Friday, October 29, 2010

Scottish Parliament documents reveal Perth law firm in complaint fees case campaigned against Holyrood clean-up of regulation of lawyers

Debating chamberHolyrood sourced documents reveal Perth law firm pursuing client over ‘disputed’ fees campaigned against independent regulation of lawyers. DOCUMENTS obtained from the Scottish Parliament and brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice by legal insiders concerned over a case reported last Friday, that of Perth based law firm Kippen Campbell who are pursuing a personal injury client they dropped for 'disputed feels', after complaints were made about their service, stunningly reveal two of the law firm’s partners made almost identical submissions to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee in 2006, challenging legislation created to usher in independent regulation of complaints against solicitors. The Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, as the legislation is now known, was eventually passed in December 2006.

Kippen Campbell drops personal injury client, 1 year cout case for fees October 2010Last week Diary of Injustice reported on Perth law firm pursues client for disputed fees. Last week, Diary of Injustice reported on a year long case in Perth Sheriff Court where a local law firm Kippen Campbell, are pursuing a former client, Mr William Gordon for allegedly due fees (Kippen Campbell v William Gordon A334/09). Documents seen by Diary of Injustice show Mr Gordon had been dropped by the law firm after he made complaints to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Law Society of Scotland over the level of service he had received from Kippen Campbell in connection with a personal injury claim in the Court of Session (A625/04 William Gordon v Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd Party Litigant - HBM Sayers), now stalled due to lack of legal representation. Kippen Campbell then attempted to charge Mr Gordon for dealing with the complaint.

LB115 Submission from Sally McCartney for LPLA (Scotland) BillKippen Campbell partner Sally McCartney sent letter to Scottish Parliament over ‘concerns’ of independent regulation of solicitors. Documents provided to Diary of Injustice today now reveal Kippen Campbell solicitor Ms Sally McCartney, who ironically represented Mr Gordon’s legal interests and is named in Mr Gordon’s complaints to the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland, sent a template letter distributed by the Law Society of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee who were considering the LPLA Bill and independent regulation of complaints against solicitors in 2006. The letter challenged & questioned legislative moves to bring increased protection to consumers of legal services in Scotland in the shape of independent regulation and independent oversight of claims against ‘crooked lawyers’.

Ms McCartney wrote : “As a practising solicitor I am extremely concerned with some of the provisions of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, particularly with regard to the handling complaints against solicitors.”

Ms McCartney’s letter to Holyrood’s Justice 2 Committee continued : “The Law Society of Scotland previously backed an independent complaints handling body. However, the Bill goes significantly further in a number of areas where the Society made it clear in its response to the consultation that it did not believe action was required. The Society made it clear when it backed an independent complaints handling body that it must be demonstrably better than the current system, particularly so given the cost and disruption involved. There are a number of areas where the Society, and I, as a member of the Society, believe that the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will not fulfil this aim.”

“Independence – The new Commission has to be independent from Government. The proposals in the Bill suggest that the appointments to the Commission Board should be made by Scottish Ministers. This not appropriate – they should be made by an independent body which is free from political influence. Also, there is no guarantee of solicitor representation on the nine-member Board, despite the fact they comprise around 95% of the legal profession in Scotland.”

Douglas Mill 4Former Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill threatened Scottish Parliament, Government with legal action over complaints legislation. Ms McCartney’s letter then went on to mention the Law Society of Scotland obtained an ECHR opinion from an English LibDem Peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, who claimed it was against the human rights of a solicitor for a complaint to be independently investigated by anyone other than another solicitor. The Law Society of Scotland’s then Chief Executive Douglas Mill challenged the Scottish Parliament’s right to pass the LPLA Bill, and issued a threat of legal action to the Parliament & Scottish Government, based on Lord Lester’s opinion.The Law Society of Scotland’s threat of legal action against the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government was not pursued, although amendments to the LPLA Bill passed by MSPs did stymie some of the original measures designed to protect consumers from ‘rogue solicitors’.

Ms McCartney said in her letter : ECHR Compliance – This is related to the issue of independence (see above). The Bill at present does not allow for the right of appeal for the public or the profession about a decision by the Commission on a service complaint. The current system has safeguards – a Reporter makes a recommendation and a Committee, made up of solicitors and non-solicitors, reaches the decision. If solicitors believe that the Society has reached the wrong decision, in a service complaint, they have a right of appeal to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. The complainer is entitled to take the Society’s handling of the matter to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman. I understand that the Society has obtained an Opinion from Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Q.C. and he is of the view that the Bill, as it stands is not ECHR compliant.”

