Disgraced lawyer banned by Legal Aid Board after £560K claims returns to work, Law Society takes no action to protect Scots consumers

Law Society of Scotland’s weak touch self-regulation allows ‘crooked lawyers’ to continue working for unsuspecting clients. THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND’S self serving, self protecting system of lawyers regulating each other has once again demonstrated the Scottish legal profession is thoroughly unfit to regulate its 10,000 solicitors and protect the client’s best interests at the same time, as the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed this weekend yet another ‘disgraced lawyer’ solicitor Steven Anderson, has returned to work after the Scottish Legal Aid Board found him guilt of making ‘unjustified claims’, while the Law Society has taken NO ACTION to protect the public.

The Sunday Mail’s investigation into Steven Anderson came after Scottish Legal Aid Board issued an earlier Press Release stating an investigation had found non-compliance with SLAB’s Code of Practice for Criminal Legal Assistance. The SLAB Press Release identified solicitor Steven Anderson, stating “this non‐compliance included: holding unnecessary meetings with clients, and making inappropriate, multiple and repetitive grants of advice and assistance”. Curiously however, the Press Release from the Scottish Legal Aid Board contained no figures of how much money in terms of claims to the Legal Aid Board Mr Anderson had received, now revealed by the Sunday Mail to stand at a staggering £560,330.

Scottish Legal Aid Board also identified other ‘non complying’ solicitors. One can only wonder why Mr Anderson’s staggering legal aid claims figure was omitted from SLAB’s earlier Press Release, which also named Iain Robertson, director of Roberston and Ross Limited & solicitor, Alistair Gibb, stating they had overcharged the Board for travel to various prisons, which resulted in a massive £221,847 repayment to SLAB, yet no prosecution by the Crown Office. You can read more about the SLAB announcement in my earlier report on the matter, here : Justice for all ? Scotland’s Crown Office refuse to prosecute ‘crooked lawyers’ who 'wrongly' claimed £221K in Legal Aid funds

While the Law Society has this week been engaged in a force feeding of ‘good press’ to some newspapers over the ‘achievements’ (rolling in the cash) of some solicitors in the legal profession to paper over the weekend’s reporting of the latest slew of ‘crooked lawyers’ operating in ‘regulatory anonymity’ I thought I would close the month of Augusts' coverage with a reminder of the true face of Scotland’s legal fraternity, along with a reminder of exactly what the Law Society did with regard to Mr Anderson’s apparently unnecessary legal aid claims. Nothing. The same nothing the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission do time & again when faced with thousands of complaints from Scots against their solicitors, and the question of what to do about ‘crooked lawyers’.

For solicitors who feel like fiddling the taxpayer, there should be an automatic striking off of any solicitor who falsely claims legal aid, as well as automatic prosecution in the criminal courts. Read on for the Sunday Mail’s excellent investigation :

Disgraced lawyer returns at a new firm after bagging £560k a year in legal aid claims

Aug 29 2010 Exclusive by Derek Alexander and Russell Findlay

A LAWYER banned from claiming legal aid after raking in more taxpayers’ cash than Scotland’s top QCs is back in business.

Legal aid investigators probed Steven Anderson after he pocketed £560,330 of public money in one year – eclipsing high-profile QC Donald Findlay’s £370,900 annual fees.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board found Anderson guilty of making unjustified claims and blocked £500,000 of pending payments. They also banned all future claims by the 52-year-old and his firm, Andersons Solicitors, in Springburn, Glasgow. The inquiry concluded that Anderson held unnecessary meetings with clients and made “inappropriate, multiple and repetitive” claims.

Anderson – whose ex-legal partner was jailed for storing guns for the McGovern crime clan – has been forced to close down his former firm. But Sunday Mail investigators have found it is business as usual for Anderson. Last week, he was working in the office of Lanigan Meechan & Co – where his old company were based. The firm even have the same phone number used by his old company.

Because of the legal aid ban, Anderson is only allowed to work for private clients who pay their own fees. Anderson, from Knightswood, Glasgow, said: “Every penny I claimed in legal aid can be justified and I have not obtained any payment by fraud. “I’d often work 16 hours a day and had two other solicitors working for me to spread the load. “I would regularly argue with SLAB about payments and I believe I’ve been deregistered because I was too much trouble. “They still owe me around £300,000 but they have offered to pay me less than 80 per cent of my submitted fees.”

Taxpayers last year forked out £150.4million in fees for those who couldn’t afford legal representation in Scotland.

In 2008-09, Anderson’s firm raked in £560,330 of legal aid. In that same year the top-earning firm in Scotland – Livingstone Brown, with around 20 lawyers and six offices – received £1.98million. The highest-earning QC was Donald Findlay, with £370,900 of legal aid, while Gordon Jackson QC got £314,100.

A SLAB spokesman said: “Where claims are inappropriate, these are not being paid. The outstanding sums claimed amount to around £500,000. “Mr Anderson has consistently failed to provide information necessary to support his claims and we await his response on a large number of cases. “The amount of staff resource required to deal with Mr Anderson’s accounts has been excessive.”

Anderson was previously cleared of a legal aid fiddle along with his ex-partner James McIntyre. The pair – along with a third partner – appeared before the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal in 1999 following a SLAB raid on their office. At the time, McIntyre was serving three years in prison for storing guns at his home in Linlithgow, West Lothian, for the Springburn-based McGovern family. He was later struck off.

Anderson is still registered at his old office address with the Law Society of Scotland. John Lanigan, a partner in Lanigan Meechan & Co said: “Steven Anderson has no connection with my firm but he’s based there.”

Justice Delayed ? Not when it comes to expenses claims as high earning Scots judges rake in at least £78K in ‘travel’ claims

Scotland’s top judges at the Court of Session claimed £78K expenses on top of huge salaries. EXPENSES CLAIMS of Scotland’s already high earning 34 judges at the country’s highest court, the Court of Session in Edinburgh topped a whopping ‘recorded’ sum of £78,988 in the last financial year, according to details released by the Scottish Government in response to a Freedom of Information request, continuing my reporting on the costs of Scotland’s justice system, which I initially covered here : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates

However, it transpires the amount claimed by judges may be higher as the Scottish Government, who were & still are responsible for paying judges salaries, ranging from a mere £172,753.00 for ‘outer house judges’ to the Lord President’s staggering £214,165.00 now admit there were no details held of the individual expenses claims for judges on a central database as the accounts system only recorded the totals charged against headings such as Travel and Subsistence.

