Season’s Greetings from Scotland’s Justice system : Still “Victorian”, still fails society, still costly, greedy, prejudiced & about to get a lot more dictatorial …

Scotland’s Justice system, the most expensive, greedy & unproductive in the entire European Union. SEASON’S GREETINGS to all our readers from all of us at Diary of Injustice. Suffice to say, that Scotland’s justice system continues to be, as the current Lord President Lord Gill once said, “Victorian”, failing society, and as costly & frustrate today as it was twenty, or even thirty years ago, despite the claims of some that changes in Scottish Governments and politics would change our lives beyond all recognition.

If anything, it has got worse, and the consumer organisations which survive among the ruins of London sponsored cuts, and Holyrood laziness, have effectively been muzzled to the point of uselessness, leaving only the country’s media to hold vested interests to account, and expose or report on justice & injustice in Scotland’s disrespected justice system.

Do yourselves a favour, readers, if you have a problem with the justice system, those within it, those politicians who allow it to remain as ridiculous as it is, or those public bodies who fail to regulate it, don't keep it to yourself, go out and publicise it. and support those newspapers & journalists who take the time and make the effort for you. You might just do some good for yourself, and fellow Scots.

TIME TO CALL TIME ON SCOTS VICTORIAN JUSTICE & ANTI-PUBLIC COURTS SYSTEM

The Lord President, Lord Gill, author of the Civil Courts Review. Scotland’s current Lord President, Lord Gill, said in his speech to the Law Society of Scotland’s 60 year anniversary conference in 2009, reproduced in full here  : “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. 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."

Not to put too fine a point on it, Lord President … Coming up on four years on since this was said … It is time. The time is now. Scots are waiting for a justice system which will serve the country, not the needs of politicians and vested interests.

The Sunday Mail’s editorial on Scotland’s Justice system :

Justice must be for everybody.. or nobody

Mail Opinion
By Mail Opinion
23 Dec 2012 08:50

THE recent demand for longer sentences and heavier clampdowns by ministers chasing headlines could alter our faith in the criminal justice system.

Most of the time, he appears to be one of the more straightforward, committed and decent ministers in Alex Salmond’s cabinet.

And then, on a regular basis, he gets his big tackety boots on and blooters some fairly fundamental human rights all over the park.

There are some very serious and potentially alarming issues coming together in our criminal justice system at the moment.

We have Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, now attending Cabinet meetings, who, rather worryingly, on Friday, claimed the independence of Scotland’s chief prosecutor from politicians was “a state of mind”.

Meanwhile, we have a new, single police force arriving next year with a new, single chief constable, Stephen House. He is a strong and stringent police officer who is unafraid to speak his mind and keen to champion changes to the law to increase conviction rates.

Now, none of these things are necessarily worrying. Taken together, however, the danger of an increasingly politicised prosecution service encouraged by a powerful police chief and backed by ministers eager to appear tough on crime raises very real fears for the checks and balances needed to protect ordinary people from the might and majesty of the law.

We are talking about things like the police’s increasing enthusiasm for scrutinising our mobile phones and emails without the approval of a sheriff or judge.

Things like the need to corroborate evidence before conviction. Things like the abolition of double jeopardy, meaning people can now be tried twice on the same charge.

Now, there are cases to be made for these changes but – and it’s a big but – where opinion is divided, our law-makers must come down on the side of those accused of crime.

These accused men, and they’re nearly all men, are often beneath contempt.

Many are vile and violent without decency or humanity. They contribute nothing and, when found guilty, deserve less.

Every single of them, however, has a right to a fair trial in a justice system where the most basic function is to protect that right. Because if they do not have it, then none of us have it.

The lines are blurring between our police, prosecutors and politicians in Scotland where a fear of crime has been exaggerated and our ministers chase headlines by demanding ever longer sentences and heavier clampdowns.

That makes for bad laws and we need to be wary because the constant chipping away at the pillars of fairness and decency shoring up our justice system will, at some point, chip away at our faith in that system.

Messrs MacAskill, Mulholland and House should be careful what they wish for.

Meanwhile, as the Beastie Boys reminded us so forcefully, there is at least one other right worth fighting for.

So, in that party spirit, from all of us to all of you, have a merry Christmas.

From Bad to Worse : Complaints against lawyers up 16%, few cases upheld, Board members on £20K expenses, reports anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in 2012 annual report

It’s goodbye from her – Jane Irvine’s final term as SLCC Chair since 2008 did little for Scots clients caught in rogue lawyer trap. COMPLAINTS AGAINST SOLICITORS have shot up 16% in 2012, according to the latest 2012 ANNUAL REPORT issued by the ‘independent’ lawyer controlled Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which spent £2.7 million pounds up to 30 June on ‘investigating’ crooked lawyers. The fourth & final report under the Chair of Jane Irvine, whose term expires on 31st December 2012 also reveals the SLCC, which has not yet claimed one single solicitor being struck off as a result of its work over the past four years, was conveniently able to throw out a third of the complaints made to it by members of the public whose lives have invariably been ruined by the actions of rogue lawyers still working in the legal profession.

The report states that of the 1,264 complaints received by the SLCC during 2012 and 566 in hand at the start of the year, a suspiciously high number of complaints (486) were thrown out by the SLCC as being ineligible for investigation, while the report lists that 128 more complaints were withdrawn or resolved before an eligibility decision was made.

Included in the totals were 144 conduct complaints against members of the legal profession, which were then referred to the appropriate professional body (such as the Law Society of Scotland), and 289 eligible complaints were dealt with and closed by the SLCC, leaving 783 still in hand at the end of the year. The most common reasons for the SLCC branding complaints under the heading of “ineligibility” were "totally without merit" (200 cases), time bar (174) and prematurity (115).

Complaints trends show House sales, Litigation, Wills & Executries remain big factors in clients ripped off by lawyers. The SLCC revealed that cases going all the way to a full determination totalled 146, of which 44 were upheld in whole or in part and 92 not upheld. A total of £37,042 was awarded in compensation across 33 cases, averaging out £1,122 per case yet clients face further hurdles in receiving compensation after the SLCC revealed solicitors had not complied with its rulings, forcing the SLCC to engage Sheriff Officers on particular occasions. The report stated : "We have seen an increase in cases of non-compliance where practitioners fail to pay awards which have been made against them by the SLCC. We take a firm line on this and use sheriff’s officers and the small claims court processes to enforce the outstanding sums."

The SLCC said it was in talks with the Law Society of Scotland about its solicitors refusing to comply with compensation orders, stating : ”We are in discussion with the relevant professional organisations to ensure their support in tackling non-compliance. In addition, we have found that complainers sometimes have to wait a considerable length of time to receive compensation or fee rebates where a judicial factor or trustees have been appointed. Since this does little to build public confidence, we have started to work with the relevant professional organisations to assess options to address this issue.”

Worryingly, the annual report also reveals the SLCC refused to use its powers to abate or zero fees charged by lawyers who had given poor service to their clients, where only in 17 cases, fees were abated and fees totalling a paltry £3,851 were abated, an average award of only £227 per client.

