply to protect board members from the fallout of their own ill judged comments. That is not what exemptions under Freedom of Information legislation were designed to conceal. I think anyone may reasonably conclude under the circumstances that an abuse of the rules on the application of exemptions under FOI has occurred here.”

Personally I must say I am thoroughly disgusted by the SLCC’s conduct with regard to the investigation into the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund which was carried out on its own instruction, and with the help of the Scottish Government.

The report produced by the University of Manchester research team identified a great deal of suffering that has been caused by the policies of the Law Society and the insurers towards those who have attempted to lodge claims against their ‘crooked lawyers’ …. even identifying suicides of clients which have occurred, and all quite happily kept under wraps for all these years by the Law Society of Scotland . You can read more about that in a previous article I wrote here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

If ordinary members of the public are to be encouraged to participate in work involving the SLCC, surely they are to be treated with equality of arms and courtesy, which the SLCC has certainly showed the legal profession on many occasions. However, with what has been revealed to me in badly censored FOI documents (and I understand there to be much more) I see nothing more than a trail of anti client bias, which first reared its head earlier this year through comments made by fellow board member Margaret Scanlan, who branded claimants to the Guarantee fund as "chancers" and then went on to demand that consumer groups be excluded from surveys and investigations carried out by the SLCC.

Clearly the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission must now be cleaned up itself, and given a good dose of oversight to restore public confidence, if it can indeed be restored ...

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

LOL

Hopefully Smith and the rest of them will get their marching orders and go frequent flying on their own damn money !

Anonymous said...

Pretty serious I'd say.Time for Mr Smith to go and Scanlan too.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, it is a matter of record that several thousand people have annually complained about the legal services they receive in Scotland - are they all 'frequent flyers'?

Secondly, when I was interviewed by the Manchester researchers it was standard procedure that I would remain anonymous - unless my permission to do otherwise was sought and granted. Does Mr. Smith have the names of all who took part?

Thirdly, it is now abundantly clear that the SLCC is nothing more than a Law Society clone and its earlier 'expression of concern' regarding the failure of the Law Society and the disgraced insurance provider Marsh to reveal details of the Master Policy to the Manchester University researchers without hinderance was wholly disingenuous.

Moreover David Smith now seeks to use this failure of disclosure by the Law Society and Marsh to serve them by represening the research as 'being of limited value only', while suggesting research is commissioned to show the financial strain the legal profession is under. Just another example of clear and present bias by the SLCC.

Self regulation did not work for bankers, it did not work for MPs and it does not work for the legal profession - please write to your MSPs and MPs and urge it is brought to and end now.

Anonymous said...

It’s all becoming such an embarrassment. Even the Judges are embarrassed and that is a fact. What we have is a legal establishment that thinks fee mongering is all part of some big game. Ruining lives is just ‘part of business’. Institutional awfulness. These people are not the wealth creators of our society...the people the leach off and ruin are the wealth creators. Look what happens to our economy, society and justice system when we entrust our futures to hyenas.
So some small minded legal authority thinks it’s being smart but is so insular (I don’t really believe that...I’m actually much more of a cynic but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.) it can’t see it’s illegal ‘closed-shop’ (by virtue of the fact that any solicitor needs an insurance certificate from the Law Society to gain a practicing certificate) is ruining our country. This is insidious and its tentacles have spread in recent years throughout our entire society and to whose benefit. Some daft wee solicitor? Nah...Only the insurers. It’s not by accident they have the biggest office blocks in town. They don’t get that wealthy paying out on their policies. So thanks to all you daft wee careerist numpties, (that’s you solicitors I’m talking to...without exception) in the designer gear you can’t afford but have to buy to maintain the mirage of success while in reality you are mere chattel to your employer in the hope of someday being made partner, at which point you deem themselves to have ‘made it’. And don’t those employers know exactly how to manipulate that ‘healthy’ ambition to have the young uns do their dirty work for ‘em. I did say they were small minded didn’t I?
BTW....this report is silly. I tried very hard to participate and give my 20 years of complaints an airing but I wasn’t invited. Whatever it says I will have to take with a pinch of salt.