The total Travel & Subsistence claims from Scotland’s 34 Senators of the College of Justice for the financial year 2009-10 was £78,988 of which, £16,299 was for Inner House judges, and the remaining £62,689 was for Outer House. The Scottish Government said the only other expenses they would record in the accounts are the Wig & Gown allowance, a one-off payment when a new judge is appointed. It transpired no such payments were made during 2009-10.

To the figures into perspective against the salaries of Scotland’s Court of Session judges :

Inner House

First Division

Lord Hamilton, the Lord President (Civil) and the Lord Justice General receives £214,165.00 p.a. Lord Kingarth, Lord Eassie, Lord Reed & Lord Hardie each receive £196,707.00 p.a.

Second Division

Lord Gill, Lord Justice Clerk receives £206,857.00 p.a. Lord Osborne , Lady Paton, Lord Carloway, Lord Clarke & Lord Mackay of Drumadoon each receive £196,707.00 p.a.

Outer House (all 23 judges receive £172,753.00 p.a.)

Lord Bonomy, Lord Menzies, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Emslie, Lady Smith, Lord Brodie, Lord Bracadale, Lady Dorrian, Lord Hodge, Lord Glennie, Lord Kinclaven, Lord Turnbull, Lady Clark of Calton, Lord Brailsford, Lord Uist, Lord Malcolm, Lord Matthews, Lord Woolman, Lord Pentland, Lord Bannatyne, Lady Stacey, Lord Tyre, & Lord Doherty

Scotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton heads the new Scottish Court Service Corporate Body, a duty of which will be to keep an eye on expenses. The disclosure from the Scottish Government went onto state that although Scottish Government remains responsible for paying judges salaries, from 1 April 2010 responsibility for paying all other judicial expenses transferred to the Judicial Office as part of the new Scottish Court Service corporate body, established following implementation of the Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

The Lord President, Lord Hamilton is of course, the head of the new Scottish Court Service corporate body, which I reported on earlier this year, here : Scottish Courts Service becomes an ‘arm's length’ independent quango led by Lord President & corporate board

While the Scottish Government apparently did not hold details of judges individual expenses claims, the situation in England & Wales is markedly different, with all judicial expenses being registered, where ‘the expenses claims of High Court Judges and above are recorded in such a way that they can be attributed to individual judges and published at regular intervals’.

Details of the English judicial expenses system and figures can be found here : Judicial Expenses for England & Wales, and as expenses are now to be ‘held centrally’ by the new Judicial Office, it is to be hoped a similar air of transparency regarding judicial expenses claims will prevail in Scotland, with all expenses details being published online, in keeping with the rest of the UK.

Civil Courts Review one year on : Scotland’s out-of-reach justice system remains Victorian, untrustworthy and still controlled by vested interests

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review published in 2009 recommended significant reforms to Scots justice system. THE CIVIL COURTS REVIEW, the two year review undertaken by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill which recommended significant, wide ranging reforms to Scotland’s antiquated Civil Justice system, is about to face its first anniversary since publication. However, a year on since the report was launched amid a blaze of publicity, there is little to show by way of reforms to the justice system, which Lord Gill himself branded “Victorian”, failing to deliver efficiency of justice or Scots accessibility of justice.

Lord Gill, in his speech to the Law Society of Scotland’s 60 year anniversary conference last year, said : “The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that had survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in substance its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and it is failing society."

He continued : "It is essential that we should have a system that has disputes resolved at a judicial level that is appropriate to their degree of importance and that disputes should be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently and without unnecessary or unreasonable cost. That means that the judicial structure should be based on a proper hierarchy of courts and that the procedures should be appropriate to the nature and the importance of the case, in terms of time and cost.”

“Scottish civil justice fails on all of these counts. Its delays are notorious. It costs deter litigants whose claims may be well-founded. Its procedures cause frustration and obstruct rather than facilitate the achievement of justice."

"Unless there is major reform and soon, individual litigants will be prevented from securing their rights, commercial litigants will continue to look elsewhere for a forum for their claims, public confidence in the judicial system will be further eroded, Scotland’s economic development will be hindered, and Scots law will atrophy as an independent legal system.”

Here we are at the end of August 2010, and sadly little has changed.

Lord Gill’s definition of “major reform and soon” must have translated badly to the Scottish Government & Parliament, falling on the traditionally deaf ears of Scots politicians and the legal establishment, ever keen to ensure ‘access to justice’ remains a money making empire for the legal profession, rather than actually affording the right of access to justice to all Scots in our own country.

Readers can download the Civil Courts Review report in pdf format, from the Scottish Courts Website at the following links :

• Volume 1 Chapter 1 - 9 (Covers McKenzie Friends, procedures, advice etc, 2.99Mb)
  
• Volume 2 Chapter 10 - 15 (Covers mainly the issue of Class (multi party) actions etc, 2.16Mb)
  
• Synopsis (215Kb)

Of course, it must be pointed out one notable success since the Civil Courts Review was published last September, is the partial implementation of McKenzie Friends for Scotland, so far introduced to the Court of Session and soon to be introduced to all Sheriff Courts in Scotland.

McKenzie Friends for Scotland were only forced through to implementation after Holyrood Petition & November 2009 court ruling. However, the introduction of McKenzie Friends would probably not even have occurred had it not been for two key developments since Lord Gill made his recommendation to introduce the internationally acclaimed lay courtroom helper, where Petition 1247 filed at the Scottish Parliament by Stewart MacKenzie gained significant support & public exposure, effectively forcing the entire issue of lay assistance into the public spotlight, aided by Lord Woolman’s November 2009 ruling in the case of M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01), which overtook the slow pace of events at Holyrood and introduced Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session.

We are now left with the majority of Lord Gill’s recommendations still to be implemented, as the likes of the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates seek ways to ensure implementation of the Civil Courts Review’s aim of ‘wider, more efficient access to justice for all Scots’ also equates to pounds in the pockets of solicitors & advocates, rather than heaven forbid, reforming the justice system to the point that most people do not need to run up huge bills with law firms for litigation which could be heard and judged upon in a much speedier, consumer friendly updated civil justice system which the Civil Courts Review recommended.

