Saturday, February 18, 2012

Lawyers told to pay £338 for continuing ‘old pals act regulation’ as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission calls for 60% complaints levy rise

Jane Irvine SLCC ChairRegulating lawyers on the cheap : Jane Irvine’s SLCC sets the ‘Staying out of jail’ fee for Scottish lawyers at £338 a year. IF CRIMINALS could pay the Police £338 a year to rig an investigation, avoid criminal charges or a prosecution before the courts, there would be many takers (actually, come to think of it, there are). In what may therefore be a perfect comparison to a bribe to keep out of the arms of the law, the stage is set for another perfect ‘keep out of jail’ exercise in the legal world, where the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has this week, announced its 2012-2013 budget of nearly THREE MILLION POUNDS, where solicitors with three or more years of experience will be required to pay a complaints levy of £338, thus ensuring the legal profession can continue to cover up the actions of Scotland’s swelling ranks of corrupt lawyers.

There is little doubt that a meagre £338 a year to ensure lawyers continue to regulate lawyers is certainly a bargain, if one considers the amounts of money being taken from clients on an annual basis, and the vast sums of taxpayers money being lost to solicitors fraudulently claiming legal aid, resulting in figures which are well into the tens of millions of pounds. Yet the Law Society of Scotland does not appear to feel the £338 is much of a bargain, even though their member solicitors appear to be recouping the complaints levy many times over from huge hikes in client fees, and other creative ways lawyers have used to swell their wallets.

Last year, the SLCC’s stay-out-of-jail levy for Scottish solicitors was an artificially low £209 after the Law Society of Scotland lobbied then Scottish Government’s Communities Minister Fergus Ewing to intervene on the legal profession’s behalf to force the SLCC to hand back ONE MILLION POUNDS to lawyers, reported by Diary of Injustice at the time, here : Emails reveal Law Society Chief Executive ‘called the shots’ over Fergus Ewing’s Ministerial threat to Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & HERE

This year, we are going to be treated to much the same spectacle, after the Law Society criticised the SLCC’s latest budget plan, and urged savings. You can be certain a letter from the Law Society to Roseanna Cunningham, who replaced Fergus Ewing, will certainly be in the post, or already on her desk demanding Ministerial coercion or simply just another up front intervention to lower the cost of the complaints levy to lawyers.

The proposed levy for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for the financial year 2012-2013 is: Solicitors with three plus years experience, £338 (£209 for 2011-12); Conveyancing & executry practitioners admitted three plus years £338 (£209); Solicitors in first three years of practice £169 (£105); Conveyancing & executry practitioners in first three years of practice £169 (£105); Practising outwith Scotland £113 (£69); In-house conveyancing & executry practitioners £113 (£69); In-house solicitors £113 (£69)

Lorna JackLaw Society’s Chief Executive Lorna Jack. Lorna Jack, the current Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland who replaced the much more fun Douglas Mill, was quick to plead poverty on behalf of her fellow solicitors in a Press Release issued by the Law Society, commenting : "Many of our members are facing difficult times economically.  Whilst we accept that the commission does not have the kind of reserves to offset the levy as it did last year, we believe that all efforts should be made to find further savings within the proposed budget thereby lessening the impact of the proposed levy increase."

The pleas of poverty on the part of lawyers do not appear to match the reality of large scale legal aid frauds running into millions of pounds a year, hikes in client fees where even the simplest cases taken on by Scottish solicitors are now costing several thousands of pounds a year to resolve and being stretched out for years to ensure further income.

Ms Jack continued : "The Commission has indicated that its expenditure will be down by half of one percent on last year. However, we are urging them to find further savings - without compromising the core and important role they perform - so that the annual levy solicitors pay to fund the organisation can be as low as possible in the coming year.

"Many of our members are facing difficult times economically.  Whilst we accept that the commission does not have the kind of reserves to offset the levy as it did last year, we believe that all efforts should be made to find further savings within the proposed budget thereby lessening the impact of the proposed levy increase."

The Press Release also reminded us that “…last year, the Society successfully lobbied the SLCC to use £1 million of its reserves, which meant that the levy was lower than in previous years.”

One of the most significant changes in the budget this year is the proposal to abolish the fee for resolving a complaint on the recommendation of a complaints investigator. Instead, the SLCC has the discretion to charge a case fee of up to £5,000 if a complaint is upheld at the determination stage.