The 2012 audited accounts of the SLCC also reveals that despite throwing out a third of complaints made to it, and the poor use of powers over fees, the SLCC’s board members continued to be paid what can only be described as lavish remuneration, listed as up to £20,000 each during 2011-2012, quite a contrast to the financial losses suffered by Scots clients of rogue solicitors.

A number of case examples are, for the first time, included in the SLCC’s latest annual report, although no identities of solicitors or law firms who have failed their clients have been revealed, marking the SLCC’s continued policy of refusing to name & shame rogue Scottish solicitors & law firms who consumers would be better to avoid.

The SLCC’s 2012 Annual report can be viewed online HERE or downloaded from the SLCC’s website HERE while the 2012 Annual accounts revealing the SLCC’s financial position, expenditure & remuneration of its staff, board members etc can be viewed online HERE or downloaded from the SLCC HERE.

The SLCC issued a Press Release on its 2012 Annual Report HERE

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ("SLCC") laid its fourth Annual Report before the Scottish Parliament on 7 December 2012. The report covers the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 and highlights the number and types of complaint coming to the SLCC; the SLCC's achievements both as a gateway for legal complaints and a supporter to high standards in the legal profession.

Commenting on the SLCC's challenges and achievements, Chair Jane Irvine said: "It stands as a huge tribute to the skills and hard-work of all our Staff and Board Members that we have achieved all we have this year. Our commitment remains unfailing despite the increasing demands placed on us and our resources, growing case loads and increasing financial pressures, along with the added complications deriving from transitional arrangements and backlog of earlier cases."

Commenting on the work of the organisation during the year, Chief Executive, Matthew Vickers said: "My colleagues and our Board Members are committed to making the SLCC even more effective and efficient in handling complaints and more influential and impactful in improving legal services.

Mr Vickers, the fifth Chief Executive of the SLCC also went onto claim, laughably that “The SLCC exists to strengthen public trust and confidence in our legal services."

In reality however, the SLCC, commonly regarded by most in the know as a joke, has demonstrated itself to be as anti-client as the Law Society of Scotland.

The Law Society of Scotland issued its own Press Release praising the SLCC for its work in protecting solicitors from client complaints.

Commenting on the publication of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission annual report, Lorna Jack, chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "We will look at the report in detail to see where we can assist the commission on working with the profession to improve complaints handling. The new use of case studies in this year's annual report are a great way of showing solicitors examples of good practice in complaint handling at an early stage, and further down the line.”

Ms Jack was also grateful for the SLCC’s whitewash of the Law Society’s “Guarantee Fund”, long known as a corrupt compensation scheme which fails to pay out to ruined clients of crooked lawyers.

Ms Jack went onto congratulate the SLCC over their ‘review’ of the Guarantee Fund, saying : "Following a thorough audit of the Guarantee Fund by the Commission as part of its oversight role, we are pleased to see recognition that claims on the fund are being handled properly and impartially by the Society. We have always made it clear that all claims on the fund are considered on a case by case basis and on their own merit, regardless of the funds held and the audit has confirmed this.”

Ms Jack ended by saying : "It is reassuring that the commission is driving efficiencies as our members are tightening their belts during these straightened times.The Society will continue to work with the Commission to seek to reform the legislation to make complaints a better experience for all involved."

A CLIENTS LOT IS NOT A HAPPY ONE :

In reality, clients of Scottish solicitors who are put in a position of having to make a complaint to the SLCC about their solicitor’s conduct or service, are in a no better position in 2012 than they were in two decades ago.

Little compensation on offer for solicitors stealing from clients, or negligent service, regulators poor use of powers to completely negate fees, hardly any complaints being fully upheld, few solicitors struck off, a claims system via the Master Policy that is just as corrupt as it was twenty years ago, a Guarantee Fund compensation scheme which puts tax dodging in the Cayman Islands to shame, regulators who are so anti-client, anti-public & anti consumer they cant see past their expenses claims , and amidst it all, lazy politicians at the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government who value legal freebies, and paid-for social occasions with lawyers & regulators too much to help constituents in dire need of assistance … the same old story from 1990 to 2012 repeats itself once again …

Previous coverage of the SLCC’s annual reports, which tell a similar story can be found HERE

Petition calling for a Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary now lodged at Scottish Parliament, petition will be considered by msps in 2013

Like others in public life, Scotland’s judges, sheriffs & others in the courts should be required to declare their interests. Petition PE01458, published on the Scottish Parliament’s website in late October which calls for a publicly available register of interests for Scotland’s judges & sheriffs has now closed for signatures from the public, and has now been lodged with the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee who will go on to consider the petition at a later meeting.

The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

Diary of Injustice would like to thank the forty one people who signed the petition, journalists from the Sunday Mail newspaper who reported on the petition, those of you who also posted comments on the Scottish Parliament’s website about the aims of the petition, and of course the members of the New Zealand legislature, particularly Dr Kennedy Graham MP, the author of the bill in the New Zealand Parliament which gave Peter Cherbi the inspiration to author a petition along similar lines in Scotland.

If any of you feel you have further comments or experiences relating to judges, the interests, and how their undeclared interests or known interests have impacted on cases in the courts or justice system, or feel you have other pertinent information which you would like the Petitions Committee to consider when they call for oral evidence, please send them in to the Petitions Committee via their email at petitions@scottish.parliament.uk and also copy us in at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Also, if any of you feel you would like to appear at the Scottish Parliament and give oral evidence relating to the aims of the petition, please email Diary of Injustice.

A reminder of our previous coverage of the petition : ANYTHING TO DECLARE, M’LORD ? Holyrood Petition calls for a Register of Judicial Interests for Scotland’s Judges & Sheriffs

Judges wealth, links to big business, banks, law firms etc should be declared in register of interests. SCOTTISH JUDGES should be required to declare their financial wealth along with money making ventures, business & professional relationships & any other relevant links including those impacting on criminal trials, in a published REGISTER OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS, according to A PETITION filed at the Scottish Parliament by legal blogger & contributor to Diary of Injustice, Peter Cherbi

Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary which is now open for signatures from the public, calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

Diary of Injustice has featured coverage of the petition in earlier reports, Register of Interests for Judges.

The petition goes on to report how the Parliament of New Zealand is debating legislation to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Mr Cherbi says he believes it is time for Scotland to move in the same direction and create a similar register of interests for the judiciary of Scotland and all its members, increasing the transparency of the judiciary and ensuring public confidence in their actions & decisions.

The full details of the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, should be looked at for a model of similar legislation in Scotland, can be viewed online here  Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.

New Zealand MP, Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill on judicial interests states : It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach, and suspicion thereof. Public confidence in the standard of behaviour and conduct observed by leading servants of the people is a cornerstone of social harmony and political stability. A threshold of confidence to that end should ideally be enshrined in constitutional and legislative form. Little scope should be available for individual discretion or subjective perception.

The principle of transparency in this respect pertains in particular to issues of financial (pecuniary) interest. Nothing undermines public confidence in a nation’s institutions and procedures more than suspicion that a public servant may have, and especially proof that one has, suffered a conflict of interest arising from a pecuniary interest in a particular dealing in which he or she was professionally involved.