Indeed, it was the Faculty of Advocates who effectively began the official ‘talking down’ of the Civil Courts Review, as I reported earlier, here : Process of ‘watering down’ Lord Gill’s civil courts reforms begins as Faculty of Advocates question public benefit, costs of access to justice changes

Readers should also note the Scottish Parliament’s debate on Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review was much less than an assurance the rights of ordinary Scots to justice would be put before the interests of the legal establishment, as I reported earlier, here : Holyrood debate reveals civil justice reforms & McKenzie Friends may be a long way off as Scottish Ministers stumble over Lord Gill review proposals

Dean of Faculty supported calls for Class Actions in early 2009, yet over a year on nothing has happened. One example of the malaise which has hit the Civil Courts Review is that of the introduction of Class Actions to the Scottish justice system, an idea once supported by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen QC, as an idea to take on the big banks. However, since Mr Keen’s call to allow class actions against banks was featured in the Scotsman newspaper in January 2009, the banks have of course, recovered somewhat from their weak bargaining positions of early 2009, and, with a little cash injection of extra sponsorship of events held by the Scottish legal profession, calls for the introduction of class actions since early 2009 have been all but silenced by, what many would term ‘hush money’.

October 2009 : Shirley Anne Somerville MSP speaks on the merits of introducing Class Actions to Scotland, yet one year on, not a hint anything on Class Actions will happen soon.

Holyrood goes slow on justice reforms, so Scots must give their views, campaign for wider access to justice to be implemented sooner rather than later. While Scots wait, and wait, and wait, and wait for the Scottish Government & Parliament to actually do something and ensure the many reforms of the Civil Courts Review are implemented, hopefully sometime before the next election, instead of sometime in the next 500 years, readers can also give their input into the Civil Justice Advisory Group, who have launched their own consultation on the best way forward for implementing the many recommendations made by Lord Gill’s report, an issue I reported on in early August, here : Consumers urged to give their views as Civil Justice Advisory Group launches consultation on key proposals of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review

The consultation and seminar feedback will help the Group in formulating a detailed report to the Scottish Government on how it should take forward some of the recommendations of the Scottish civil courts review report.

The consultation paper can be accessed by clicking here : Civil Justice Consultation Response Paper (pdf)

Responses to the consultation should be submitted to Consumer Focus Scotland before 24th September 2010 by email to : civil.justice@consumerfocus.org.uk or via the online response form

By post to :
Civil Justice Advisory Group Consultation
Consumer Focus Scotland
Royal Exchange House
100 Queen Street
Glasgow
G1 3DN

I would urge as many readers as possible to take part in this consultation, for the benefit of yourself and all Scots who need access to a fairer, much improved Civil Justice system in our own land. Access to justice for one, access to justice for all !

Information Commissioner investigates ‘anonymous threats’ claims at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after law quango refuse FOI requests

Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion investigates Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claims of ‘anonymous’ threats. CLAIMS OF ANONYMOUS THREATS allegedly directed to members of staff and other individuals connected to the controversial law complaints regulator, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are to be investigated by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, after the SLCC refused to provide Mr Dunion’s office and journalists making Freedom of Information requests on the subject with any evidence to support the claims, which legal insiders today commented, if accurate, should also be investigated by the Police.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claimed they had received ‘anonymous’ threats. The now suspect claims of ‘anonymous threats’ were made by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to the Information Commissioner’s office on two separate occasions in response to investigations being carried out by Mr Dunion’s staff into the SLCC’s refusal to disclose controversial evidence in response to Freedom of Information requests, evidence which included senior SLCC board members lambasting consumers over their input into an investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, an investigation which linked financial claims of negligence against ‘crooked lawyers’ to the suicides of clients, an issue long kept secret by the Scottish legal profession.

Master Policy secrecy : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission attempted to thwart disclosure & publication of key evidence of Master Policy Research by making unsupported allegations of threats received. In a decision earlier this year (Decision 89/2010), relating to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its handling of FOI requests for information connected with the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, now known to have caused deaths among consumers, the Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion stated : “The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by individuals and other individuals connected to the SLCC. However, the Commissioner has not received any evidence of such threats to people such as the individuals in question.”

The effect of Mr Dunion’s decision regarding the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and their refusal to hand over key documents, can be read in an earlier report, here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission faced a further investigation after it chose to censor FOI disclosures to specific journalists amid fears of media attention. In a subsequent investigation carried out by the Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s censorship of its board minutes in reposes to Freedom of Information requests from certain journalists, the SLCC made additional claims it had received ‘anonymous threats’, apparently hoping this would be enough to prevent an order for disclosure. The FOI Commissioner again reported that no evidence had been produced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to back up its claims.

Claims of more ‘anonymous threats’ were made by the SLCC during a second investigation by the FOI Commissioner. Mr Dunion, in a second decision involving the SLCC and its selective censorship of its own board minutes (Decision 101/2010) commented on the additional claims made by the SLCC of ‘anonymous threats’, saying: “The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by members of staff and other individuals connected to the SLCC. The SLCC also referred to threats made to other bodies. 56. The Commissioner notes that the individuals in question here are not employees of the SLCC and do not work in SLCC buildings. While he recognises that some of the individuals whose details have been withheld are connected to bodies to which threats have been made, he considers that the profile and role of those individuals is such that their relationship with the SLCC is likely to be public knowledge. The Commissioner cannot therefore accept that the disclosing their names from the minutes is likely to endanger, or will endanger, their health and safety in terms of section 39(1) of FOISA.”

“57. In most other cases, the individuals are not connected to such bodies. The Commissioner has not been provided with any evidence of danger, or likelihood of danger, to the health or safety these third parties, and cannot accept that section 39(1) applies to this information.”

A legal insider commented on the claims of ‘anonymous threats’ made by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, saying he believed the SLCC were making spurious claims in order to excuse deficiencies within their operations which could be revealed by Freedom of Information.

He said : “If there is no evidence produced by the SLCC of these actual threats, which, given their alleged very serious nature I would have expected to have been reported to Police, then it is highly likely in my opinion the SLCC are seeking to abuse Freedom of Information legislation, in terms of their own handling of FOI requests and their input into investigations carried out by the Information Commissioner himself.”

He continued : “In the circumstances, where it appears the SLCC made their claim to the Information Commissioner in the hope it would influence the outcome of his investigation, I would urge Mr Dunion to establish whether there is any truth to the SLCC’s claims it’s staff or staff from other bodies it referred to have been threatened.”

It has been known for public bodies to claim the mental welfare & health of their staff would be threatened if, for example, information on expenses claims were released as a result of Freedom of Information legislation, but here we have a key public body involved in the regulation of complaints against the legal profession claiming it has received ‘anonymous threats’. Clearly there is a significant public interest in this case to establish whether there is any truth to the SLCC’s claims and if true, have the issues been thoroughly investigated by the authorities and the required action taken.