The Law Society is required to collect the levy payments from solicitors on behalf of the SLCC. The levy funds the SLCC's annual budget, which this financial year (July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013) is forecast to be £2,813,381, largely funded by the levy. The Law Society has called on its members to respond directly to the SLCC during the budget consultation (or participate in a fabricated consultation organised by the Law Society)

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a Press Release  on the budget, lacking any statement from its Chief Executive. The SLCC is funded by a levy paid by legal professionals operating in Scotland. Under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, we are required to consult with the professional bodies about our proposed budget for the next financial year. Following the consultation, the budget will be agreed and then laid before the Scottish Parliament. The SLCC's financial year runs from 1 July to 30 June.

The proposal is to: (i) set the complaints levy at mediation and investigation stages at zero for all complaints resolved. (ii) set the complaint levy at zero for complaints not upheld at determination (iii) set a single capped figure of £5,000 for complaints upheld in full or part at determination.  The SLCC's policy will be to apply discretion to charge up to that figure taking into account the circumstances of the case and providing reasons for the levy charged.

The full SLCC Proposed Budget (PDF, 95k) reports the most significant areas of spend continues to be on staff and members, both of which have increased in the current budget.  The budget for 2011/12 was based on a head count of 38.  The budget for 2012/13 is based on a headcount of 40.6 (The 0.6 being Jane Irvine’s dog, probably the only trustworthy yet unofficial member of staff at the Stamp Office who wont tell a client to drop dead just because they filed a complaint about their lawyer).

The SLCC claims the new staffing headcount reflects the changes since the SLCC reviewed its staffing levels as part of the restructuring during 2010/11 and the increase in the volume of work related to complaints and oversight. No mention was made of staff leaving the SLCC either on health grounds, grievances or other issues such as departing to higher up the chain appointments.

The most significant variances between years not related to staffing are: (i) Direct case costs : The increase is based on actual expenditure in the previous year on case-related legal costs.  The majority of this is in relation to appeals. ii)  Corporate legal costs : The increase is based on actual expenditure on advice in relation to interpretation of the 2007 Act, Freedom of Information requests/ reviews, employment and governance.  The majority being in relation to interpretation of legislation. The SLCC said this is likely to continue into the 2012/13 financial year.

Last year the SLCC blew hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal fees, associated with legal advice on just about every FOI request the SLCC received, along with advice & representation on a string of solicitors court challenges to its authority.

The SLCC’s somewhat fanciful, highboy fictional Operational Plan (PDF, 159k) claims they will focus resources and activities on developing and refining the policies and process that support their core business in relation to ;

(i) Acting as the gateway for legal complaints in Scotland, (ii) Resolving complaints about inadequate professional service provided by legal practitioners, (iii) Oversight of the professional bodies investigation of complaints about the conduct of legal practitioners, (iv) Advice and information giving to complainers, the legal profession, consumers and other stakeholders, (v) Implementing the provisions of the Legal Services Act 2010

The SLCC’s plan also claims that “underpinning these activities is our aim to contribute to improvements and excellence in the  provision of legal services in Scotland. Operationally we will continue to operate an efficient organisation that makes effective use of resources.”

If Jane Irvine’s pet dog doesn't believe the SLCC’s operational plan without a biscuit inducement, neither therefore should consumers who are forced to complain about their solicitors to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. We are after all talking about an organisation which has so far, told most consumers to ‘get lost’ about their complaints, upheld only a handful of cases against members of the legal profession, and appears not to have prosecuted any crooked lawyer or taken part in a striking off case after all the millions spent on the quango since 2008.

Rosemary AgnewSLCC Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew, soon to be Scotland’s new Freedom of Information Commissioner. Rosemary Agnew, the SLCC’s soon to exit Chief Executive who was recently appointed to replace Kevin Dunion as Scotland’s Information Commissioner, apparently at the insistence of a closed group of senior msps has written to the regulators who must ensure the complaints levy is paid. Ms Agnew’s letters can be found here : SLCC letters to the professional bodies (PDF, 6Mb). Ms Agnew in her role as Chief Executive has chosen not to issue any comment on the budget unlike last year where the Chief Executive issued a long statement.

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

Irvine's mob need 3 million a year to tell us to all f*ck off when we make a complaint about our lawyers?

Well well well.I think this orgy of money badly spent should be brought to a swift end.

After all Cherbi's blog is doing more for us than this bunch of lawyer loves ever could or would!

Anonymous said...

£338 to stay out of jail - must be a great deal for lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Why did Jane Irvine get her picture taken hanging onto the bannister?

Is she giving a speech to people in the corridor?Is this one of those off the record speeches with no notes taken just in case Peter the Great finds out and does an investigation?

Anonymous said...