The correct balance in this respect appears to have been achieved over the years–the public interest in such annual statements is significant without appearing prurient, and few complaints have been voiced by those on whom the obligations are placed. There seems to be a general acceptance that such exercises are in the public interest and are neither unduly onerous nor revealing.

No such practice, however, has been observed in the case of the judiciary. Recent developments within New Zealand’s judicial conduct processes suggest that application of the same practice observed by the other two branches of government might assist in the protection of the judiciary in future.

Being obliged under law to declare pecuniary interests that might be relevant to the conduct of a future case in which one is involved would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgements about his or her personal affairs as each case arises. Having declared one’s pecuniary interests once, in a generic manner independent of any particular trial, a judge may freely proceed in the knowledge that, if he or she is appointed to adjudicate, public confidence for participation has already been met. Yet care is to be exercised to ensure that the final decision is left to the individual judge whether to accept a case. There should be no intention of external interference into the self-regulation of the judiciary by the judiciary.

This is the reasoning behind this draft legislation–the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as stated, is to promote the due administration of justice by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system, and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.”

Mr Cherbi said in his petition : “I believe the same aims of the New Zealand legislation as quoted above, are compatible with the public interest in Scotland and to promote the due administration of justice by providing the public with greater transparency within the judicial system.”

The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill is an example of similar legislation for a register of judicial interests in New Zealand, bought to the New Zealand Parliament by Dr Kennedy Graham.When asked whether a register of interests existed for Scottish judges, the Judicial Office for Scotland said “The Judicial Office for Scotland does not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so. The Lord President has set out formal guidelines to the judiciary in the STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS Para 4.9 and 7.2 address this particular point.”

However in an age of transparency where the decisions of Scottish judges affect all our lives, whether the case be criminal or civil, there must be a requirement for all public servants particularly those in positions of such importance as the judiciary to submit their interests to a publicly available register of interests.

New Zealand’s Law Commission issued paper supporting a register for judges interests. In New Zealand, the New Zealand Law Commission has argued for a wider remit to include all officials whose positions given them potential to influence a case to be included in such a register of interests.

The Law Commission stated : “If there is to be legislation, should it apply to all judges, or only to judges of some levels, or to all judicial employees and officials such as prosecutors and registrars? An argument can be made that if there is to be financial disclosure it should be required of all officials whose positions give them sufficient potential to influence the outcome of a case, whether as a result of a bribe or other improper influence.”

The New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests can be downloaded
here :  NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges pecuniary interests? (pdf)

In comparison to New Zealand’s effort to ensure transparency in the judiciary, Scotland’s judges and the Scotish Government have, unsurprisingly backed away from any similar measures, even concealing criminal charges and convictions of Scottish judges, where in one case a Scottish judge was charged with fiddling benefits claims, exposed in a Diary of Injustice investigation into Judge’s financial fiddles, here : CAREER CROOKED : Investigation reveals Scottish judges are CONVICTED CRIMINALS, Drunk Drivers,Tax Dodgers & alleged BENEFITS CHEATS

In response to an earlier Freedom of Information Request from Diary of Injustice, the Head of Strategy & Governance for the Judicial Office for Scotland pointedly REFUSED to provide any details of information disclosing whether any members of the judiciary in Scotland have declared or informed the Scottish Court Service in the past three years of :

Any offshore investments, Unrecorded cash transactions, Payments for outside work, Any application of “tax efficient” schemes to avoid paying taxes, Associations or meetings with convicted criminals, Vehicle accidents,  criminal charges, or being interviewed by Police.

The reasons given by the Judicial Office for refusing to disclose key details on what Scots judges are getting up to, are that much of the information requested is held by an ‘arms length body’ created by the Scottish Court Service which holds such information on behalf of the Lord President, rather than passing it directly to him.

The on-going investigation by Diary of Injustice into members of Scotland’s judiciary has already revealed a series of judges appear to be involved in OFFSHORE TAX AVOIDANCE schemes, associations with convicted criminals & organised crime, prostitution rackets, accepting hospitality & payments from well known corrupt solicitors representing dodgy law firms while others on the bench are engaging in questionable investments & duties which appear to be in conflict with their positions as members of the judiciary. More on these findings can be read in an earlier article here : Offshore trusts, property holdings, insurance syndicates, hospitality from dodgy lawyers, yet no plans for a register of interests for Scottish judges

The Sunday Mail newspaper has reported on the petition for a register of Judicial Interests, here :

Petition to hold judges to account

by Russell Findlay
Sunday Mail November 04 2012

A legal campaigner has urged MSPs to create a register of interests for Scotland’s judges.

Peter Cherbi has secured a Scottish Parliament petition calling for all sheriffs and judges to declare financial interests and hospitality.

The legal blogger from Edinburgh, said: “Like those in other areas of public life, members of the judiciary should be required to disclose their interests, financial or otherwise.

“This would increase transparency and help to ensure public confidence in their actions and decisions.

“It has been suggested to me some judges have offshore investments for the purpose of tax avoidance while others may have shares or other connections to businesses.”

Cherbi was inspired by a similar proposed law which is being debated in New Zealand.

The closing date for the online petition is December 7.

Judges were issued with ethical guidelines which were drawn up by senior judges headed by Lord Osborne two years ago.

The Judicial Office for Scotland: “We do not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so.”

THEY WANT YOUR CASH : Scotland has highest legal aid budget in EU, yet lawyers chant “save justice” and strike to demand more for them, less for you

STRIKE ! More money for them, but Clients see little access to justice for legal aid hand-outs. LET’S not kid ourselves about the motives for recent strikes & protests by the Scottish legal profession against plans to cut Scotland’s ONE HUNDRED & SIXTY MILLION POUND legal aid budget, the highest legal aid budget in the entire European Union. This strike, and the protests outside the Scottish Parliament by cohorts of Scots lawyers carrying banners crying for “justice” is purely about more money for solicitors & law firms and has little to do with the profession’s call access to justice for Scots who may, rightly, or even wrongly,  find themselves at the sharp end of the justice system for deeds they may or may not have committed.

The strike certainly has nothing to do with Scots access to justice for civil legal aid, because in a week of listening to solicitors bleat like sheep about the rights of accused criminals to be funded on the legal aid purse, (and for those same solicitors to be entitled to collect more than £500 per hour), not one member of the legal profession has come forward to argue for increased attention to civil legal aid, particularly in cases where the legal profession’s own regulators have done the dirty on members of the public.

Yes, it’s all about easy pickings for the legal profession, rather than helping Scots out of complicated legal difficulties created not by their own doing, rather their reliance on the professions who claim to have their clients best interests at heart …

The fuss, as great as it appears to be, is all about our Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s idea to force solicitors to collect legal aid contributions from clients accused of criminal offences.