Ms McCartney’s letter also went onto challenge the increase in compensation to clients of solicitors who had provided inadequate service, a complaint now levelled at Ms McCartney and Kippen Campbell by their former client Mr Gordon. Ms McCartney’s letter continued : “Compensation – This relates to the issue of cost (see above). The increase in compensation for Inadequate Professional Service from £5,000 (a level which was raised from £1,000 just last year) to £20,000 is excessive and no explanation for such a large rise is given. The English white paper on complaints handling introduced the £20,000 figure – it appears that an English solution is being imported to resolve a perceived Scottish problem, despite the promise of Scottish solutions for Scottish issues.”

Master Policy Report Suicides revealedSLCC’s investigation linked Master Policy to client suicides, in the name of allowing solicitors to sleep at night. In the key area of claims made by clients against solicitors involving the Master Policy, the Law Society of Scotland’s Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme operated by Marsh UK which was investigated last year by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and subsequently revealed to have caused the deaths of clients who had attempted to make claims against the Master Policy, Ms McCartney stated in her letter to the Justice 2 Committee : “Negligence – It appears the Commission would take on the functions of the courts in negligence matters where the claim is less than £20,000, even though there is no consultation mandate to do so. Again, this raises issues in relation to ECHR compliance. Negligence should remain a matter for the courts. Every solicitor pays a premium additional to his or her Practising Certificate subscriptions to be covered under the Master Policy for Professional Indemnity Insurance. That already covers claims up to £1.5m for clients if there has been negligence by the solicitor. Many solicitors are prepared to advise and take on cases from the members of the public where there is a concern that a solicitor has been negligent.”

Readers familiar with the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee of the LPLA Bill during 2006 will remember it was questions over the operation of the Master Policy, which resulted in a bitter confrontation between the then Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill and the current Scottish Government Finance Chief, John Swinney MSP, eventually leading to Mr Mill’s resignation from his post in early 2008. The report on Douglas Mill’s resignation is here : Breaking News : Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill who lied to Parliament, pursued 'personal vendetta' against critics - to resign

LB203 Submission from Susan Wightman for LPLA BillSecond Kippen Campbell partner sent almost identical letter to Scottish Parliament challenging move to reform regulation of complaints against lawyers. In a curious case of dejavu, Holyrood insiders & law reform campaigners have pointed out an almost identical letter to that of Ms McCartney’s, challenging the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee consideration of the LPLA Bill, was sent by a second partner of the same law firm, Kippen Campbell. Both letters are still available on the Scottish Parliament’s website here : 115_LB115_SallyMcCartney.pdf and the second one here : 203_LB203_SusanWightman.pdf. The two letters form a long list of similar, almost identical correspondence sent in by solicitors as part of the Law Society of Scotland’s campaign against the bitter Holyrood passage of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Submissions to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee consideration of the LPLA Bill, as it was in 2006 can be viewed here : LPLA Bill Evidence (Scottish Parliament Justice 2 Committee 2006)

On reading the almost identical submissions made to the Scottish Parliament by partners from Kippen Campbell, who are now involved in the now publicised Perth Sheriff Court action over disputed fees, law reform campaigners suggested this afternoon anyone considering using a Scottish solicitor should check their prospective legal representative’s stance on complaints handling, and also ensure any work they ask a solicitor to undertake for them is properly estimated in terms of costs before clients agree to proceed.

Clients are also advised to thoroughly check fee demands from their solicitors to ensure they are not being ‘ripped-off’ or charged for issues such as complaints handling, if a client has been forced to submit a complaint to either the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or Law Society of Scotland regarding their solicitor’s poor service or conduct.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nice one Peter.You can bet those documents at the parliament will do a disappearing act in a few days if hours so I recommend Mr Gordon to save them and enter it into evidence against his tormentors.

Anonymous said...

oh well you nailed them good!

Anonymous said...

A good example of solcitors self interest and the pre-occupation of those with things to hide called, it's called 'covering your back'.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant work Peter and your team of insiders.FANTASTIC!!!

All the best to Mr Gordon in his fight against the bully legal profession!!