Anonymous said...

This might sound like a stupid questoin but if his wife is a judge and he is a lawyer then how the hell is he on this complaints commission against lawyers?

Anonymous said...

Had to strain my eyes to read it but yes,their ballpoint attempt at censorship failed spectacularly !

I would say Smith has no credibility and now should resign and I nominate you to oversee the slcc since you are obviously an expert on them !

Anonymous said...

"Wouldn't we be better with someone on this commission who respects what ordinary people have had to go through to try and get justice against a crooked lawyer because I’m sure Mr Smith and his friends will know very well that trying to claim against a crooked lawyer is impossible in Scotland and life is made very difficult for anyone who tries.”

ABSOLUTELY !

Anonymous said...

Well!
David Smith and others seem to fall flat on their backsides when faced with you Mr Cherbi!
How did you get such a stupidly censored document?
Have you considered someone there might want you to see it and tear into them?
Good work and keep it up!

Anonymous said...

"Called to the Bars" lol!

I think the lot of them should be sacked and that 2m returned to us for better use

Anonymous said...

Judging by the sounds of David Smith he probably thinks hes doing good though amazing how a complete lack of sympathy for anyone who isn't a lawyer bleeds through from these people isn't it !

Anonymous said...

"the fact that the claimants interviewed were all frequent flyers"

so what did Smith expect ?
they asked for people to come forward and now he berates them ?

disgusting

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable arrogance from Smith and I see Masterman is intent on talking down their own investigation.No wonder no one trusts this slcc.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what Smith would say to someone who has been on benefits after their bastard lawyer ruined them and drove their husband to suicide ?

Another frequent flyer maybe ?

Anonymous said...

It just gets worse & worse at the slcc so scrap it and start again and make those lawyers pay all the taxpayers money back.

Anonymous said...

I find it hard to believe David Smith expected the Law Society to just hand over the Master Policy without any 'resistance'.Granted he does go onto suggest the they pester MacAskill about their lack of powers but I think we all know where that one will lead to (MacAskill's dustbin).

Anonymous said...

whoever did the black ink on that one will probably be sacked !

Anonymous said...

incredible!

Anonymous said...

I doubt Dunion will agree with their redactions particularly the "frequent flyers" part which must be exactly what Smith thinks of people because he uses it twice in the document you posted.
I presume there is more to come Peter ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

This might sound like a stupid questoin but if his wife is a judge and he is a lawyer then how the hell is he on this complaints commission against lawyers?

7:28 PM

LOL ! MacAskill probably WANTED him there because of that !

Anonymous said...

Suffice to say I dont think David Smith gives a damn about what he says.He is a lawyer and like the rest at this commission they hate the publics guts but still want to pick up their money of course for sitting there slagging us all off!

As for the fact he is married to a judge well that should disqualify him from sitting on this complaints panel for a start.She has probably heard cases against lawyers before and whats his own record about complaints anyway ?

Anonymous said...

David Smith, SLCC solicitor board member criticised ruined victims of crooked lawyers.

Why is the husband of a high court judge in the SLCC in the first place. (The independent impartial SLCC, a joke).

It is like creating an anti Nazi league, and appointing Heinrich Himmler to it. Crazy, these lawyers are beyond this debate simply because like the Nazi's they are deeply entrenched in their own ideas of what they think is right. Justice for clients is abbhorent to them, they are extremists indeed.

Go on McKaskill reject McKenzie Friends, and show the public that you are an extremist like your colleagues.

Anonymous said...

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman branded participants in SLCC investigation as ‘biased’ but said nothing about how biased lawyers views were.

Clients and consumer groups must be biased, because the Law Society SLCC will protect crooked lawyers because they themselves are crooked. This SLCC will never be independent or impartial, as long as Masterman and her cronies are involved in the complaints setup. They ruin client's lives then complain because we want justice.

There is no such thing as an honest lawyer. I consider this profession to be as evil and warped as the Nazi's.

Anonymous said...

GP's 'sex with woman in surgery'
Dr Michael Rusling
Dr Rusling denies his fitness to practise is impaired

A GP had sex with a patient in his surgery while her husband sat outside, the General Medical Council (GMC) has been told.