If however, there is no truth to the allegations, we are left with the only possibly conclusion in that the SLCC presented false information to the Information Commissioner, a matter which would clearly reflect on the SLCC’s credibility and the individual who signed off on the claims to the Information Commissioner.

The Scottish Government refused to back the SLCC over ‘anonymous threats’ claims to the Information Commissioner. The Scottish Government, asked for a comment on the situation, apparently refusing to support the SLCC’s claims, stated : “‘The SLCC has been established as an independent body to oversee complaints against the legal profession. Having established the SLCC as an independent body, it would be wholly inappropriate for Ministers to provide a running commentary on issues concerning it.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refused to make any comment on the matter or offer any statement to support their claims now being investigated by the FOI Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

McKenzie Friends ‘on the way’ to Scotland’s Sheriff Courts, application procedure to be ‘less formal’ than Court of Session

McKenzie Friends will soon appear to assist party litigants in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts. SHERIFF COURTS across Scotland are on the way to formalising the arrangements for unrepresented party litigants to obtain the services of a McKenzie Friend, the usually non-lawyer lay courtroom helpers which have provided invaluable assistance to thousands of party litigants in the English court system for the past forty years, after the Sheriff Court Rules Council let it be known their work on the issue is at draft stage, hopefully soon to be concluded.

A spokesman for the Sheriff Court Rules Council on being asked about the developments to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s Sheriff Courts after I had reported earlier on the Sheriff Court Rules Council’s consideration of the issue, said yesterday : “I can confirm that the Sheriff Court Rules Council considered draft rules for the use of a McKenzie Friend in civil proceedings in the sheriff court at its meeting on 6 August.“

He continued : “The Council agreed with the recommendation of its working group that a different approach to that of the Court of Session was necessary namely that the procedure involved should be less formal with no certification as regards the suitability of the individual which the party litigant wishes to assist in the conduct of the proceedings being required. I should advise you also that the draft rules require some amendment so they are still under consideration by the Council.”

Lord Hamilton & Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill were caught out by speed & widespread support of Holyrood McKenzie Friends Petition. The Sheriff Court Rules Council’s consideration of the McKenzie Friend question, follows the implementation of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s Highest court, the Court of Session after Scotland’s Chief Judge, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, and the Scottish Government were caught on the hop when a public petition (Petition 1247) was filed at the Scottish Parliament by Stewart MacKenzie, asking Holyrood’s Petitions Committee to address the 40 year exclusion of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts. Video footage of the Scottish Parliament’s hearings on Petition 1247 can be viewed online at InjusticeTV.

Lord Gill proposed McKenzie Friends in Civil Courts review. Progress to finally bring lay assistants to Scotland’s civil courts was helped considerably by McKenzie Friends being recommended by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill who had spent considerable time on the issue of lay representation as part of the two year Civil Courts Review. Lord Gill had also recommended a ‘super McKenzie Friend’ with a right of audience, enabling a lay assistant to address the court on behalf of party litigants, a proposal now part of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which I recently reported here : McKenzie Friends from today in Court of Session, Lord Gill’s ‘super’ McKenzie Friend with rights of audience proposal goes to Holyrood

Court of Session judge Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in late 2009. Not long after Lord Gill’s report on civil law reforms was published, a decision in what appears to be Scotland’s longest running civil claims action, now in its f o u r t e e n t h year, M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01), overtook events at Holyrood and introduced Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session, granted by Lord Woolman, making the decision to introduce McKenzie Friends to general use in the Court of Session and lower Sheriff Courts, a formality, albeit a decision taking the best part of a year to complete.

Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates initially objected to Holyrood Petition bringing McKenzie Friends to Scottish Courts. The exclusion of McKenzie Friends from Scottish Courts has been attributed by many seasoned law reform campaigners, several politicians and even some insiders within the legal profession to the lobbying power of the Law Society of Scotland, who, along with the Faculty of Advocates, initially opposed calls to introduce the internationally acclaimed lay courtroom helper to Scotland’s courts, over fears consumers would turn to McKenzie Friends to save themselves the notoriously unjustifiably huge solicitor’s fees which are typical of even the simplest court actions in Scotland, a well known obstacle to justice which has excluded many members of the public from gaining access to Scotland’s courts over the past four decades.

However, while the legal profession have traditionally viewed themselves as the providers of access to justice to Scots, the fact is the legal profession are simply a multi billion pound business, who for many years have themselves monopolised Scots access to the court system & access to legal services, in effect, selecting who among Scotland’s population had access to justice, while excluding those who the Law Society decided should not be allowed near a court. Many know this to be true, as do many of Scotland’s highest judges. There are thousands of examples a year to support this view, with a trail of people left out in the cold by the legal profession who as a whole have little regard for the rights of individuals unless there is a huge amount of money to be made from their predicament.

Placing the interests of what is nothing more than a business above the rights of Scots to enjoy unfettered access to justice, is wholly wrong, and for this reason, many consumer groups across the UK backed the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts, to increase Scottish consumer’s access to justice.

A senior official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations today welcomed the developments from the Sheriff Court Rules Council, expressing hope the Scottish Court Service would offer written guidance in all of Scotland’s Sheriff Courts to assist members of the public on the issue, allowing informed choices to be made on using McKenzie Friends in cases which may benefit consumers & the interests of justice considerably by the use of lay assistants in many common types of cases which currently fall victim to unscrupulous solicitors who unnecessarily complicate even the simplest of Sheriff Court cases to ensure larger fees for their little input.

However, a Scottish Parliament insider said he was slightly disappointed the Sheriff Court Rules Council had not been able to proceed the matter at a faster pace, as the Petitions Committee was due to hear Petition 1247 in September and had hoped to report the availability of McKenzie Friends in all of Scotland’s courts, bringing the Committee’s consideration of the issue to a successful conclusion.

You can read my earlier coverage of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland : The story so far

All written submissions for the McKenzie Friend petition at the Scottish Parliament can be read here : Written submissions for Petition 1247, McKenzie Friends for Scotland

R.I.P. OFF : Lack of independent regulation reveals solicitors, accountants & will writers should not be trusted on wills, final wishes & bequests

Will fraud by solicitors, will-writers & accountants prove many professions cannot be trusted with consumers final wishes. A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN by solicitors & other financial professionals to retain market dominance in the multi billion pound will writing & will handling business in the UK has been brought back into focus in the past two weeks after allegations were made by solicitors against ‘cowboy’ will-writing private companies offering the same poor, often extortionately costing & woefully under regulated services for will-writing & will handling as many people have already experienced from the legal profession, who currently dominate the will writing & will handling market.