Solicitors argue they should not become the Scottish Legal Aid Board’s debt collectors, while the Justice Secretary argues it is not cost effective for SLAB to collect these same contributions from clients (yet it appears to be cost effective for SLAB’s senior staff to fly around on international airlines apparently learning nothing about how legal aid is done in the rest of the world)

Perhaps what is really at stake is some of the nasty habits solicitors and certain advocates have developed, such as in some cases, well known to journalists & the Scottish Legal Aid Board where some of Scotland’s supposedly esteemed legal professionals regularly ask their clients for cash bungs to continue to defend them on criminal charges. Clearly, clients may end up asking why they have to make a cash contribution to SLAB as well as their solicitor if justice is really being served …

Of course, with the headlines of legal aid fraud, and solicitors walking away with millions of pounds of legal aid money even after being accused by SLAB of making dodgy claims, it would be reasonable for anyone to ask “Is MacAskill’s plan for lawyers to collect our money safe ?” Well, put it this way, his plan is about as safe as allowing gangsters & loan sharks to collect for the Red Cross.

Predictably, several strikes & protests on, Mr MacAskill is being forced back to the negotiating table with the legal profession and, as has happened before in previous cases where solicitors have threatened to strike such as in 2008 he will give in and the legal profession will continue to enjoy its £160 Million state subsidy for the time being. Times are tough, the legal profession must survive, axe nurses first, but don't axe your lawyers they say …. yet the important questions, such as whether an independent Scotland can afford its legal aid budget, and why legal aid fraudsters in the legal profession are never prosecuted … are never answered …

Time for a new Justice Secretary, anyone ? Surely after five years of disasters in the justice system, from World’s End to the continuing Lockerbie cover up to the review of the review of the review of Lord Gill’s condemnation of the Scottish Justice system in his 2009 Civil Courts Review and recent allegations of “Institutional Corruption” at Scotland’s Crown Office is well enough to require a new, firm pair of hands on the broken bottle that is our Scottish justice system ?

WHERE DOES ALL THE LEGAL AID GO ?

Scots Legal Aid ‘a £161Million public subsidy for legal profession’ as EU report reveals judges salaries & lawyers legal aid claims come before public's access to justice

EU report reveals Scots justice is more about lawyers & judges making money than delivering justice. A REPORT published by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice and featured in an article in Scotland’s Sunday Mail newspaper has revealed Scottish lawyers take tens of millions of pounds more in publicly funded legal aid representing the Scots population of just over five million people than lawyers working Italy, which has a population of sixty million, twelve times greater than that of Scotland.

The figures show that Scots lawyers ‘earned’ around ONE HUNDRED & SIXTY MILLION POUNDS of legal aid in 2010 while their Italian counterparts working for a much larger client base only took £100million, making the Scots legal aid bill, running at a cost of £31 a head, the most expensive in Europe in terms of population. The grim figures show that Scots legal aid is working out at a cost of £31 a head, with little in the way of access to justice to show for it.

The report, available on the EU website HERE (pdf) or online here : The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice Report on Evaluation of European Judicial Systems also reveals Scots judges are paid the highest in Europe with Scottish Sheriffs taking home an average taxpayer funded salary of a staggering £120,000, while others on Scotland’s judicial benches take up to £200,000 a year plus expenses.

The Sunday Mail article reported on the EU study which exposed Scotland’s justice system as the costliest in the entire European Union :

SCOTTISH JUSTICE IN THE DOCK : Scotland's lawyers earn more from Legal Aid than whole of Italy, shock report reveals

By Russell Findlay Sunday Mail 30 September 2012

THE European Commission report reveals that Legal Aid in Scotland cost 203million euros (£161million) in 2010 - more than in Italy, which has a population of 61million.

SCOTS lawyers collected more taxpayers’ cash for Legal Aid than their counterparts in Italy – a country 12 times the size.

A European Commission report reveals that Legal Aid in Scotland cost 203million euros (£161million) in 2010 – around 39 euros, or £31, for every one of our 5.2million people.

Lawyers in Italy, which has a population of 61million, got just £100million of public cash – £1.50 per person.

The 450-page Brussels report also found that Denmark, with 5.6million people, paid its lawyers only 88million euros (£70million).

And in Belgium – population 10.9million – legal aid cost 75million euros (£59million).

The revelations, in a 450-page report by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice – came as the Scottish Legal Aid Board banned three lawyers from claiming cash for criminal cases.

We can reveal that Gerard Tierney, Massimo D’Alvito and Andrew Brophy, of Blantyre, Lanarkshire, breached the board’s code of practice. Tierney and D’Alvito have been reported to the Crown Office, who will decide whether to prosecute.

The ban also extends to Tierney’s firm G Tierney & Co, of Auchinleck, Ayrshire, who have raked in £610,500 in Legal Aid over three years, and Edinburgh firm Massimo D’Alvito Defence Lawyers.

The European report looked at 47 criminal justice systems across the continent.

It found the cost per person of Legal Aid in Scotland was third-highest – behind only Northern Ireland and England and Wales. The cost per person was 53.5 euros in Northern Ireland and 45.7 euros in England and Wales.

The findings led to calls for a radical overhaul of Legal Aid.

Central Ayrshire Labour MP Brian Donohoe said: “It seems major organised criminals and terror suspects qualify for unlimited Legal Aid, yet I have constituents who don’t get a penny simply because they have a few thousand pounds of savings.

“The system in Scotland and the rest of the UK is out of control.”

Legal blogger Peter Cherbi added: “Legal Aid is no longer about access to justice for the poor, but a state subsidy for the legal profession – and one they don’t seem keen on talking about.”

The Sunday Mail has exposed a series of rogue lawyers banned from claiming Legal Aid. But none of the 14 reported to prosecutors was put in the dock, prompting claims that Scotland’s legal self-regulation system protects lawyers.

Kilmarnock solicitor Niels Lockhart, who took £600,000 in Legal Aid in just two years, was found to have made “unnecessary and excessive” claims. The Legal Aid board withdrew their complaint to the Law Society after he agreed to stop claiming.

Reacting to the Brussels report, the Scottish Legal Aid Board said: “Across Europe, there are substantial differences between judicial systems and very different approaches to the provision of legal aid and its cost.

“The Scottish system is highly regarded internationally for the efforts made to ensure access to justice.

“The Scottish Government’s budget allocation for the Legal Aid Fund has reduced significantly in 2011-12 and is planned to reduce further in future years.”

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill hopes to cut the Legal Aid bill by making criminals pay some of their costs. The planned move, outlined in a Holyrood Bill, could save taxpayers around £3.9million.

• The Euro study showed that Scotland disciplined a tiny number of lawyers compared to countries of similar size.

Just three were struck off and 13 reprimanded in Scotland in 2010.

Denmark, with a similar population, took action against 309 lawyers, with six struck off and 145 fined. And in Finland, also close in size, 99 rogue solicitors were sanctioned.

Critics blame the Law Society of Scotland’s dual role of representing lawyers while also acting as regulator.

• A large proportion of alleged criminals reported to prosecutors in Scotland are not being put in the dock.

Of 265,830 cases sent to the Crown Office, only 41.7 per cent were brought to court. In England and Wales, 90.6 per cent of all cases resulted in court action.

The difference is thought to be partly due to Scotland’s recent introduction of spot fines and fiscal fines for what the authorities insist are more minor offences.