The grandmother, known as Patient A, told the hearing she also had liaisons with Hull GP Dr Michael Rusling at her home during a seven-month affair.

Dr Rusling, a former GP at Sydenham House Group Practice, denies his fitness to practise is impaired.

Patient A said their relationship ended when the GP was suspended from duty.

The woman told the disciplinary panel she would meet Dr Rusling every Tuesday on her day off from work.

Dr Rusling was not happy because he asked who I was talking to. I told him it was my husband and he nearly fell off the couch
Patient A

The hearing was told she had written in her diary "what a buzz" after having sex with the doctor in his surgery while her husband sat yards away outside the door.

The woman said: "The bleeper was not working to call you into the doctor's room so [Dr Rusling] had to come through."

She added: "Dr Rusling was not happy because he asked who I was talking to. I told him it was my husband and he nearly fell off the couch."

The woman said in February 2007 Dr Rusling visited her in hospital while his wife was also there recovering from an operation.

Woman divorced

After the relationship ended, she gave a witness statement to the GMC.

Patient A said she felt pressurised to do this, but also "morally obliged".

"It was the way our relationship started that was wrong," she said. "I felt I had to do it, I did not want to do it."

The woman said her husband was now divorcing her as a consequence of the affair.

The hearing was told Dr Rusling left the Sydenham House Group Practice as an employee in March 2007.

Allegations that the GP threatened to withhold drugs from a depressed patient, known as Patient B, if she refused to have sex with him, have been dropped.

The hearing continues.
===================================
The doctor has nothing to worry about, the self regulators will protect him.

Anonymous said...

Very good expose one again Mr Cherbi.
Hopefully the large chip on David Smith's shoulder he seems to have against anyone who claims against one of his fellow lawyers will be his undoing and I hope you keep us all informed about it.

Good work as always.

Anonymous said...

EXCLUSIVE: LAWYER SUED FOR £1MILLION

Jun 3 2007 By Russell Findlay

A LAWYER finally faces action from legal watchdogs after compensation claims against him passed the £1million mark.

John O'Donnell is being probed by the Law Society of Scotland.

Since we first exposed him a year ago there have been nine new complaints - bringing the total to 21.

They include Frank Gallagher, who was injured at work in 1990. He only received compensation after lawyer Simon Di Rollo stepped in.QC Di Rollo has now complained to the Law Society about O'Donnell's delays and excuses.

Last year we revealed O'Donnell, 55, was the subject of 12 negligence claims.

New complaints since bring the total being claimed to just under £1.1million, with £446,000 paid out so far.

Gerald McLean accuses O'Donnell of bungling his injury claim.

He said: "I've fought him for 11 years and he has led me up the garden path."

O'Donnell, based in Cathcart, Glasgow, has blamed his behaviour on mental illness (FUNNY HOW HIS MENTAL ILLNESS ALWAYS AUGMENTS HIS BANK BALLANCE) between 2000 and 2002, when only a handful of claims were made.

His record of negligence is kept secret by the Law Society. YES THIS IS THE REASON SELF REGULATION IS THE ANTITHESIS OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LAW SOCIETY ARE NOTHING SHORT OF A CRIMINAL ORGANISATION, THAT MUST BE OUTLAWED.

GOOD ON THE SUNDAY MAIL FOR EXPOSING THIS MAN, AND THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND.

I WOULD RATHER HAVE A MCKENZIE FRIEND THAN TRUST ONE OF A PROFESSION OF PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation did not work for bankers, it did not work for MPs and it does not work for the legal profession - please write to your MSPs and MPs and urge it is brought to and end now.
=====================================
Correct self regulation is a licence to do

What you want.

To whoever you want.

Whenever the opportunity arises.

It is criminal that a lawyer who ruins a client is investigated by his own profession. Modern legal slavery is what it amounts to, and if you look at the attitudes of Smith, Scanlan, Masterman the lawyers are the rot, cover up specialists who's only concern is for their own profession.

