Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Westminster’s 1996 condemnation of Law Society’s Master Policy ‘avoids mention’ by anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

House of CommonsThirteen year old motion at Westminster reveals long standing knowledge of corruption at Law Society of Scotland and its ‘Master Policy’ Insurers. An Early Day Motion from the UK’s Westminster Parliament during early 1996 has revealed long standing knowledge by politicians of intense corruption at both the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers who manage & underwrite the Scottish legal profession’s ‘Master Insurance Policy’ arrangements to cover crooked & negligent lawyers against claims by ruined clients.

Amazingly, the details of this motion and testimony connected with the original case, which was raised in 1996 by the now deceased Labour MP Gordon McMaster, have been conveniently left out of discussions and investigations by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission over their role of ‘monitoring’ the claims process of the Master Policy & Guarantee Funds which clients are forced to go through to try and claim damages against losses inflicted on them by the massing ranks of rogue & crooked lawyers in Scotland.

Gordon McMaster’s Early Day Motion reads : “That this House is astonished to learn of the case of Iain McIntyre of Paisley who has suffered estimated losses of £2.7 million due to a series of incidents of negligence and bad faith at the hands of consecutive firms of solicitors; finds it incredible that what started out as a simple conveyancing error has developed into a 10 year legal nightmare of horrific complexity involving seven court processes; believes that inherent conflicts exist between the Law Society of Scotland's duties to guard the public interest and protect its members' interests which have forced Mr McIntyre to endure the loss of his business, the forced sale of his home, long periods of severe depressive illness and liability for expenses amounting to £173,000”.

The motion goes onto state : “further believes that it is unjustifiable that the Law Society of Scotland holds the master professional indemnity insurance policy which has built into it penalties and bonuses which give solicitors a vested interest in minimising negligence claims at unfair levels; is convinced that the principle of Scots law that everyone is entitled to independent legal representation has been breached by the Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland actively encouraging one firm of solicitors to cease acting for Mr McIntyre; and calls for a judicial inquiry into Mr McIntyre's case and an urgent review of the self-regulatory status of the Law Society of Scotland.”

A legal insider commented on the 1996 Westminster motion condemning the Law Society and its infamous Master Policy, claiming : “No one in Scotland wants to talk about this now because it proves many politicians and those in the legal world have known for decades that the Master Policy is a corrupt arrangement forcibly held in place by the Law Society to protect its members from claims against their negligent services and corruption involving clients funds.”

He continued : “It beggars belief that 13 years after this was made public, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are still struggling with discussions on how to develop their reluctant remit to monitor the Master Policy which the London Parliament clearly condemned all those years ago.”

Law SocietyHuge levels of corruption at Law Society of Scotland prompted Westminster condemnation. The McMaster motion at Westminster came several months after a series of media reports in the Scottish newspapers about corruption in the claims process against crooked lawyers in Scotland, which frequently saw the Law Society intervene to kill off the legal representation of any clients who were trying to pursue crooked lawyers through the Scottish Courts, and in an 1995 interview related to the case which resulted in the McMaster motion at Westminster, Scottish Television’s Bernard Ponsonby revealed the scale of client claims against crooked lawyers in Scotland in the early 1990’s, which have rocketed nearly two decades later, stating : “In the four years from 1989 to 1993 the premiums paid into the Master Policy have totalled £24,833,000, in the same period £27,441,000 has been paid out in actions against solicitors, a deficit of over £2,600,000.