Anonymous said...

Poetic justice comes to mind while reading your posting today Mr Cherbi.

I assume Mr Gordon has been told about these highly compromising remarks by his own lawyers ?

Anonymous said...

I see you managed to drag Douglas Mill into it.He will be chuffed!

Anonymous said...

Ban for drink driving Lothian sheriff
Robert Anthony Robert Anthony admitted driving on the M8 at more than two and a half times the legal alcohol limit

A West Lothian sheriff who resigned from his job after admitting a drink driving charge has been banned for two years and fined £650.

Sheriff Robert Anthony, 48, from Uphall, was reported to the police by another motorist following his "suspicious" driving on 30 September.

Livingston Sheriff Court heard Anthony had depression and had been drinking on the birthday of his late father.

He was caught on the M8 between Newhouse and Harthill, Lanarkshire.

Police officers recorded 92 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35.

Anthony also admitted driving in his Lexus on roads between the M8 and Uphall, West Lothian, while over the limit on the same occasion.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Any punishment would be dwarfed by how he has been affected by the loss of his job”

End Quote Paul McBride Defending

The father-of-three, who was appointed to the bench less than three years ago but resigned as soon as he was caught, spoke from the dock only to confirm his name and guilty plea.

He was represented by Paul McBride QC.

Visiting sheriff, Kenneth McGowan, told him it was inevitable he would lose his licence.

Area procurator fiscal Adrian Cotton, prosecuting, said the police traced Anthony to his home in Uphall and took him to Livingston police station.

Mr McBride said Anthony, who had "served with distinction" as a sheriff in Glasgow for three years and as a temporary sheriff before that, had been "humiliated" by the incident. WOULD YOU EVER HELP A VICTIM OF A CROOKED LAWYER MR McBRIDE?

He said: "Any punishment would be dwarfed by how he has been affected by the loss of his job.

"We received a report in which Mr Anthony admits he has suffered from a form of depression for many years, relating to the death of his father which happened when he was only a young man.

"He admits he went for a drink after he finished work that day.

"This is difficult and humiliating for him but he doesn't expect to be treated differently to anyone else."

Faculty of Advocates

Anthony, who earned £128,296 a year as a sheriff, was suspended from duty in his Glasgow courtroom after he was charged, and resigned with immediate effect.

Anthony became a solicitor in 1984 and was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1988.

He became a QC in 2002 and served as an advocate depute and a senior advocate depute, prosecuting in the High Court, from 2001 until 2004.

He was appointed as a part-time sheriff in July 2005 and was also a commissioner for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. He was appointed as a full-time sheriff, in November 2007.

Anonymous said...

Kippen Campbell partner Sally McCartney sent letter to Scottish Parliament over ‘concerns’ of independent regulation of solicitors.


What are you frightened of Sally? What do you have to hide?

Self regulation = self protection and client abuse. Balanced justice, certainly not.

Anonymous said...

No respectable profession attracts this much attention. You lawyers are all corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Nice to hear some at Holyrood spill the beans on these lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Former Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill threatened Scottish Parliament, Government with legal action over complaints legislation.

So elected MSP's are threatened by a member of a corrupt profession to protect that professions interests. You know Mr Mill, your level of bias and prejudice amaze me. You intervene to stop claims against lawyers. Clients cannot we the courts to prosecute crooked lawyers. Clients are rightless.

Your attitude Mr Mill is embedded in the legal profession, this is the reason people detest lawyers because irrespective of how corrupt lawyers are, exoneration is the inevitable result. This is why your are the former Law Society chief executive.

Anonymous said...

No wonder lawyers hate your guts when you uncover scandals like this and probably the hundreds more similar to Mr Gordon stuck in court because of lawyers who go around thinking they are god

Anonymous said...

Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, who claimed it was against the human rights of a solicitor for a complaint to be independently investigated by anyone other than another solicitor.
===================================
This man is so biased, his views on this have undermined his common sense.

The great problem for society Mr Lester is that complaints at local, national and international level are whitewashed. This creates injustice. You are actually saying a lawyers human rights will be abused, you amaze me. I thought the Human Rights Act was enacted into supra national law to protect all human beings. Clearly you disagree. Lords are above the law as the cash for influence scandal has demonstrated.