We have a legal system which will only get near to a justice system once the legal profession are stopped being perpetrator and investigator of their own criminal club. Totally independent regulation which can ruin corrupt lawyers, and even promote lawyers who look after clients is the only medicine to cure the rotten facade we have at the present time.

Anonymous said...

Effectively therefore what we have is the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates opposing a human right of access to justice which has existed in the UK for some 40 years ...

Correct Peter, I totally agree with you. The Scottish Legal profession cannot stomach the public having any support in court other that lawyer support. Their mental attitude is that ONLY LAWYERS ARE TO HAVE RIGHTS. ONLY LAWYERS DECIDE WHO CAN HAVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND WHO CANNOT. Lawyers are the greatest barrier to justice in Scotland today and this deplorable criminal situation must end for the good of the Scottish people.

Mr MacAskill, if you continue to stand in the way of real reform, now window dressing with your SLCC, you cannot remain as justice minister. A lawyer, yes you Mr MacAskill must apply the European Convention of Human Rights to the MacEnzie Friends issue and allow non legal support for party litigants into Scotland's courts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"Wouldn't we be better with someone on this commission who respects what ordinary people have had to go through to try and get justice against a crooked lawyer because I’m sure Mr Smith and his friends will know very well that trying to claim against a crooked lawyer is impossible in Scotland and life is made very difficult for anyone who tries.”
-----------------------------------
Yes correct, Legal dictatorship is what we have in Scotland, people who can and do ruin clients because self regulation protects them like the SS protected Adolf Hitler.

Anonymous said...

Mr Smith knows it is impossible to sue a crooked lawyer in Scotland. That is why he is in the SLCC, to crush clients and protect his lawyer colleagues, so that nothing changes. It is indeed a Scottish Lawyer Coverup Commission.

Anonymous said...

If any large retail chain could crush all competition, the Competition Commission would intervene.

Competition should also drive up standards, by consumers having alternatives, so they can go elsewhere.

The legal establishment are a dictatorial self protecting monopoly, and that is why,

Poor client service is the norm.

Corrupt lawyers are protected by their peers.

McKenzie Friends are vital to give legal comsumers choice, and end the stranglehold of Mr MacAskill's colleagues. Mr Smith demonstrates the culture that ensures clients are like lambs to the slaughter every time they engage the services of a lawyer.

Lawyers make a lot of money, and have no discipline. Lawyers standards of service are benchmarked by other lawyers. The result, chronic poor service for clients. Lawyers know they can ruin clients and the Douglas Mill's of this world will wrap them in cotton wool, and crush the client. That is why the anti lawyer hostility is growing. People should expect criminality in self regulators, because careers and money are all they care about.

Anonymous said...

What a disgusting bunch of people.

Their own report condemned the Master Policy and told them there had been suicides and all they can do is insult the victims!

SICK

Anonymous said...

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION HELPLINE STATE

Your employer has a duty of care to enable you to do your job safely. This includes providing a safe working environment, proper training, protective clothing and the regular maintenance of machinery and equipment.

Any compensation awarded to you would be paid by your employer's insurance company, and not by your employer. Your employer must by law have insurance to cover this.

Specialist injury lawyers

Our nationwide network of specialist injury lawyers offer a 100% compensation - no win no fee service, meaning that you keep 100% of the compensation awarded to you and pay absolutely nothing to claim. You can therefore be confident in the knowledge that you will be getting a first class service from expert injury lawyers.

THIS IS THE ONLY SITUATION WHERE CLIENTS WILL HAVE LAWYERS DOING THEIR BEST BECAUSE THE LAWYERS FEE IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE DAMAGES AWARDED. THEY MEAN THE INJURED PARTY CAN KEEP 100% OF THE DAMAGES AWARDED, THE TOTAL SUM AWARDED IS GREATER AND I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THE LAWYERS TAKE ANY LESS THAN 70%. NOTE THEY SAY YOU WILL BE GETTING A FIRST CLASS SERVICE, IT DOES NOT HAPPEN IN ANY CASE THAT IS NOT NO WIN NO FEE. MONEY AGAIN MOTIVATING THE SELF REGULATORS.