Mr Ponsonby reached some pertinent conclusions in the interview such as : “Pursuing justice against negligent solicitors requires a deep pocket and great patience, many potential litigants have neither, they have to live with the results of injustice forever !”. You can download the STV transcript of that interview here : STV's Bernard Ponsonby interview & report on Master Policy

However, the Law Society of Scotland and insurers have now made the claim game against crooked lawyers an almost impossible task for clients, with routine intervention from the Law Society now commonplace, resulting in many negligence claims against crooked lawyers going to the wall, and even suicides of clients whose claims have failed. You can read a previous article about the Master Policy here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Scottish Legal Complaints CommissionScottish Legal Complaints Commission don't want to hear about Master Policy ‘suicides’. Reaction as we have seen at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to the ‘suicides’ side of the Master Policy has been minimal, with the SLCC’s board members and senior staff seemingly intent on talking down the whole question of regulating the Master Policy, preferring to indulge in name calling and insults against the Master Policy’s victims, rather than actually engaging their experiences for useful application. After my report last week on David Smith and Eileen Masterman’s bitter accusations against consumers who took part by invitation in the SLCC’s own Master Policy investigation, Jane Irvine, the SLCC’s Chair said no comment could be issued, citing “Mr Smith was not available for the next two and a half weeks”.

A participant in the SLCC’s Master Policy investigation commented : “Perhaps Smith is away doing some frequent flying of his own. I wonder if he and the rest of the SLCC would like to meet the family of a dead client who put both barrels of a shotgun in his mouth and blew his brains out after finding out his lawyers had been stitching his Master Policy claim up all the time they were working on it. Would he call them frequent flyers too ?”

Debating chamberScottish MSPs don’t want to raise motions condemning corruption in the legal profession. Of course, while Westminster seemed well convinced of corruption at the Law Society of Scotland some thirteen years ago, the road to obtaining even an investigation into the Master Policy in Scotland and proper independent regulation of the legal profession has proved distinctly rocky, as most MSPs at Holyrood who are called in by constituents with similar problems against ‘crooked lawyers’, openly refuse to raise such motions in the Scottish Parliament, even though they certainly have the power to do so.

One well known consumer activist today put MSPs reluctance to raise motions against injustice and the legal profession down to “fear of upsetting lawyers and the Law Society”.

He said : “Most Scottish politicians when faced with a choice between helping a constituent against the legal profession itself, or remaining in favour of the legal profession, will take the latter option. It is simply a more profitable arrangement for them. Helping a constituent will produce little by way of return, but remaining in the favour of the legal profession invariably produced high returns for many politicians as we have seen occasionally revealed in newspaper headlines over the past few years.”

Given the apparent lack of understanding by the SLCC’s board members as to the difficulties faced by those clients & members of the public who become involved with the Master Policy, it may do some good for the likes of David “Frequent Flyers” Smith, and Margaret “Chancers” Scanlan to have a read of the 1996 Westminster motion, although as one Commission insider pointed out on Monday, “… anyone with chips on their shoulder within the commission who has to resort to that kind of language against people they are supposed to be there to help, are long past understanding the public’s point of view and experiences regarding those in the legal profession.”

I would tend to agree … so, when do we see some action against the Law Society and their corrupt Master Policy ?

How many more clients lives is the Law Society going to use up to ‘allow crooked lawyers to sleep at night’ and why all the opposition to opening up a review of failed claims where the Law Society intervened and stopped such cases progressing ?

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe the SLCC should be renamed to Scottish Legal Omission Commission !

Anonymous said...

Excellent article, let's hope its contents get beyond the borders of this little parish and reach the ears of European Commissioners - despite the Law Society's Office over there.

Anonymous said...

I know someone who knew Gordon very well.They always said he did not commit suicide as his pals in the party might want everyone to believe.

http://www.thescottishparliament.com/ said...

You don't need to convince me Peter - the Law Society bought most of the msps when the parliament came to Scotland in 1999.

Check out the link!
Its not what you might think!

Anonymous said...

after enduring that debate on Lockerbie this morning I doubt there are any MSPS who could string enough words together to make a motion like Mcmaster did

Anonymous said...

THE FOLLOWING PROVES THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND RUN THE COUNTRY.

“Most Scottish politicians when faced with a choice between helping a constituent against the legal profession itself, or remaining in favour of the legal profession, will take the latter option. It is simply a more profitable arrangement for them. Helping a constituent will produce little by way of return, but remaining in the favour of the legal profession invariably produced high returns for many politicians as we have seen occasionally revealed in newspaper headlines over the past few years.”