Next you will be telling us it is against the human rights of members of the House of lords activities to be reported by the press.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi I like your blog exposing these architects of injustice. Justice will never be attainable against people who deal with complaints about their own group. From reading your blog I am convinced lawyers have no compunction about abusing clients.

To be honest I think the law Society and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are so hostile to clients it is a waste of paper complaining in the first place. The State is very protective when it involves so called professionals, as the LPLA act cannot protect clients the way it was meant to.

It is amazing how people who read certain degrees are privileged to the extent their criminality is covered up. I mean a law firm can chase a client for fees. Where is the protection for the client? Mr Mill or his Law Society colleagues?

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are bad news. The Legal Aid system encourages lawyers to string cases out. As for this law firm campaigning against cleaning up regulation of lawyers demonstrates what we know, lawyers are all criminals.

Self regulation is a criminal way of dealing with complaints. Why should a lawyer treat a client well when the client has no safeguards? Trust no lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Lift the rock covering the Law Society of Scotland and its members and, as this blog continues to objectively demonstrate, you find some very nasty examples of their continuing abuse of the Public's right to justice.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Mr Gordon has now been put in the unenviable position in Scots Law of being an unrepresented party litigant trying to stave off demands from a law firm for disputed fees. Letters sent by Mr Gordon to Perth Sheriff Court in the case of Kippen Campbell v William Gordon A334/09 reveal Mr Gordon, the defender, has offered to settle the law firm’s claims, although it now appears the pursuing law firm Kippen Campbell prefers the case continue in the Sheriff Court.
---------------------------------
MR GORDON THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO EVERY EMPLOYEE WHO TRIES TO SUE THEIR EMPLOYER, YOUR LAWYERS AND GP HAVE NEVER BEEN ON YOUR SIDE.

ALL YOU ARE, LIKE I WAS IS SOMEONE TO BE USED TO MAKE LAWYERS AND DOCTORS MONEY. THE LATTER TWO PROFESSIONS OPINIONS ARE SACROSANCT, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE THEY ARE ALL ABOVE THE LAW.

PEOPLE WHO HAVE INVISIBLE INJURIES NEVER GET COMPENSATION. THE INSURERS BUY THE LAWYERS AND DOCTORS OFF. THAT IS WHAT (IF YOUR INJURIES ARE NOT VISIBLE) HAS HAPPENED TO YOU.

YOU ARE LEARNING WHAT I LEARNED TEN YEARS AGO. YOU HAVE NO ONE TO HELP YOU BECAUSE THE LAWYERS AND THE DOCTORS CONTROL THE LEGISLATURE.

Anonymous said...

Finally had the time to read this today and go through some of those links at the Parliament's website.
From my reading of it those letters must have been sent out in the hundreds by the Law Society to their members (a friend tells me he also received one,was asked to put his name to it) so really this is a case of their own words coming back to haunt them.

I also agree Mr Gordn should make the court aware of these papers and also the slcc if he is still making a complaint

Anonymous said...

Peter if these lawyers were as worried about their clients cases as they are about self regulation ending the legal profession would not be in its current mess. Idiots.

Self interest is a curse, you lawyers treat your clients. as want lo be treated and hey presto problem solved. When you go to your offices tomorrow just remember clients are human.

But you all know that as long as the mindset of the Law Society of Scotland remains the same as the infamous Mr Mill no client is safe.

I tell my kids and their friends lawyers steal peoples money and they cannot be punished. By the time they leave school they will new trust a lawyer. A friend of mine is a teacher and she tells her pupils the same, never trust a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

A West Lothian sheriff who resigned from his job after admitting a drink driving charge has been banned for two years and fined £650.

Sheriff Robert Anthony, 48, from Uphall, was reported to the police by another motorist following his "suspicious" driving on 30 September.

Livingston Sheriff Court heard Anthony had depression and had been drinking on the birthday of his late father.

He was caught on the M8 between Newhouse and Harthill, Lanarkshire.

Police officers recorded 92 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35.
=================================
Mr Anthony was drinking and driving Mr MacAskill. He has lost his job. Let us be fair, Mr Anthony has been punished for breaking the law. The same situation should apply, public scrutiny of lawyers conduct, and prosecutions when they are corrupt. At last we can be confident drinking & driving offences will be dealt with, the exception is the boozed up Procurator Fiscal in the news recently.

Anonymous said...

Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, who claimed it was against the human rights of a solicitor for a complaint to be independently investigated by anyone other than another solicitor.