PEOPLE AT WORK WILL STAND A CHANCE OF COMPENSATION IF THEY ARE TAKEN AWAY IN AN AMBULANCE. IF THE INJURY IS RSI, OR SOME OTHER INVISIBLE INJURY THE NO WIN NO FEE LAWYERS WILL NOT HELP YOU. NO WIN NO FEE TO A LAWYER IS NOT ABOUT LOOKING AFTER THE CLIENT, IT IS ABOUT THE LAWYERS MAKING MONEY.

I KNOW SOMEONE WHO WENT DOWN THIS ROUTE AND SHE HAD TO PAY OTHER FEES, THE NO WIN NO FEE LAWYERS DID NOT TELL HER ABOUT. IF THEY DECIEVE YOU AND YOU END UP WITH A LARGE BILL, WHAT DO YOU DO, GO AND ASK ANOTHER LAWYER TO SUE THEM. YOU WILL HAVE MORE CHANCE OF WINNING EUROMILLIONS.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH LAW FIRM YOU DEAL WITH,

THEY ARE ALL CRIMINALS.

Anonymous said...

Why do lawyers take longer to settle claims funded by Legal Aid and act quicker in no win no fee cases?

They milk the Legal Aid by taking a long time over the case, and do nothing for the client. Legal Aid must be like interim payments in a construction contract, good for law firms cashflow.

They act quicker with no win no fee because they want paid as soon as possible.

If lawyers cared about their clients as much as they care about their incomes, their reputations would be the opposite of what they are now. A bunch of criminals, that is what they are. Everything they do is for MONEY NOT YOU.

BOYCOTT SCOTTISH LAWYERS FOREVER said...

These people would probably have called the victims onboard the Lockerbie bombed Pan Am 747 as "frequent flyers" too.

THESE ATTITUDES TO VICTIMS FROM SCOTTISH LAWYERS SHOW THE WORLD HOW DISGUSTING SCOTLANDS LAW SYSTEM IS.AVOID DEALING WITH ANYONE WHO CALLS THEMSELVES A LAWYER FROM SCOTLAND THEY WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE

KEEP SCOTLANDS LAWYERS OUT OF USA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD THEY ARE KILLERS BY THEIR WORDS AND ACTIONS

Anonymous said...

PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND, THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION ARE SAFE HOUSES FOR CORRUPT LAWYERS.

YOU STILL HAVE NO LEGAL PROTECTION AGAINST A CROOKED LAWYER, SO AVOID THESE PEOPLE IF POSSIBLE.

THEY STAND FOR LAWYERS HUMAN RIGHTS, CLIENTS ARE NOT HUMAN IN THEIR VIEW AS WE HAVE NO RIGHTS.

THE LAWYERS DO NOT WANT US TO HAVE CHOICE, BECAUSE THEIR PROFITS WILL DIMINISH. THAT IS WHY THEIR IS RESISTANCE TO THE MCKENZIE FRIEND ISSUE. PROFIT IS WHAT A LAWYER SEES IN A CLIENT, NOTHING ELSE.

WELCOME TO THE DARK AGES IN 21st CENTURY SCOTLAND. WELCOME TO OUR LEGAL DICTATORSHIP.

Anonymous said...

223pm
my sentiments exactly!

Anonymous said...

SLCC just as crooked as the Law Society or maybe even worse.Pay back the taxpayers 2mil !

Anonymous said...

What a disgusting bunch of people.

Their own report condemned the Master Policy and told them there had been suicides and all they can do is insult the victims!

Correct they are evil people, lawyers in Scotland would build the equivalent of Auchwitz, and gas clients, no doubt about that.

They torture laypersons for profit and their legal system shuts down automatically when clients complain about lawyers. We have a system where certain professions are above the laws that apply to the rest of us. The self regulators, irrespective of the profession concerned will always protect their own members over and above any patient or client.

If lawyers were honest they would state the following.

"We cannot allow McKenzie Friends into the courts because our incomes will fall, and we fear further errosion of our power. It is a violation of a lawyers human rights not to have total control over the legal process".