Anonymous said...

He continued : “It beggars belief that 13 years after this was made public, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are still struggling with discussions ..

YES 13 YEARS OF F*CKING ABOUT AND A FEW MORE TO PROTECT THEIR MATES IN THE LAW SOCIETY

Anonymous said...

Good to see this coming back to haunt the slcc and Law Society.Make the most of it and send it to Irvine and her band of apologists for bent lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Odd that one politician makes such a motion then winds up dead not too long later.Anyone else believe there's something fishy about that ??

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland should be outlawed like terrorists organisations because they are the most protected criminals in our society. The power this organisation have and the silence of the SLCC, point to the fact that they are culturally the same.

The Law Society is the Legal Establishments causal link for protection where clients are blocked from justice because all members control access to the courts, are rewarded for crushing clients, and are in bed with many but not all politicians who are delighted to receive sweetners to preserve this perverse facade of a justice system. The Law Society of Scotland, and SLCC are the hub, that need smashing, lawyers and their followers kicked out of the complaints and laypersons only deal with complaints. No client will ever have the slightest chance of justice against a lawyer criminal until this happens.

Drag your feet MacAskill, there are men of action and men of inaction, and you are the latter in bed with the criminals you used to pay for your practicing certificate.

As far as the Master Policy is concerned clients should start viewing lawyers as employees of Royal & SunAlliance, in which the latter heap bonuses, pensions and huge salaries on lawyers.

Legally a lawyer is an agent and a client is his principle. The lawyer is meant to advise the client but also obey the client, but as lawyers investigate complaints against their own profession the lawyer can do what he wants. It is legal dictatorship, where the client has no chance and it has to change and soon. The fact that Douglas Mill had only to resign highlights how protective the legal establishment are. The evidence should have been put in front of a jury, and Mill jailed. If a client had lied about Mill the outcome would have been totally different.

Anonymous said...

“It beggars belief that 13 years after this was made public, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are still struggling with discussions on how to develop their reluctant remit to monitor the Master Policy which the London Parliament clearly condemned all those years ago.”

THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION WILL ALWAYS STRUGGLE BECAUSE THE LAWYERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS NEED KICKED OUT, AND THE COMMISSION TAKE OVER COMPLAINTS HANDLING WITH NO INTERFERENCE FROM THE LAW SOCIETY.

THE COMMISSION WANT TO DO WHAT THE LAW SOCIETY DO, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS UNLESS WE HAVE DECENT POLITICIANS WHO ARE PREPARED TO KICK ASS.

THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT ENSURES THAT CLIENTS HAVE AS MUCH CHANCE OF JUSTICE AGAINST A CROOKED LAWYER AS THEY WOULD HAVE SWIMMING ACROSS THE ATLANTIC.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are there to help lawyers, that is why it was set up with lawyers in it.

People who have had doctors and lawyers distorting evidence are slapped in the face again, because the legal system automatically shuts down. Careers and reputations are paramount. clients and patients are trash to these bastards, excuse the language Peter. If I had Hitler's power I would build gas chambers for these professions and execute them.

Anonymous said...

Scottish MSPs don’t want to raise motions condemning corruption in the legal profession.

What is the point in voting then?

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

No bomber release cover-up - PM
Prime Minister Gordon Brown says there was "no conspiracy, no cover-up" over the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.

I believe you Gordon, as much as I believe in Santa Claus.

Anonymous said...

Mr Ponsonby reached some pertinent conclusions in the interview such as :“Pursuing justice against negligent solicitors requires a deep pocket and great patience, many potential litigants have neither, they have to live with the results of injustice forever !”.

Mr Ponsonby is correct but I urge clients to unite against these lawyer criminals for the good of the public at large.

Anonymous said...