Critics claim such fines lead to a secret justice system.

• The report reveals that Scotland’s sheriffs top the European pay league.

Researchers compared the wages of lower court judges across Europe.

Our sheriffs, with an average salary of 150,106 euros (£120,000), were number one, ahead of the Irish and Swiss.

Next were sheriffs’ counterparts in England and Wales, who were paid 120,998 euros (£95,000).

Not only were sheriffs the highest-paid, they also topped the table comparing their earnings to the national average. They earned 5.2 times the average Scot’s wage.

ANYTHING TO DECLARE, M’LORD ? Holyrood Petition calls for a Register of Judicial Interests for Scotland’s Judges & Sheriffs

Judges wealth, links to big business, banks, law firms etc should be declared in register of interests. SCOTTISH JUDGES should be required to declare their financial wealth along with money making ventures, business & professional relationships & any other relevant links including those impacting on criminal trials, in a published REGISTER OF JUDICIAL INTERESTS, according to A PETITION filed at the Scottish Parliament by legal blogger & contributor to Diary of Injustice, Peter Cherbi

Petition PE01458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary which is now open for signatures from the public, calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests.

Diary of Injustice has featured coverage of the petition in earlier reports, Register of Interests for Judges.

The petition goes on to report how the Parliament of New Zealand is debating legislation to create a register of interests for the judiciary. Mr Cherbi says he believes it is time for Scotland to move in the same direction and create a similar register of interests for the judiciary of Scotland and all its members, increasing the transparency of the judiciary and ensuring public confidence in their actions & decisions.

The full details of the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, should be looked at for a model of similar legislation in Scotland, can be viewed online here  Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.

New Zealand MP, Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill on judicial interests states : It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach, and suspicion thereof. Public confidence in the standard of behaviour and conduct observed by leading servants of the people is a cornerstone of social harmony and political stability. A threshold of confidence to that end should ideally be enshrined in constitutional and legislative form. Little scope should be available for individual discretion or subjective perception.

The principle of transparency in this respect pertains in particular to issues of financial (pecuniary) interest. Nothing undermines public confidence in a nation’s institutions and procedures more than suspicion that a public servant may have, and especially proof that one has, suffered a conflict of interest arising from a pecuniary interest in a particular dealing in which he or she was professionally involved.

The correct balance in this respect appears to have been achieved over the years–the public interest in such annual statements is significant without appearing prurient, and few complaints have been voiced by those on whom the obligations are placed. There seems to be a general acceptance that such exercises are in the public interest and are neither unduly onerous nor revealing.

No such practice, however, has been observed in the case of the judiciary. Recent developments within New Zealand’s judicial conduct processes suggest that application of the same practice observed by the other two branches of government might assist in the protection of the judiciary in future.

Being obliged under law to declare pecuniary interests that might be relevant to the conduct of a future case in which one is involved would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgements about his or her personal affairs as each case arises. Having declared one’s pecuniary interests once, in a generic manner independent of any particular trial, a judge may freely proceed in the knowledge that, if he or she is appointed to adjudicate, public confidence for participation has already been met. Yet care is to be exercised to ensure that the final decision is left to the individual judge whether to accept a case. There should be no intention of external interference into the self-regulation of the judiciary by the judiciary.

This is the reasoning behind this draft legislation–the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as stated, is to promote the due administration of justice by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system, and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.”

Mr Cherbi said in his petition : “I believe the same aims of the New Zealand legislation as quoted above, are compatible with the public interest in Scotland and to promote the due administration of justice by providing the public with greater transparency within the judicial system.”

The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill is an example of similar legislation for a register of judicial interests in New Zealand, bought to the New Zealand Parliament by Dr Kennedy Graham.When asked whether a register of interests existed for Scottish judges, the Judicial Office for Scotland said “The Judicial Office for Scotland does not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so. The Lord President has set out formal guidelines to the judiciary in the STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL ETHICS Para 4.9 and 7.2 address this particular point.”

However in an age of transparency where the decisions of Scottish judges affect all our lives, whether the case be criminal or civil, there must be a requirement for all public servants particularly those in positions of such importance as the judiciary to submit their interests to a publicly available register of interests.

New Zealand’s Law Commission issued paper supporting a register for judges interests. In New Zealand, the New Zealand Law Commission has argued for a wider remit to include all officials whose positions given them potential to influence a case to be included in such a register of interests.

The Law Commission stated : “If there is to be legislation, should it apply to all judges, or only to judges of some levels, or to all judicial employees and officials such as prosecutors and registrars? An argument can be made that if there is to be financial disclosure it should be required of all officials whose positions give them sufficient potential to influence the outcome of a case, whether as a result of a bribe or other improper influence.”

The New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on a register of judicial interests can be downloaded
here :  NZLC IP21 - Towards a New Courts Act: A Register of Judges pecuniary interests? (pdf)

In comparison to New Zealand’s effort to ensure transparency in the judiciary, Scotland’s judges and the Scotish Government have, unsurprisingly backed away from any similar measures, even concealing criminal charges and convictions of Scottish judges, where in one case a Scottish judge was charged with fiddling benefits claims, exposed in a Diary of Injustice investigation into Judge’s financial fiddles, here : CAREER CROOKED : Investigation reveals Scottish judges are CONVICTED CRIMINALS, Drunk Drivers,Tax Dodgers & alleged BENEFITS CHEATS

In response to an earlier Freedom of Information Request from Diary of Injustice, the Head of Strategy & Governance for the Judicial Office for Scotland pointedly REFUSED to provide any details of information disclosing whether any members of the judiciary in Scotland have declared or informed the Scottish Court Service in the past three years of :

Any offshore investments, Unrecorded cash transactions, Payments for outside work, Any application of “tax efficient” schemes to avoid paying taxes, Associations or meetings with convicted criminals, Vehicle accidents,  criminal charges, or being interviewed by Police.

The reasons given by the Judicial Office for refusing to disclose key details on what Scots judges are getting up to, are that much of the information requested is held by an ‘arms length body’ created by the Scottish Court Service which holds such information on behalf of the Lord President, rather than passing it directly to him.

The on-going investigation by Diary of Injustice into members of Scotland’s judiciary has already revealed a series of judges appear to be involved in OFFSHORE TAX AVOIDANCE schemes, associations with convicted criminals & organised crime, prostitution rackets, accepting hospitality & payments from well known corrupt solicitors representing dodgy law firms while others on the bench are engaging in questionable investments & duties which appear to be in conflict with their positions as members of the judiciary. More on these findings can be read in an earlier article here : Offshore trusts, property holdings, insurance syndicates, hospitality from dodgy lawyers, yet no plans for a register of interests for Scottish judges

The Sunday Mail newspaper has reported on the petition for a register of Judicial Interests, here :

Petition to hold judges to account

by Russell Findlay
Sunday Mail November 04 2012

A legal campaigner has urged MSPs to create a register of interests for Scotland’s judges.

Peter Cherbi has secured a Scottish Parliament petition calling for all sheriffs and judges to declare financial interests and hospitality.