We want McKenzie Friends and the end of self regualtion for all self regulators. Lawyers are no different to any dictator on the planet, they just do not have military power. If they did the state police would be arresting the protesters.

Mr MacAskill freed the Lockerbie Bomber on compassionate grounds. I do not think so, more to do with lucrative trade deals than justice.

Scots Judges found the man guilty without a jury (Banana republic again) so why was he not taken to a hospice in Scotland if his time was near. No wonder American relatives are angry. Perhaps the Scottish Legal Establishment are back to their old tricks, protecting their own. A horrific crime where the Justice Minister shows compassion to the convicted man. No doubt money is involved.

Anonymous said...

Mr. MacAskill, the so-called "Justice" Secretary of Scotland, you should be ashamed of yourself. (CORRECT) You know nothing of justice, nor will we ever forgive your heinous action, and it is our sincere hope that the people of Scotland will strongly voice their opposition to what you have done. I AM A SCOT AND MACASKILL LIKE ALL LAWYERS WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PROFESSION OR IN THIS CASE THE OIL COMPANIES TRADE DEALS WITH GADAFFI. You have shown to the international community that your government and the United Kingdom as a whole will stop at nothing to pursue the neverending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues. CORRECT GADAFFI SAID THE BOMBER WOULD HAVE TO BE RELEASED IF TRADE DEALS WERE TO HAPPEN. MR MACASKILL DOES NOT CARE ABOUT LAWYER CLIENTS COMMITTING SUICIDE IN SCOTLAND OR THE VICTIMS OF THIS TERRORIST OUTRAGE. HE AND MR SALMOND WOULD NOT HAVE RELEASED THIS MAN NO MATTER HOW ILL HE IS IF THERE WAS NO DEALS ON OIL EXPLORATION. I HAVE SPOKEN TO MANY FRIENDS RECENTLY AND THEY AGREE IT IS ABOUT OIL, AND MACASKILL HAS RELEASED THIS MAN. THE DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS WHO TREATED HIM ARE BLANKED OUT ON DOCUMENTS.

IT IS AN INSULT TO THE VICIMS OF PAM AM 103 AND THEIR FAMILIES ALTHOUGH SOME PEOPLE LIKE DR SWIRE ARE ON RECORD SAYING THEY ARE GLAD HE HAS BEEN RELEASED. WHEN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCOTTISH LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT ARE LIKE ONE WONDERS IF THE TRUTH WILL EVER COME OUT.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, has defended the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber from jail on compassionate grounds.

Mr Salmond MSP was responding to a poll commissioned by BBC News, which showed only a third of Scots believed Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrah should have been freed.

Anonymous said...

BOYCOTT SCOTTISH LAWYERS FOREVER said...

These people would probably have called the victims onboard the Lockerbie bombed Pan Am 747 as "frequent flyers" too. I agree.


If the Pan Am 747 had been full of Scottish lawyers MacAskill would have left the bomber to die in prison, with Salmond's approval you can be sure of that.

Anonymous said...

IF YOU ARE WONDERING WHAT A MCKENZIE FRIEND IS PLEASE READ ON.

McKenzie Friend From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A McKenzie friend assists a litigant in person in a common law court.

This person does not need to be legally qualified. The crucial point is that litigants in person are entitled to have assistance, lay or professional, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Their role was set out most clearly in the eponymous 1970 case McKenzie v. McKenzie. Although this role applies in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, it is regarded as having its origins in common law and hence has been adopted in practice in other common law jurisdictions such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. The role should be distinguished from that of an amicus curiae, a "friend of the court" who provides information for the benefit of the court.
-----------------------------------
Look at the countries where McKenzie friends are now. Why not Scotland Mr MacAskill? Are you a Justice Minister of the Scottish people or a mandarin for the Law Society of Scotland, The Faculty of Advocates and others in your profession? I think you are a disgrace and should be made to stand down, as a matter of urgency.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who insults people like that has no right to be on a regulator especially against his own kind (lawyers)

Anonymous said...

MacAskill your release of the Lockerbie bomber was for oil, simple as that, no matter what you say, and the world knows this.

Anonymous said...