Put simply, solicitors, accountants, will-writers and all their colleagues who are in the will writing & will handling business, should not be trusted by members of the public to handle wills, final wishes & bequests. All are as bad as each other, and all are as poorly regulated as each other. Not one to mend another – trust one over the other, and you are sure to be ripped off, either by the solicitor, the accountant, the bank, or the will-writer.

Sure, there are many professional bodies who openly & publicly guarantee their so-called professional members will never rip off your will, will never rip off your remaining family, will never ruin your final wishes & take what you leave behind for themselves, but the sad truth is all these guarantees are hollow, as hollow as a rotted tree with no innards. I covered this issue in more detail in November 2009, here : Consumer warning on wills : Don't make your lawyer your executor as soaring cases of 'will fraud' show Law Society closes ranks on complaints

Ripping off the dead - Guarantees from the Law Society of Scotland of professionalism of their solicitors on handling wills are worthless as the media reports time & again. Trust a lawyer to handle your will, and you may well get one of the many Andrew Penmans running around, more of which you can read about here : Solicitors who rip off dead clients : How Borders solicitor Andrew Penman ruined an executry estate Trust an accountant as your executor, and you may well get one of the many Norman Howitts running around, more of which you can read about here : Accountants who rip off wills & abuse their positions as Executors : How Borders accountant Norman Howitt ruined a will and a family

Last week, the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners - the international professional body for workers in the trust industry and the (often overlapping) field of estate administration whose members are mainly solicitors, barristers, attorneys, accountants, trust officers and trust administrators as well as banking and insurance professionals in the trust field, issued a press release claiming that a Survey Reveals Incompetence and Dishonesty of “Cowboy” Will Writers. The Press Release from STEP, bearing in mind their membership includes solicitors, accountants & bankers, reads as follows :

Interim results from a survey published today by the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP), reveal the scale of the threat posed to the consumer from cowboys in the will writing market. The survey found that 75% of STEP members have encountered cases of “incompetence or dishonesty in the will writing market in the last 12 months”, and prompted STEP to again call for better consumer protection. Two thirds of respondents reported coming across hidden fees which were not outlined in the stated price for a will, and 63% had direct experience of cases where will writing companies had gone out of business and disappeared with their clients’ wills. Just over one third had encountered cases where incompetence had led to significant additional tax bills.

Chief Executive David Harvey said: “This research shows how widespread cowboy will writers have become and it is clear those who charge a fee for writing a will should now be regulated. They must have an appropriate qualification, and they must have proper indemnity insurance. Soon the consumer will be protected by new regulation in Scotland and this benefit needs to be extended to cover the rest of the UK."

Examples of malpractice included a company which approached young mothers in shopping malls, telling them their children would be taken into care after they died if they failed to make a will. One consumer was charged £12,000 up-front for executor services only for their family to find the firm involved had gone out of business not long after, disappearing with their wills and money. In June the Legal Services Board launched a review of the threat posed to consumers in England & Wales by unprofessional will writers and is currently seeking evidence of consumer harm. The Scottish Parliament is currently going through the process of regulating non-lawyer will writers through the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.

Certainly an interesting Press Release from STEP, but it hardly tells the real story of what is going on in the UK will industry, where solicitors dominate the market. Notably, STEP use an example where one consumer was charged £12,000 up-front for executor services yet the Scottish legal profession can beat that hands down, where, to quote one example, Edinburgh law firm Turcan Connell charged fees of more than £16,000 to administer an estate with net assets of under £14,000 – and the Law Society then rejected a complaint from the deceased client’s widow, Dr Kate Forrest.

The Herald newspaper reported : “[Dr] Forrest complained that the firm had told her only that it would charge £200 an hour, had entered into unnecessary work, and had failed to give her estimates, or issue itemised bills, despite repeated requests. She claims the firm then gave an undertaking to halt the charges, in a meeting with witnesses at the firm's office, but this did not materialise. When the Law Society examined the complaint, it ruled that the meeting could not be taken into account as the firm had no record of it, and it accepted an explanation by managing partner Douglas Connell that the complaint had been based entirely on a "misunderstanding". The £16,000 in charges had the effect of more than wiping out any assets in the estate, which had gross assets of £69,574 but debts of £55,731.”

Hardly a glowing recommendation for regulation by the Law Society of Scotland of solicitors handling wills, rather it proves deceased clients will be ripped off by any professional, with no recourse for their remaining family while the solicitor gets away with it – the perfect, ultimate, R.I.P. OFF.

BBC Panorama report into corruption in the will writing industry omitted problems of solicitors ripping off dead clients. Coincidentally, the BBC’s Panorama programme ran a report on the wills industry, highlighting various rip offs by will-writing companies. The programme bizarrely implied while will-writing companies were quite obviously ripping off consumers to the tune of thousands of pounds, the situation was very different if a solicitor handled a will – something many victims of solicitors mishandling wills all across the UK could easily dispute. Curiously the BBC Panorama programme on this issue is now no longer available, although readers can still view a summarised text version of the report carried out by Panorama journalist Vivian White, here : Call for tighter will-writing laws as consumers duped

The new regulation in Scotland which STEP are referring to in their Press Release, relates to amendments contained in the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which may well end up seeing the Law Society of Scotland regulate non-lawyer will writers. I reporter on the Scottish plans for regulation of non-lawyer will writers, here : Scottish Government plan to regulate non-lawyer 'will writers' may see Law Society regulate all complaints against mishandled wills, legal business

Consumers should be in no doubt the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is turning into one of the biggest rip offs of consumer choice of legal services in Scotland, a far cry from the intentions of the Which? super complaint and the Office of Fair Trading’s report into lawyers dominance of Scotland’s legal services marketplace.

Since the Law Society of Scotland (dubbed by some as the 'World's worst regulator') cant even regulate their own member solicitors when it comes to defrauding deceased clients, wills, executry estates & beneficiaries, I doubt the Law Society is going to be very effective in regulating anyone else who is involved in the rip off will writing & handling industry, unless of course, the Law Society simply use their regulatory powers as an excuse to wipe out the competition, ensuring everyone has to use a lawyer to write or handle a will.