The legal blogger from Edinburgh, said: “Like those in other areas of public life, members of the judiciary should be required to disclose their interests, financial or otherwise.

“This would increase transparency and help to ensure public confidence in their actions and decisions.

“It has been suggested to me some judges have offshore investments for the purpose of tax avoidance while others may have shares or other connections to businesses.”

Cherbi was inspired by a similar proposed law which is being debated in New Zealand.

The closing date for the online petition is December 7.

Judges were issued with ethical guidelines which were drawn up by senior judges headed by Lord Osborne two years ago.

The Judicial Office for Scotland: “We do not hold a register of hospitality for members of the judiciary and there are no plans to do so.”

SLOW MOTION ON CROOKED LAWYERS : Law Society Chiefs unable to sniff out rogue solicitor, fail to serve court order banning him from targeting new victims

In the bag ? ‘Sniffer dogs may have a better chance of catching John O’Donnell than Law Society’s Elaine Motion’. A ROGUE SOLICITOR remains at large in Scotland today after Law Society Chiefs claim they could not find him to serve a court order banning him from working as a solicitor. The lawyer in question, John G O’Donnell, who was suspended, then had his practising certificate removed after the media focussed on his trail of destruction which includes many ruined clients, is, according to the Law Society of Scotland “nowhere to be seen”, thus preventing the incompetent regulator from serving a court order obtain earlier in October at Scotland’s Court of Session.

The recent case in Scotland’s Court of Session, where the Law Society sought an Interim Interdict preventing O’Donnell posing as a solicitor, only came about after further investigations by the Sunday Mail newspaper, who revealed that O’Donnell had been receiving clients desperately in need of legal assistance from ‘wannabe lawyers’ working for Hamilton Citizens Advice Bureau.

The Sunday Mail revealed that O’Donnell had targeted an elderly widow, Elizabeth Campbell, who produced evidence that one of Hamilton CAB’s In Court advisers had sent her to O’Donnell, sending a handwritten note he hoped the crooked lawyer would be able to scoop £3000 from his latest victim. Diary of Injustice reported on the case, here : Crooked lawyer impersonates DEAD COLLEAGUE to lure clients in fraud scam as Law Society of Scotland’s self regulation of solicitors fails yet again

QC Elaine Motion of Balfour & Manson, has represented the Law Society against John O’Donnell at hearings before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal and now at the Court of Session, yet years have gone by, and the numbers of victims of O’Donnell increased markedly, without any substantive action on the part of regulators or Scotland’s Crown Office to go after O’Donnell to end his reign of terror over Scots who take him on, unknowingly. In an earlier attempt to get O’Donnell off the hook, and limit media coverage of the serial conman, legal representatives of O’Donnell tried to broker a deal at a Law Society Christmas party in 2009.

A ‘sanitised‘account’ of the meeting between Elaine Motion & Steven Gold, is reported in the Tribunal's hearing into one of the complaints against O’Donnell, which is published online here Council of the Law Society of Scotland v John G O'Donnell and reprinted below to give a flavour of the double dealing behind the closed doors world of self regulation of Scottish solicitors :

Law Society’s 2009 Christmas party was scene of deal to save O’Donnell from disciplinary moves. Page three of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland v John G O'Donnell states : “In December 2009, Elaine Motion and Steven Gold, Solicitor were both at a Law Society’s Christmas Drinks Party. They were involved in a conversation with regard to the health and welfare of the Respondent. Mr Gold made representations on behalf of the Respondent to Elaine Motion to the effect that it would be humane and advantageous to everyone involved if a way could be found to allow the Respondent to hand in his practising certificate without having to undergo the ordeal and expense of an appearance before the Tribunal. Elaine Motion was sympathetic to the representations but indicated that she would require to discuss matters with the Law Society of Scotland who would make the decision. There was no undertaking given at this meeting to Steven Gold that if the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal struck the Respondent’s name from the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland no further Complaints would be brought against the Respondent and no undertaking was given that if the Respondent accepted pleas of guilty to the outstanding Complaint, no further proceedings would be brought against him.”

Commenting on the latest development in the O’Donnell saga, a legal insider told Diary of Injustice this afternoon he felt the case was being handed very poorly by the Law Society, who could have gone after O’Donnell “years ago” to stop his trail of destroyed clients.

He compared the latest efforts made by the Law Society of Scotland to stop O’Donnell working as a solicitor, as “a joke”, going onto say “The Law Society clearly don't want to find him to quickly. Perhaps they might have a better chance if they call out some sniffer dogs.”

If you know where rogue solicitor John G O’Donnell is, tell us via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com and the information will be passed on to the appropriate channels.

The Sunday Mail has reported on the new developments :

BANNED LAWYER FACES NEW COURT DATE

A rogue lawyer is being hunted by watchdogs so they can tell him he's banned - again.

John O'Donnell, 62, has been accused of breaching a ban on working as a solicitor following a Sunday Mail probe.

The Law Society of Scotland's Elaine Motion is trying to take him to court but does not know where he is.

O'Donnell has been repeatedly rapped for professional misconduct and negligence.

The Law Society won an interim interdict at the Court of Session Edinburgh three years ago, banning him from posing as a solicitor. Six Months ago, we revealed that O'Donnell was allegedly using another lawyer's identity to beat the ban.

That prompted the Law Society to take action against him for flouting the interdict.

One source said : "The problem is that he's nowhere to be seen and does not appear keen to make himself available."

The Law Society said : "John O'Donnell does not hold a current practising certificate and therefore cannot practise as a solicitor in Scotland.

"The Law Society applied to the court to serve notice - by way of an advertisement in the press - of an alleged breach of an interim interdict."

"The Interim Interdict included an order preventing Mr O'Donnell from holding himself out as entitled by law to practise as a solicitor."

"The application to service a notice was granted by the court on October 16"

CALLED TO THE BARS : Drink fuelled & ‘hate filled’ emails of MacAskill appointees ruined credibility of Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claim Govt insiders

Already wounded over refusals to investigate complaints against corrupt lawyers, the SLCC became “a laughing stock" in email revelations. A DRINK FUELLED hate-filled rant between a now former Board member of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) who was personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and a former Chief Executive who mysteriously resigned over ill health then turned up again at the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has been identified by Scottish Government insiders as the spark which left the SLCC with no credibility as an impartial regulator or of Scottish solicitors.

The bizarre rants, attacking campaign groups and clients making financial damages claims against dodgy Scottish lawyers were written by Glasgow based divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan OBE, then a Board member of the SLCC in 2008, to Eileen Masterman, the legal regulator’s third and most controversial Chief Executive who spent only a few months in the job before being accused of lying by Scotland’s Finance Secretary, John Swinney MSP, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Scottish Govt. Finance Chief John Swinney blasts Legal Complaints Commission as liars over secret meetings with Law Society insurers Marsh UK

In the bitter email exchanges, revealed after Freedom of Information requests were made by Diary of Injustice, Mrs Scanlan went on to single out a former complaints campaign group for special attention, demanding the SLCC give no recognition to such groups in a forthcoming investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy & Guarantee Fund, both of which have been roundly condemned as being “institutionally corrupt” by Consumer rights groups, submissions made to Scottish Parliament investigations and hundreds of clients who have ended up financially ruined as a result of involvement with the Scottish legal profession.