Good expose.Paying Smith and the rest to sit on the SLCC is a waste of money if this is the only publicity they can bring us.

Anonymous said...

Boycott Scotland and the United Kingdom

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi has been set free by Scotland.
-------------------------------------
Kenny MacAskill set this man free, not the Scottish people. MacAskill talked about compassion for the bomber. This man MacAskill like Adolf Hitler is compassionless. If Megrahi had bombed the Law Society of Scotland's offices he would have died in prison. One rule for the lawyers, another for the victims of Pan Am 103 and their families. Mr MacAskill why did you not put this man in a Scottish hospice and provide facilities for his family to live there to comfort him in his final days. You would have shown him compassion as you stated, but he had to go to home or the business deals would have collapsed.

You told the world this was your decision Mr MacAskill, you are right, I do not agree with you and neither do millions of other Scots. You sent the man home, but do not tell us it was on compassionate grounds. We are more intelligent than you and see through your weak argument.

Anonymous said...

Prejudice like this is what the slcc is all about and what a surprise Mr Smith is another lawyer.

Forget any justice with this lot.

Anonymous said...

Typical arrogant attitude from a lawyer against anyone who complaints about them.Proves to me this quango is nothing but a FRAUD ON THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE CREATED BY THE SNP

Anonymous said...

It’s all becoming such an embarrassment. Even the Judges are embarrassed and that is a fact. What we have is a legal establishment that thinks fee mongering is all part of some big game. (Correct they ruin lives for profit) Ruining lives is just ‘part of business’. Institutional awfulness.

I totally agree with this person's comment and I will tell lawyers what I hate most. They do not care how a client is left and all lawyers need a warning. Victims of crooked lawyers so far have fought the clean way. I would not like to work in any law office because one day I will watch the news and some lawyer will have been murdered. Not by me, I would not go to prison for you self regulating corrupt trash, but be warned, you are playing a dangerous game when someone has their life ruined, and no lawyer will help them because a colleague and the Master Policy have to be protected.

Then there will be some lawyers victim on a murder charge, and the legal establishment will do what it does best, crush the client and cover up what the client's lawyer did. You are the ultimate human filth, and I could not do what you do. I would need eyes in the back of my head, and I would not be able to sleep at night even with the Master Policy protection, because the latter will not protect me from violence. A law degree, should have the letters LLB Fool.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers sleep an night when they ruin clients lives because they are simply evil.

A lawyer who is ruined gets the Law Society to attack the Law Society accountant, investigator Mr Cummings. Then the police cannot solve the case because bringing the attacker to justice will expose the person or person's from the Law Society who ordered the attack. If the police found the attacker and had enough evidence, a report would be sent to the Procurator Fiscal. Guess what, The Procurator Fiscal is also a paid up member of the Law Society of Scotland. If the case went to court the lawyers and judges are also members of the Law Society. It is little wonder Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers website www.sacl/info call the legal establishment the mafia.

In Law there is an area known as Delict, where a link must be made if someone is injured for damages to be payable. The people who always cover up the link are litigation lawyers and doctors.

There is also a link between lawyer violence, and police, procurator fiscal, coverups, they will not tell us about. We need a legal system to oversee the current legal system. That legal system is called independent regulation of self regulators. That is the only way to clean up this most corrupt of professions.

The Law Society of Scotland is the unelected government of Scotland, because they control most politicians, the police, and access to our courts. Mr Cummings attacker will never face trial because the legal establishment are protecting their own again.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

The Scottish Government is due to publish documents it says justify the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds.
-------------------------------------
I wonder how much information will be redacted or blanked out?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

Page last updated at 17:59 GMT, Monday, 17 August 2009 18:59 UK

A pensioner is suing a supermarket after being hit on the head with a pineapple while shopping in Dundee.

Mary Raimo, 76, is said to have suffered concussion when knocked to the floor after the fruit fell from a shelf at a Tesco store in Lochee last July.

She claims it was stacked badly and was dislodged by another customer.

Her lawyer said she could get several thousand pounds in compensation. A Tesco spokeswoman said the matter was being dealt with by their legal team.