3rd comment

I have no doubt of that after reading up a bit tonight.McMaster may well have been killed by some evil shit of a lawyer now this has come up.

Anonymous said...

Good morning Peter,

Clearly the Commission do not have the will to protect clients, as they are remaining silent on issues such as this deceased MP raised. No surprise really when they will not investigate corrupt lawyers where the corruption occurred before October 2008.

Forty years and McKenzie Friends are being considered now. If this was Mrs Thatcher's community charge Salmond would be screaming for independence, but he is silent on issues that will weaken the position of lawyers in Scotland. He is like most politicians, he can see advantages for himself in a independent Scotland, but rights for victims of crooked lawyers, he must be getting a bonus from Lorna Jack or some other sweetner from the underwriters of the Master Policy.

So people of Scotland, lawyers, accountants, doctors are above the law and if you do not believe me try getting one of them into court. We have a legal system where lawyers block you if reputations can be damaged. If you have never been in this situation you are fortunate, but this can happen to you, because it is happening to people every day.
Just like Robert Mugabe, our legal, medical and accountancy professions are indeed above the law. The dangerous thing is that most politicians want to keep things this way because it is financially in their interests.

Anonymous said...

BBC NEWS

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond will announce an independence referendum bill as the centrepiece of the SNP's plans for the coming year.
-------------------------------------
Yes Alex beat the independence drum, I am Scottish and I hope that the Scottish people reject independence. The union is good and do not tell us Westminster are a corrupt lot, politicians in general are corrupt as MSP's and MP's expenses demonstrated to the people of the United Kingdom. Clearly you want to be first minister of a banana republic, shame on you.

Anonymous said...

Independence Alex, no thanks.

Mr Salmond will reveal details of a total of 13 bills, marking the start of the SNP's third legislative session.

Other measures will include housing and crofting reform.

The announcements will be followed by a parliamentary debate at Holyrood.

There is one thing we can be sure about, NO BILL FOR REDUCING THE POWER OF SELF REGULATORS, AND PROTECTING THE PUBLIC.

Anonymous said...

The office of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman was abolished on 30 September 2008 and replaced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or SLCC, which opened on 1 October 2008. (Lawyers have less to worry about now).

If you currently have a complaint being investigated by the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, you do not need to do anything as the SLCC will complete the review and respond to you. (Cover up specialists).

The SLCC was set up under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to investigate complaints made by members of the public about services provided by legal practitioners in Scotland. (Do not trust them). It operates wholly independently of the legal profession, (Impossible lawyers work at the commission so this statement is untrue) provides a single gateway for taking a complaint forward and offers the services of trained mediators to aid resolution. (This organisation refuses to deal with complaints before October 2008, and if that does not demonstrate where it's loyalties lie I do not know what does. A lot of crooked lawyers are therefore in the clear).

Anonymous said...

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Chief Exec Eileen Masterman earns £70,000 p.a. While staggering salaries of up to £1,500 per week have been dished out to senior SLCC staff, and expenses of £300 plus, per day, 'handed out like smarties' to board members, consumers have not seen any improvement in handling complaints against crooked lawyers or improvements in standards of legal services.

So the anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission" remains silent regarding "Westminster’s 1996 condemnation of Law Society’s Master Policy. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas as Miss Masterman knows too well, so with people like her and Judge Lady Smith's husband on the commission and staff being wined and dined, the commission is like Mr MacAskill, unfit for purpose. Lawyers in a so called independent complaints commission which is mean to protect clients. Impossible.

Anonymous said...

"I wonder if he and the rest of the SLCC would like to meet the family of a dead client who put both barrels of a shotgun in his mouth and blew his brains out after finding out his lawyers had been stitching his Master Policy claim up all the time they were working on it. Would he call them frequent flyers too ?”

Oh that certainly makes my blood boil to hear that.What can we do against these horrible people ?

Anonymous said...