Mrs Scanlan also branded claimants to the notoriously corrupt Master Insurance Policy as “chancers”, yet a ground breaking investigation carried out by the University of Manchester’s law school later that same year in July 2009, linked the Law Society’s Master Policy with suicides of clients of solicitors who were involved in damages claims against the Master Policy compensation scheme after being financially ruined by their lawyers.

Margaret Scanlan was ‘on the razzle again’ while clients of ‘crooked lawyers’ burned. Yesterday, the Sunday Mail newspaper featured email correspondence obtained under Freedom of Information laws in which SLCC board member Margaret Scanlan, a solicitor with Russells Gibson McCaffrey in Glasgow, confessed to the Commission she was suffering from the effects of a hangover after being “'out on the razzle again last night”. Stunningly Scanlan in her emails then went on to tear apart consumers hopes the SLCC would fulfil its intended monitoring role of the ‘crooked lawyer compensation schemes, operated by the Law Society of Scotland, known as the Guarantee Fund & Master Insurance Policy which are designed to (but do not) protect consumers funds from crooked lawyers who steal money or mishandling client’s legal affairs.

Margaret Scanlan : “Was out on the razzle, again, last night so bit cross-eyed this morning. Please excuse any consequent gibberish. Here are my comments on Master Policy and Guarantee Fund…. The consultation should be viewed with some caution. It provides very little by way of a sound evidential basis for us to do anything…. One unidentified responded … reports complaints about difficulty in finding solicitors to pursue a claim under MP (Master Policy). Apart from fundamental misunderstandings about MP which is for benefit of practitioner and in respect of which consumer has no rights ..”

Margaret Scanlan condemns claimants against crooked lawyers as “chancers”. However, further emails from Margaret Scanlan have now emerged which depict the same Law Society style 'anti-consumer-anti-claims culture' operating at the supposedly independent Legal Complaints Commission, where Scanlan stunningly labels claimants to the Guarantee Fund as "chancers" indicating she may have personal knowledge of cases, despite the fact that claims to the Guarantee Fund are supposedly confidential.

Margaret Scanlan : "The only complaints I am aware of on the functioning and extent of the GF [Guarantee Fund] have come from corporate bodies eg lending Institutions whose claims have largely not been entertained on basis that is not what GF is for. This includes our friend **** (censored) whose cause is vigorously espoused by **** (censored) but is a complete chancer in my opinion."

Today, a senior source in the Scottish Government’s Justice Department claimed the revelations which ended up in the media, “revealed the regulator’s institutional contempt for members of the public who make complaints against crooked lawyers”. The source also went on to criticise the Justice Secretary himself for allowing the legal profession to dictate terms on a daily basis as to how the supposedly “independent” SLCC investigate complaints made by clients of poorly performing Scottish solicitors.

However, the anti-client culture at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission did not end with just one board member, a fact revealed in continuing investigations by Diary of Injustice after sources within the SLCC leaked details of bitter meetings where consumers, campaign groups, individuals and clients of well known corrupt lawyers were openly slated and derided by the highly remunerated Board members who were taking hundreds of pounds a day in expenses claims.

Further revelations revealing the strongly anti-client, anti- consumer views of the SLCC’s board emerged again in 2010 after Scotland’s then Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, ordered the release of further bitter email exchanges showing David Smith, husband of Court of Session Judge Lady Smith, who regularly branded victims of crooked lawyers as “frequent flyers” in emails the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission fought to keep the public from reading. Diary of Injustice reported on Mr Dunion’s decision and the scandal surrounding Mr Smith’s treatment of victims of rogue lawyers in an article here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

SLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision published late last week by Mr Dunion are emails containing anti-client jibes from one of the SLCC’s board members, David Smith who was personally appointed to the SLCC by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Smith, a lawyer who served much of his career at law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, who themselves often act for the Master Policy in protection of questionable solicitors against negligence claims, referred to participants in the Master Policy survey & deceased clients who had committed suicide as a direct result of involvement with the Master Policy, as “Frequent flyers”, a term (among many unprintable) apparently widely used among SLCC Board members & staff against anyone who submits complaints against solicitors.

A Justice Department insider condemned the use of such language, describing the words used in the email written by Smith as “being filled with hate for people who complain about their lawyers”. He further commented : “No wonder the SLCC fought against the Information Commissioner to keep it from public gaze as this depicts a very anti-client culture permeating the entire board of the SLCC.”

David Smith, Margaret Scanlan and Eileen Masterman are of course no longer at the SLCC, yet attempts to re-float the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission since the media revelations of how badly it views members of the public have consistently failed, with most people forced to deal with the prejudiced regulator ending up viewing the SLCC as little more than “a front company for the legal profession to put complaints against their members to bed”.

Eileen Masterman resigned from the SLCC, receiving a huge payoff personally backed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, reported exclusively by Diary of Injustice here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers. After allegedly being too ill to work, Ms Masterman went back to work for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, her new position exposed after allegations of a whitewash by the SPSO and a hospital over the death of a baby, reported here Deputy First Minister to look into death of baby McKenzie Wallace after parents complain of ‘whitewash’ report by SPSO investigator Eileen Masterman

The Sunday Mail newspaper reported on the anti-consumer views of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as follows

Called to the Bars : Top lawyer admits talking gibberish at work due to hangover

Mar 15 2009 By David Taylor

A TOP legal watchdog admitted to her boss she was talking gibberish - because of a hangover. Lawyer Margaret Scanlan made the confession in a email which described herself as "cross-eyed" after a night on the tiles.

Scanlan was appointed to her job in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission by anti-booze crusader Kenny MacAskill. She wrote: "Was out on the razzle, again, last night so bit cross-eyed this morning. Please excuse any consequent gibberish."

Divorce lawyer Scanlan sent the lengthy email at 11.30am one day in November last year to watchdog chief Eileen Masterman. It was also copied to Alan Paterson, a law professor at Strathclyde University.

Campaigner Peter Cherbi, who champions legal and consumer issues, said: "This is not the sort of service the people of Scotland deserve. "It's not very good conduct for people who are supposed to be in some of the most respectable positions in the legal profession."

Scanlan was hand picked by Justice Secretary MacAskill as one of five lawyers to serve on the SLCC - a "one-stop shop" for complaints against lawyers. MacAskill plans to enforce mimimum prices for drink to combat alcoholism and drink-related problems.

The SLCC was set up by the Scottish Government to "modernise the legal complaints" system and ensure gripes are resolved quickly and effectively. It was formed after complaints that self-regulation by the Law Society of Scotland often protected crooked lawyers through cronyism.

Scanlan's email - about an insurance policy to cover solicitors' mistakes and misuse of clients' cash - was released to legal reform campaigners through a Freedom of Information request. The request also released emails from Scanlan attacking outspoken legal reform group Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.