This advice may be hard to swallow, but take it from one who has witnessed, investigated and been a victim of solicitors ripping off the dead – trust no lawyer, accountant, will writer, or any other so-called professional when it comes to your will & final testament, and never appoint one as your executor … its the sure fire road to perdition ….

Court's refusal of appeal over Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's dismissal of complaint against solicitor highlights need of SLCC ombudsman

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission needs external oversight, appeals tribunal, claim consumer groups. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission along the lines of the former office of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman which scrutinised the Law Society of Scotland, but with extra powers of a tribunal appeals process & enforcement of decisions is now a must, claim consumer groups & legal insiders after a recent case in which a member of the public unsuccessfully applied to Scotland’s highest court, the Court of Session to be granted leave to appeal a decision by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to reject complaints made against a solicitor.

The appeal, raised by a Ms Debbie Chen Williams against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s decision not to investigate complaints she had made against her solicitor, arose from legal representation Ms Williams received after she was charged on summary complaint with assault and breach of the peace at the Dunrowan Resource Centre in Falkirk. After a trial at Falkirk Sheriff Court on 28 October 2008, Ms Williams was convicted of the breach of the peace and acquitted of the assault. The penalty was admonition.

Ms Williams, in her application to the Court of Session, claimed her solicitor “had been unfamiliar with her case; agreed to evidence which she did not accept; failed to obtain an "Appropriate Adult" to be with her in court; failed to call relevant witnesses; failed to lodge relevant productions; threatened to withdraw from acting; failed to persuade the sheriff that he (the solicitor) could not properly represent the applicant; lacked interest in the case; failed to complain that the applicant had been victimised during the trial; not raised the issue of provocation; failed to raise issues of racial and disability discrimination; failed to assist her after the conviction; and, finally, tried to persuade her to plead guilty.” It was also alleged in the application to the court, Ms Williams had sustained injuries while in custody,

Ms William’s application to challenge was refused by Lord Calloway in an opinion handed down on 25 June 2010. Lord Calloway’s opinion, reproduced in full at the end of this report, concluded “The Court does not consider that it has been demonstrated that there is any merit in the applicant's case, as it was presented to the Commission. This application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations criticised the current requirements of those challenging decisions made by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who are forced to go to court.

She said : “l do not wish to comment on any specific case. However, the Court of Session’s refusal of leave to appeal a decision of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission highlights the need for a additional layer of oversight of the Commission, where an independent ombudsman’s office along the lines of the former Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman may be better placed in the first instance to deal with matters arising from appeals by either solicitors or complainers against SLCC decisions.”

She continued : “Clearly if there had been an ombudsman for the SLCC, complainers & solicitors would have an extra lawyer of scrutiny of decisions taken by the Commission, possibly preventing in most cases of dispute, any need for a court challenge.

"If a complainer or solicitor ultimately felt the need to challenge the SLCC's decision in court, any investigation carried out by an ombudsman could establish a greater degree of clarity on the disputed areas of a complaint or the SLCC's investigation of it, issues which are by no means clear from the way the Commission currently handle complaints against solicitors.”

A legal insider rounded on the Scottish Parliament for failing to enact some kind of appeals tribunal or external oversight of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which would lessen the need for court intervention.

He said : “Wasting the court’s time with appeals against the SLCC’s decisions on complaints against solicitors is a clear indication the LPLA Act was poorly drafted. At the very least, there should be an appeals tribunal mechanism for the Commission’s decisions before either party in the complaint feel they must approach the court.”

A Holyrood insider who worked on the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 during its difficult passage as the LPLA Bill in the Scottish Parliament in 2006, backed the idea of independent oversight of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, However, he urged caution to members of the public using the Court of Session to challenge the SLCC’s decisions on complaints.

He said : “While I appreciate going to court is currently the only option of challenging the SLCC’s decisions, clients who make complaints against their solicitors should realise there is historically little will on the part of the courts system to become embroiled in regulation of the legal profession.”

He continued : “Clients who feel they have been maligned by the SLCC’s decisions should channel their energies in campaigning for independent oversight of the Commission’s decisions which may prove a lot more useful in the long run than a string of rejections at the Court of Session which the SLCC will cynically use time & again as a basis to refuse to investigate complaints against the legal profession.”

Rosemary Agnew, the Acting Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refused to give any comment on the case. Also no word was given on whether the SLCC intended to recover its legal expenses.

Opinion of the Court of Session in the case of Debbie Chen Williams against a decision of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
Lord Carloway, Lord Hardie, Lord Bonomy

[2010] CSIH 73 XA174/09

OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CARLOWAY in the application by DEBBIE CHEN WILLIAMS against a Decision of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Act: Dawson; Macbeth Currie Alt: D E L Johnston, Q.C.; Anderson Strathern

25 June 2010

[1] The applicant was charged on summary complaint with assault and breach of the peace at the Dunrowan Resource Centre. She proceeded to trial at Falkirk Sheriff Court on 28 October 2008. Although there is some confusion on this matter, it was the Commission's understanding that the applicant was convicted of the breach of the peace and acquitted of the assault. The penalty was admonition.

[2] The applicant complained about the quality of her representation to the Commission in terms of sub-section (2)(1) of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. In particular, she maintained that her solicitor had: been unfamiliar with her case; agreed to evidence which she did not accept; failed to obtain an "Appropriate Adult" to be with her in court; failed to call relevant witnesses; failed to lodge relevant productions; threatened to withdraw from acting; failed to persuade the sheriff that he (the solicitor) could not properly represent the applicant; lacked interest in the case; failed to complain that the applicant had been victimised during the trial; not raised the issue of provocation; failed to raise issues of racial and disability discrimination; failed to assist her after the conviction; and, finally, tried to persuade her to plead guilty.

[3] On 14 October 2009 the complaint was dismissed by the Commission as "totally without merit" in terms of sub-section 2(4) of the 2007 Act. The Commission considered how a reasonable person might perceive the complaint in light of the information presented to them. They observed that, on 23 October 2008, prior to the trial, there had been a lengthy meeting between the applicant and the solicitor, after which the solicitor thought that he had understood the case. He had witness statements from the procurator fiscal, which he went through with the applicant and noted her position. He had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the procurator fiscal not to proceed with the charges given the applicant's Asperger's syndrome.

The Commission noted that, in her initial complaint, the applicant had not stated what witnesses might have been called and which productions could have been lodged for the defence. There was a psychiatric report, which the court has been told was dated April 2008, stating that the applicant was sane and fit to plead (in the sense of being able to understand the proceedings and give appropriate instructions) and the solicitor had not considered that an Appropriate Adult was required.