With attitudes like this what chance does any client have if it all goes wrong.
This Lester chap is an insult. It is because clients have no human rights the legal profession cannot be trusted. I wonder if Lester think clients are untermenshen, (subhumans) because he certainly does not think they should have legal redress, as his profession whitewash complaints.

If complaints were dealt with properly, most lawyers would be struck off.

Anonymous said...

I live in Perth and know this company believe me there are plenty complaints around here about all the local lawyers including this lot

Anonymous said...

(A625/04 William Gordon v Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd Party Litigant - HBM Sayers), now stalled due to lack of legal representation. Kippen Campbell then attempted to charge Mr Gordon for dealing with the complaint.
===================================
Yes a few phone calls, Mr Gordon is then automatically barred from legal representation, and Kippen Campbell take their revenge.
Clearly a vendetta against this client by the legal profession as a whole. They all do the same. Here is the pattern in all litigation cases.

Pretend they are acting for the client, cover up what has happened to the client, then collectively deny the client legal redress. In my litigation case every time my so called lawyer could make my employers life difficult he did not act. There is a pattern in all of these cases of the pursuers lawyer not on the persuers side. This man like me was fighting this case alone. All litigation lawyers are always on your employers side. Just look at the pattern in your case. All of your lawyers actions will have helped Vardy.

Anonymous said...

http://www.walletpop.co.uk/2010/10/31/mps-have-made-uk-corrupt-says-watchdog/

Britain has never been more corrupt, and it's all the fault of the damn MPs and their duck houses – that's the conclusion of this year's Corruption Perception Index from Transparency International.

The UK has plunged to number 20 out of 178 in the international rankings based on how corrupt a nation's civil servants are believed to be by experts at institutions including the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the Economist Intelligence Unit.
--------------------------------
The tip of the iceberg, lawyers, bankers, doctors, lawyers all crooks.

Anonymous said...

Mr Gordon has now been put in the unenviable position in Scots Law of being an unrepresented party litigant trying to stave off demands from a law firm for disputed fees.

So after being dumped by his own lawyers, Mr Gordon is standing alone. Who protects Mr Gordon's interests? Rough justice is the reality. He stands alone against all of Scotlands lawyers, sheriffs, advocates. He stands alone against the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The outcome of your litigation was decided long ago Mr Gordon. This is lawyers the world over: as soon as the client is on the wrong side of the legal profession, the client has no rights. This case screams lawyers must never be trusted.

Mr Gordon is living proof lawyers can do whatever they want to people. A Glasgow law firm did the same to me, and I could not get a lawyer. This is the reason poor legal service and corruption are rife.

Anonymous said...

(A625/04 William Gordon v Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd Party Litigant - HBM Sayers), now stalled due to lack of legal representation.

LAWYERS REWARDED FOR A COVER UP. THE DOCTORS AND LAWYERS NEVER LOSE OUT,

NO ONE WINS IN LITIGATION AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER. DO NOT BELIEVE ANY LAWYER WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE. LEARN FROM THE VICTIMS, DO NOT BECOME ONE.

Anonymous said...

So much for all these crappy stories in the papers we can get lawyers when we need them.What really matters is how much lawyers can fleece you for that comes out very clear from reading what really happens when dealing with thugs with a law degree.

My sincere best wishes to William Gordon.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers & builders. If a builder makes a mess of your property their will be physical evidence of this. We see programmes like rogue builders etc.

Lawyer corruption is always tied to documentary evidence, and no lawyer will use that evidence against another lawyer. I believe sheriffs would also cover anything up. Then the client complains to the law Society, Commission, and a Mr Mill fobs the client off: On the basis of reason we have legal dictatorship.

Design and build methods of procurement in the construction industry utilise Provisional Sums. Because the design is not complete at the tender stage a provisional sum of money is included for work that is difficult to foresee. The client and contractors quantity surveyors deal with the expenditure of these sums as the work progresses. Clients are usually companies, local or central government. This is meant to protects the client from crooked contractors. Arbitration, litigation, adjudication are other safeguards in the contractural machinery.

Where is the protection for the client of a lawyer. Lawyers clients are at greater risk than private companies and local & central government.

The Law Society, commission, no legal practitioner, sheriff, advocate is fit to check complaint
from clients.

Legal dictatorship indeed.