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/09/01/scotland.libya.lockerbie.documents/index.html

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Libya warned the United Kingdom that if the Lockerbie bomber died in prison in Scotland, it would have "catastrophic effects for the relationship between Libya and the U.K.," documents declassified Tuesday show.

The statement was made by Abdulati Alobidi, the Libyan minister for Europe, to a British Foreign Office minister in February and was repeated to Scottish officials the following month, newly declassified Scottish government notes from the meetings say.

Alobidi had earlier told Scottish officials it would be "a major problem should Mr. al Megrahi die in prison, and would be viewed as a form of death sentence."

The Scottish and British governments released more than 100 pages of previously secret government letters Tuesday.
-----------------------------------
I am Scottish and Kenny MacAskill has as much compassion for al Megrahi as he has for the victims of Pan Am 103 and the victims of Scottish Lawyers who committed suicide. He made this decision on a political and ecomomic basis rather than compassion. Typical politician lawyer liar, the world sees through your speech Kenny.

You could have put the man in a Scottish hospice Kenny as Anabel Goldie intimated in parliament. You are part of a government unfit to govern.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Scottish MSPs don’t want to raise motions condemning corruption in the legal profession.

What is the point in voting then?

9:56 PM

Answer : None whatsoever.

You only need to look at which legal firms handle the mortgages for which msps to see who wont vote for any clean up of the justice system/lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps our msps are afraid they will end up dead like McMaster if they take on the Law Society ?
Very sinister the whole thing but I see plenty mps signed it at London so why the cowardice in Scotland ?

Anonymous said...

Very interesting Peter.I have been reading through the Ponsonby interview and think its about time STV revisit this issue.Maybe you should contact them and get some media attention to the fact that nothing has changed in all these years since.

Keep up the good work !

Anonymous said...

The SLCC reluctance to comment on the Westminster Early Day Motion and the very serious issues arising from it is hardly surprising - their offices are populated by former Law Society employees transferred to the 'new', independent', Commission.

Don't expect any coverage either from STV, the BBC or the Scottish Press - they are all in the back pocket of business, and rely on insurers for policy coverage.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers clients

You have nowhere to go in Scotland to report a crooked lawyer. The Law Society of Scotland, the SLCC, will coverup what all lawyers do to clients.

Policicians could pass legislation to end self regulation. Why don't they. Clearly it is more profitable for them to protect crooked self regulators. They want lawyers to steal from you because they have the political power to stop them, but not the political will to stop them.

Lawyers, Politicians, Doctors, Accountants, view them as employees of Royal SunAlliance, because this company insure these people. They want things this way because there is no risk to the insurance company because, lawyers coverup what these people do to clients, consitituents, patients. Winston Churchill spoke about two tier justice, it is as relevant today as it was then.

Anonymous said...

I advise clients to contact the pressure groups about crooked lawyers because the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and it's parent the Law Society of Scotland are rotten with corruption.

If a client has strong written evidence, they are better to go public because they will enter a letter war with the above complaints bodies (that's a joke) and get nowhere. Lawyer strategy is simple, torture the client and prevent the client obtaining legal representation until the latter is exhausted and demoralised. They have TOTAL POWER OVER YOUR LIFE AND ARE REWARDED FOR PREVENTING YOU GETTING JUSTICE BY THEIR INSURERS.

Some people may say to me "if you feel this way do not have anything to do with lawyers". My answer, if I have a legal problem who else can I contact for help? ONLY CORRUPT LAWYERS.

Standards do not exist in this profession because when only lawyers are allowed to investigate a complaint from a client about the clients lawyer, what chance does the client have of a fair unbiased hearing. None. It is the same as the allies allowing Heinrich Himmler to investigate the brutallity of the SS against civillians during World War II.

This self regutation setup, is totally criminally corrupt, and it has protected these criminals who tell us we are under oath in court for centuries. The world should look at Scotland's legal system, it is controlled by unnacountable dictators who run it for profit, and ruin people's lives just like Robert Mugabe.