There had been two occasions when the solicitor had considered withdrawing from acting, once when there was a problem with legal aid and once following a personal comment, which the solicitor said the applicant had made towards him. In the event, he did not withdraw from acting on any of these grounds, although two previous solicitors had done so.

[4] On 14 October 2009 the Commission concluded that there was nothing to suggest that the solicitor had failed to conduct the trial in an appropriate manner, using his professional judgment and expertise in that respect. No evidence of inadequate professional service, unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct had, in the view of the Commission, been made out.

[5] In her written application, the applicant seeks to appeal the Commission's decision on the basis that, in a letter to the Commission dated 1 September 2009, she had specified the names of two witnesses, notably M.W., her husband, and R.P., who the applicant says should have been precognosced and called to testify. That letter had referred to the solicitor's failure to lodge a medical report on, and photographs of, the applicant's injuries which she had received, she said, when she had been in custody.

The solicitor should also have obtained a report from the applicant's general medical practitioner concerning not only her injuries but the applicant's account of how she had sustained them. Furthermore, the Commission had a letter from the applicant dated 17 September 2009 complaining about the solicitor agreeing the evidence of a police officer.

[6] The Commission's enquiry had revealed that the solicitor had explained that he had discussed agreeing the evidence of the police officer with the applicant and his position was that she had consented to it being agreed. At no point during that enquiry had it been explained to the Commission what the relevance of the named witnesses' testimony might be. Neither had been present at the time of the incidents. At no point either had the applicant explained the relevance of the productions which she wished lodged.

[7] Before granting leave to appeal, the Court requires to be satisfied that an appeal in terms of section 21 of the 2007 Act has a real prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why it should be heard. The available grounds specified in section 21 are essentially matters which would previously have been described as errors of law. The Court does not consider that any of these grounds has been made out.

[8] Before the Court, a detailed explanation was given about a number of potential grounds of appeal which were said, in particular, to be relevant to sub-sections 21(4)(a) to (c). These included that certain matters ought to have been taken into consideration by the Commission and that further enquiries ought to have been carried out by the Commission in light of the information proffered by the applicant. It was also said that the solicitor had failed to advance certain defences, including automatism and self defence, at the trial and that proper enquiries had not been made by him in advance of the trial.

Although much detail was given of potential grounds of appeal, it is not unreasonable to comment that these are not foreshadowed in the written application for leave to appeal before the Court. Indeed, in the application itself there is no attempt to categorise any of the complaints narrated in paragraphs 2(a), (b) and (c) of the application in terms of section 21(4). But, in any event, it remains the position, when looking at the papers which were before the Commission, that the applicant did not explain what relevance the witnesses or productions might have had in the context of the summary trial.

The facts presented even now by the applicant would not have constituted a defence of automatism or self defence and provocation is not a defence. The significance of agreeing the policeman's evidence was also not explained, given that the officer was simply corroborating a colleague. Apart from these matters, the complaint appears to relate primarily to the applicant's impression of the solicitor's attitude rather than to his conduct.

Indeed, from the information presented to the Commission, the solicitor appears to have taken on the applicant's case at short notice, presented the relevant salient features of it to the Sheriff and achieved a measure of success. He had asked for an adjournment of the trial but this had been refused because the diet had been the fifth fixed for trial.

In these circumstances, like the Commission, the Court does not consider that it has been demonstrated that there is any merit in the applicant's case, as it was presented to the Commission. This application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.

The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates

Scotland’s Chief Judge, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton. SCOTS LITIGANTS who in some cases can spend many years waiting to gain dates for their cases to be heard in Scotland’s highest court, the Court of Session, may wish to spare a thought for the workload of the 34 Senators of the College of Justice (the Judges), who receive, (according to a Freedom of Information release from the Scottish Government), a collective annual salary of just over £6.1 million to keep Scots justice & the Court of Session rolling, ensuring justice is delivered as swiftly as is practicable in Scotland’s aging, sometimes dubbed ‘Victorian justice system’.

Admittedly, the ‘swiftness’ of the delivery of verdicts from the 34 judges can vary wildly, if for instance, the subject matter of the cases being heard involves those so-called ‘pillars’ of Scots public life, such as the legal, financial, or medical professions, public services, or public authorities, where cases have been known to drag on for years, astoundingly some even for over a decade.

As attitudes to justice change, along with public expectations of a more modern, functioning, fairer justice system – expectations recognised by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill in his excellent Civil Courts Review, perhaps its time for the Senators of the College of Justice to take a firmer hand against those same professions, public bodies & the like who regularly use Scotland’s highest court as a tool to deny justice to many individuals maligned by the many serious issues which merit the courts attention …

Salaries of Scotland’s 34 Judges of the Court of Session, who each earn more than the UK Prime Minister :

Inner House

First Division

Lord Hamilton, the Lord President (Civil) and the Lord Justice General receives £214,165.00 p.a.
Lord Kingarth, Lord Eassie, Lord Reed & Lord Hardie each receive £196,707.00 p.a.

Second Division

Lord Gill, Lord Justice Clerk receives £206,857.00 p.a.
Lord Osborne , Lady Paton, Lord Carloway, Lord Clarke & Lord Mackay of Drumadoon each receive £196,707.00 p.a.

Outer House (all 23 judges receive £172,753.00 p.a.)

Lord Bonomy, Lord Menzies, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Emslie, Lady Smith, Lord Brodie, Lord Bracadale, Lady Dorrian, Lord Hodge, Lord Glennie, Lord Kinclaven, Lord Turnbull, Lady Clark of Calton, Lord Brailsford, Lord Uist, Lord Malcolm, Lord Matthews, Lord Woolman, Lord Pentland, Lord Bannatyne, Lady Stacey, Lord Tyre, & Lord Doherty

Background Information from the Scottish Courts website :

The Court of Session, Scotland's supreme civil court, sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh as a court of first instance and a court of appeal. An appeal lies to the House of Lords or, from 1st October 2009, to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The origins of the court can be traced to the early sixteenth century. The court presently consists of judges who are designated "Senators of the College of Justice" or "Lords of Council and Session". Each judge takes the courtesy title of "Lord" or "Lady" followed by their surname or a territorial title. The court is headed by the Lord President, the second in rank being the Lord Justice Clerk.