In one email, she wrote: "I would prefer that we not give any recognition to SACL. "I do not see why we have to name them even if we are bound to engage with them. "Their website is offensive and so far as I am aware no reputable organisations has anything to do with them"

Scanlan is a specialist in family law at Glasgow-based Russells Gibson McCaffrey.

She has also tutored in family law at Glasgow Caledonian University and was deputy chair of the Scottish Legal Aid Board between 1997 and 2007. She was also director of the Legal Defence Union between 1998 and 2002. She earns £350 a day plus expenses for her work with the SLCC.

When asked about the emails, Scanlan told us: "I have nothing to say."

£8 MILLION of YOUR MONEY spent on ‘BULLY BOY’ agents as papers to MSP reveal Accountant in Bankruptcy secretly seize benefits of disabled, trashing lives of Scots on the brink

Plush offices of Kilwinning based Accountant in Bankruptcy, who target disabled benefits cash. AT THE END of a week when the Scottish Government announced there have been 4,063 personal insolvencies in the past year, it may well come as a surprise to learn that papers now in the hands of MSPs and an MP, reveal that Scotland's Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) is conveniently looking the other way while its highly paid, ‘bully boy’ agents routinely seize Scots benefits cash in attempts to force unnecessary payments out of even the long term sick and disabled victims of the current recession.

It can also be revealed the same ‘bully-boy’ firms of private accountants who go on to seize the bank accounts of sequestrated individuals, are being paid millions of pounds of public money by the AIB to do it, and when victims are forced to complain about their benefits being withheld, contrary to laws put in place to prevent this, the Accountant in Bankruptcy and their agents refuse to allow external investigations by banking & finance regulators.

Journalists from Diary of Injustice who have been looking into this huge bankruptcy scam on the public purse, recently made Freedom of Information requests to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, asking for details of expenditures of public money on private accountants acting as the AIB’s “agents” and the numbers of complaints made against each of the AIB’s agents.

In it’s response. the Accountant in Bankruptcy revealed that at least EIGHT MILLION POUNDS of taxpayers cash (£8,021,756.62) has already been spent on private accountants working for the already overstaffed multi million pound budgeted public body in charge of sequestrations. The AIB have also revealed a litany of complaints made against its agents but it refused to release any details of the actual complaints and confirm whether matters were in fact resolved.

The AIB ‘s FOI response, available to view online HERE, states :

I can confirm that Armstrong Watson is one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Armstrong Watson has been paid £1,051,627.12 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 2062 cases. I can confirm that there have been 11 complaints made to AiB in respect of Armstrong Watson, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

I can confirm that Hastings & Co are one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Hastings & Co have been paid £608,605.96 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 1040 cases. I can confirm that there have been 8 complaints made to AiB in respect of Hastings & Co, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

I can confirm that Invocas is one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Invocas has been paid £284,346.77 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 875 cases. I can confirm that there have been 6 complaints made to AiB in respect of Invocas, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

I can confirm that KPMG is one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, KPMG has been paid £3,706,744.79 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 6585 cases. I can confirm that there have been 28 complaints made to AiB in respect of KPMG, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

I can confirm that Miller McIntyre & Gellatly (now mmg archbold) is one of those Providers. Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, MMG have been paid £303,745.48 for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 710 cases. I can confirm that there has been 1 complaint made to AiB in respect of MMG, from 1 April 2009 to date, 2 August 2012.

Since the commencement of this contract in April 2009, until 31 March 2012, Wylie & Bisset have been paid £2,066,686.50, for the administration of cases on behalf of The Accountant in Bankruptcy. To date they have been allocated 3703 cases. I can confirm that there have been 18 complaints made to AiB in respect of Wylie & Bisset, from 1 April 2009 to date, 27 July 2012.

After looking into cases brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice, it has now been confirmed several of the firms identified in the above FOI response have been subject to serious complaints relating to how sequestrations have been handled, including matters involving the freezing of bank accounts and access to state funds.

Papers relating to one such case now in the hands of Perth MSP John Park confirm that agents acting on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy have blocked access to disability benefits payments made to individuals who have suffered sequestration under highly questionable circumstances, for up to SEVEN MONTHS at a time.

The case being handled by MSP Mr Park, involves a Mr William Gordon of Perth who’s plight has previously been reported by the Herald newspaper, online law news websites and Diary of Injustice, featuring the case here :

An investigation of Mr Gordon’s case on Scots law website Scottish Law Reporter identified a firm Glasgow accountants, Wylie & Bisset who have been acting for the Accountant in Bankruptcy against Mr Gordon.

The Herald newspaper & Scottish Law Reporter have previously reported that Wylie & Bisset, who have been paid a whopping TWO MILLION POUNDS of public money to act for the AIB in sequestration cases, had also attempted to seize Mr Gordon's home  (which he does not own) and the home of an unrelated family in another town in order to pay off questionable debts claimed by a Perth based law firm, Kippen Campbell.

Diary of Injustice has previously reported on Mr Gordon’s case, after Kippen Campbell decided to bankrupt Mr Gordon, their former client, over a fees dispute, even though documents produced to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission revealed Kippen Campbell had left their client on the doorstep of the Court of Session without legal representation after a long battle to bring a personal injury claim.

It has shockingly turned out that since the last report on Mr Gordon’s case, where his accounts were unfrozen, the agents acting for the AIB along with Lloyds TSB, Mr Gordon's bank, froze his accounts again, and have since refused to offer any explanation for their conduct.

Earlier this week, Diary of Injustice was handed copies of papers now in the hands of John Park MSP, and the SNP’s Pete Wishart MP at Westminster, which show the AIB’s agents, Wylie & Bisset have even refused requests from the Financial Ombudsman to investigate complaints made about the case by Mr Gordon, a move which suggests private firms acting on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy are effectively unregulated, and can do as they please to victims of the credit crunch, brought about by the antics of corrupt, greedy bankers & their colleagues.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice yesterday (Friday), an official with one of Scotland’s Consumer protection bodies condemned the treatment of Mr Gordon and others at the hands of the AIB.

She said : “It is a disgrace that firms of private accountants who are apparently being paid millions of pounds of public money by the AIB are freezing benefits payments made to the sick & disabled and those who can ill afford any further expenditure after being made bankrupt.”

She added that the matter was so serious it must be raised in discussions with a view to making amendments to the coming Bankruptcy Bill, proposed by the SNP to be brought before the Scottish Parliament at a later date.

After Mr Gordon’s plight became public, Diary of Injustice received numerous emails from individuals caught in similar circumstances where agents acting for the AIB have also blocked access to state benefits payments, in what appears to be a popular policy of holding the poorest in society to ransom, in an effort to extort unnecessary payments back to the AIB’s agents who are already raking in millions of pounds of taxpayers money.

No one from the Accountant in Bankruptcy has answered or explained why it has not acted over complaints about bully boy tactics by its own agents in cases where bank accounts and state benefits payments to victims of disabilities have been frozen for such long periods of time.

If you have encountered difficulties with the Accountant in Bankruptcy or their agents, please let us know via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com. Anyone in such a situation should also ask for help from their MSP, in the light of the planned new legislation on bankruptcies in the Scottish Parliament.