She said: "Customer safety is very important to us and we are looking into what happened, our best wishes are with Mary Raimo for a speedy recovery.

"As this matter is in the hands of our legal team, we're unable to comment further."

Ms Raimo's lawyer, Alasdair Wannan, said: "She is hoping for compensation on the basis that Tesco negligently stacked the pineapples.

"She says she is still getting headaches and neck pains and if that is the case we would be looking for several thousand pounds compensation."

The supermarket in Lochee has since closed.
-----------------------------------
Is Tesco insured by Royal SunAlliance? Did Ms Raimo's lawyer Alasdair Wannan tell her he was insured by Royal SunAlliance through the Law Societies Master Policy before he took the case on? He will no doubt take his fees and work with Tesco's Lawyers to ensure Tesco are not liable. This old lady has no chance of success, because of the above insurance arrangements. If she won more people will try and claim for similar things, and her lawyer will not want to have his insurers paying her damages.

2:52 PM

Anonymous said...

Why am I not surprised to learn that lawyers regard their victims as 'frequent flyers' ?

Perhaps Mr Smith should fly himself right out of his job so that someone with a little less prejudice can do some public good.

Anonymous said...

The Scotsman

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Cheating-lawyer-jailed-for-11.2413766.jp

Published Date: 26 March 2003
By JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT

A LAWYER who "systematically looted" clients’ cash to pay for his extravagant lifestyle as a country laird was jailed for 11 years yesterday.
Alastair Hall, 46, had appeared to be a pillar of the Perthshire community whose wealth knew little bounds. Where most parents hired a bouncy castle for their child’s birthday party, he would lay on helicopter rides at his mansion home.

However, behind the facade of a respectable solicitor and Territorial Army major, Hall was a hard-drinking liar and cheat who was heavily in debt and who swindled trusting clients, some of them elderly, out of more than £500,000. (NORMAL LAWYER CONDUCT).

Even when caught, the man dubbed by one colleague as "Walter Mitty in a kilt" still maintained his delusions of grandeur.

In an interview for a pre-sentencing background report, Hall insisted to a social worker that his father had been a rear-admiral in the Royal Navy. In truth, he was a chartered surveyor whose only connection with the navy had been during his national service, when he was a petty officer.

Hall admitted a string of embezzlement and fraud charges in the 1990s, while a partner in the law firm of A&R Robertson and Black, of Bank Street, Blairgowrie, and, latterly, when he ran his own firm, Hall & Co, of Brown Street, Blairgowrie. He also stole a rare and valuable book of poetry by Robert Burns. Hall was declared bankrupt in 2000, and was struck off last year, after being reported to the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal by the Law Society of Scotland. (ARE THIS LOT CLEANING UP THEIR ACT FOR FEAR OF MCKENZIE FRIENDS?)

His spectacular fall from grace was completed at the High Court in Edinburgh, when the judge, Lord Wheatley, imposed one of the heaviest sentences in Scotland on a crooked lawyer. (POETIC JUSTICE).

"You systematically looted the accounts of a number of clients who had given you their complete confidence. The essence of what you did was to steal all this money to maintain a standard of living you would not otherwise have been able to afford," Lord Wheatley said.


The Law Society of Scotland operates a guarantee fund to compensate the victims of dishonest solicitors.

GOOD ON THE SCOTSMAN FOR REPORTING THIS STORY. AS FOR THE LAST PARAGRAPH THE GUARANTEE FUND GUARANTEES THE MR DOUGLAS MILL'S OF THIS WORLD LOOK AFTER CROOKED LAWYERS, SO THAT THE FUND'S UNDERWRITERS NEVER PAY OUT.

Anonymous said...

how about the old I love you let me take on your property and trust scam and sweindle you with documents and then jehovah in jeremiah 3012-15 gives my mtoher the fatal blow of a heartattahc after he swindled her out of her proeprty and inheritacne and then takes the crown. menawehile I am lulled into a state of poverty by the same people and made promisses that never come true. then they want me to worship a god that has killed my mother and destroyed me. I got some real problems with all fo this. I am ashamed of the swindle that has gone down...carrie