For the purposes of hearing cases, the court is divided into the Outer House and the Inner House. The Outer House consists of 24 Lords Ordinary sitting alone or, in certain cases, with a civil jury. They hear cases at first instance on a wide range of civil matters, including cases based on delict (tort) and contract, commercial cases and judicial review. The judges cover a wide spectrum of work, but designated judges deal with intellectual property disputes. Special arrangements are made to deal with commercial cases.

The Inner House is in essence the appeal court, though it has a small range of first instance business. It is divided into the First and the Second Divisions, of equal authority, and presided over by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk respectively. Judges are appointed by the Lord President and Lord Justice clerk with the consent of the Secretary of State. Each division is made up of five Judges, but the quorum is three. Due to pressure of business an Extra Division of three judges sits frequently nowadays. The Divisions hear cases on appeal from the Outer House, the Sheriff Court and certain tribunals and other bodies. On occasion, if a case is particularly important or difficult, or if it is necessary to overrule a previous binding authority, a larger court of five or more Judges may be convened.

Usually a case will be presented by an advocate, who is also referred to as "counsel", but a case may also be presented by a solicitor-advocate. Advocates are members of the Faculty of Advocates and have a status and function corresponding to that of a barrister in England. Advocates once had an exclusive right of audience in the Court of Session but, since 1990, they share that right with solicitor-advocates. Solicitor-advocates are members of the Law Society of Scotland. They are experienced solicitors who obtain an extension of their rights of audience by undergoing additional training in evidence and in the procedure of the Court of Session. In addition a practitioner from another member state of the European Union may appear for a client in the circumstances prescribed by the European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978. An individual who is a party to a case may conduct his own case but a firm or a company must always be represented by counsel or by a solicitor-advocate.

The decisions of the Court of Session are reported in Session Cases (cited as 1999 S.C. 100), Scots Law Times (cited as 1999 SLT 100) and Scottish Civil Law Reports (cited as 1999 SCLR 100). Decisions since the winter term of 1998 are available on the Opinions page.

One omission worth a note : No mention yet of McKenzie Friends helping out the many unrepresented party litigants, even though the Lord President enacted the Act of Sederunt on 15 June 2010 allowing lay assistance in the Court of Session …

Vested interests take priority as Calman Implementation Group ‘contaminated’ by Law Society of Scotland’s ‘reform blocker’ appointment

Michael Clancy, the Law Society of Scotland's Director of Law Reform. MICHAEL CLANCY, the Law Society of Scotland’s Director of ‘Law Reform’, famed for frequenting both the Scottish & Westminster Parliaments & liaising with politicians on issues the Law Society of Scotland wants to influence, or block, has been invited to sit on the Calman Implementation Group, which has been formed to look at implementing proposals contained in the Calman Commission review of devolution, which produced its final report (pdf) on the ‘experience’ of Scottish devolution in June 2009.

The Calman Implementation Group, co-chaired by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and Exchequer Secretary to the UK Treasury, David Gauke, met on Monday, 26 July in Edinburgh, to discuss how the proposals would be taken forward. The BBC News report of that meeting can be viewed here : Calman plans 'empower' Holyrood . You can read more about what the Calman Commission actually recommended, in terms of its review of Scottish devolution, here : Digesting the Calman report

While Mr Clancy’s membership of the Calman Implementation Group was welcomed by the Law Society of Scotland, many in Scots political life know Mr Clancy as being more of a ‘reform blocker’ than a reform promoter, particularly when it comes to bringing the legal profession itself to heel in legislative changes affecting the way it regulates Scotland’s 10,000 plus solicitors. Several MSPs who, over the years have asked pointed questions on subjects relating to the justice system, and in particular, regulation of the legal profession have found themselves ‘called in’ by Mr Clancy to explain the Law Society’s point of view, which coincidentally led to those same MSPs closing off their inquiries into the Law Society of Scotland & the legal profession’s inability to represent client’s best interests …

Michael Clancy ordered reforms to the SLCC blocked at Holyrood. Among Mr Clancy’s noted interventions against consumer orientated reforms was his action against attempts to reform the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, with a Holyrood petition to allow it to re-investigate cases of historical complaints where the Law Society of Scotland had covered up for ‘crooked lawyers’ theft of client funds, in some cases numbering in the millions of pounds. Mr Clancy on that occasion ordered suggested to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee it should cease its study into any ideas of widening the scope of the SLCC’s remit, which you can read more about in a previous report, here : Truth & reconciliation fails as MacAskill follows Law Society orders to Parliament on attempt to heal public confidence in legal profession

After Mr Clancy and the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee killed off Petition PE1033 in September 2007, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission voted to refuse investigation of historical complaints.

To ensure any further attempts to present the ideas of Petition PE1033 to the Scottish Parliament were blocked, a legislative amendment to the LPLA Act, the Legal Services Act 2007 (Transitional, Savings and Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2008 including a section on the SLCC’s investigation of historical complaints, was presented by the Scottish Government to the Justice Committee in September 2008, quietly supported by the SLCC & the Law Society of Scotland and passed by the Scottish Parliament, which ensured no one could ever ask the SLCC again to investigate historical complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’ which the Law Society had deliberately mishandled.

The Law Society of Scotland’s self-congratulatory media release media release on Mr Clancy’s ‘invitation’ to join the Calman Implementation Group, states : “The Law Society of Scotland is delighted that their Director of Law Reform, Michael Clancy, has been invited to sit on the Calman Implementation Group, which will look at implementing proposals contained in the Calman Commission review of devolution.”

James Aitken, member of the Society's tax law and constitutional law sub committees, deputising for Mr Clancy at today's meeting said: "The meeting was very positive and I was particularly pleased to see that a large number of the proposals put forward by the Society have already been taken on board and will be implemented. Smaller technical groups will now be created, and we look forward to a number of our members being involved in more detailed discussions on areas that will be devolved."

“The Society has provided detailed written and oral evidence to the Calman Commission over the last few years, and was pleased to hear commitment from the Government to introducing the proposals in a Scotland Bill this autumn, with full implementation by 2015. The Society was in favour of the Calman review and had substantive comments on a number of areas including the Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5 changes, especially in insolvency (where this should be reserved) and charity law, tax law provisions and changes to Scottish Parliament procedures.”

The Law Society's written evidence, submitted in October 2008 can be found HERE, all of which you can be rest assured, benefits the legal profession over the rest of us.

If the Calman Commission is supposed to be so reforming, and good for Scotland, then why invite those to its ranks whose mission it seems, is to destroy reforms for the good of ordinary Scots, and protect the vested interests of big business & the professions …