So, 93p a day for a Scottish lawyer being assured to be above the law?

Disgusting!

Anonymous said...

How many lawyers have the SLCC prosecuted since 2008 ?

Answer : NONE

How many lawyers who have been stealing legal aid have the SLCC had arrested or charged ?

Answer : None

How many clients have the SLCC refused to look seriously at their complaints or do anything about the suffering they went through because of their crooked lawyer ?

Since 2008 THOUSANDS

Anonymous said...

I like this blog.It tells me everything I need to know about lawyers that I will never find out from a lawyer.

I dare say there are some good lawyers but they never seem to show their faces or criticise the way their profession has become so corrupted.It is a pity because as long as none of them speak out the fact is all will be tarred with the same brush of corruption like we see coming out of the Law Society and this SLCC.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers regulating each other no wonder its all corrupt and look at the money they spend to pretend they investigate complaints.If its £3 million for the SLCC they must be covering up hundreds of millions in frauds

Anonymous said...

More bullshit from the lawyer fraternity about how to look after each other.

They should go give one of these speeches in the middle of Athens and see how long they last against the protesters.

Oh.Thought not.These types are only any good behind a desk armed with their colleagues for backup.

Anonymous said...

On a general point, one of the contributors here has hit the nail on the head. There are a lot of good solicitors out there but they do not speak out against the bad ones.

A good example is if you read the English Law Society Gazette blog. I am no solicitor but take an interest in some of the articles there which overlap with the insurance industry (personal injury and the compensation culture). I also have taken an interest in oppressive libel actions by law firms and the solicitor file sharing scandals in England.(see link at the bottom)

I have contributed alot to the LS blog and criticised several solicitors who have been disciplined by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and debated whether a compensation culture exists. However, the solicitors who post there actually defend these offenders and deny there is a compensaton culture whatsover.

Anyway - when they closed down Mr Kordowski's site I decided to post on the Law Society Gazette blog. If you read some of the debates I have had over there you will see how easy it is to run rings around the solicitors who contribute there. This is because they seek to defend the indefensible and are inward looking and don't see the profession from the point of view of a member of the public.

As an 'outsider' most really hate me and I have even received abuse which is fun. However, one or two of them have actually warmed to me recently and accept my presence and views. I would recommend that people here who are unhappy about solicitors etc go and visit the LS blog site or the Scottish equivilant and debate with them about the articles there.

I post under the name 'Kelly Matthews' and if you click on the below topics there you will see what I mean about their defensive attitude and running rings around them. These blogs really are a fascinating insight into their mindset.

Enjoy......

P.S This is a brilliant site Peter. But I would also encourage your readers to take the debate to them too! Posting is free and instant.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/firms-warned-over-letters-citizens-advice-clients

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/crossley-suspended-copyright-infringement-letters

Anonymous said...

Just another dummy bunch for the Law Society they shift complaints back & forth to eachother and no one gets anywhere while the rat lawyer keeps on working.The whole system is structured in their favour.

Anonymous said...

Yes you are quite correct.This fee guarantees all lawyers will stay out of the hands of the Police & criminal courts and instead be investigated by their own brethren.

Pure corruption.

Anonymous said...

You can be rest assured this £338 will be added to the bills sent out to clients probably a million times over!

Anonymous said...

No lawyers disciplined! So that means that all 10,000 of them are behaving perfectly in accordance with their rules. None of the client-complainers had any merit whatsoever, they were all clearly simply a bunch of misguided imbeciles with unjustified expectations of:- (i) service, (ii) loyalty to act in the best interests per their instructions and legitimate purposes, (iii) actual action on their behalf.
The message is clear:- dear client, just hand over your money and shut up, because you are obviously an idiot who stupidly believes our bullshit propaganda. You are just a cash dispenser - I simply type in the money i WANT, and Hey Presto - beep beep and out comes the money. What do you mean you want to complain, Ha, we've got that angle covered - as I said; You're an IDIOT.
The truth is this is just a quango that can blow £3 million whilst achieving nothing of its Statutory purpose.

Anonymous said...

So yet another example of lawyers being allowed to have their cake - and eat it!

Anonymous said...

Yes you're right there's no statement along with the 2012-13 budget.Agnew must have been told to shut up in case any comment upsets her role at the Information Commissioner for the next few years.

Anonymous said...

These people are the law, that is why they only occasionally face criminal courts.

Anonymous said...

The office structure bypasses the courts, the normal route being charged of fraud, Procurator Fiscal allows case to go to court and the case is heard in public.

The system is controlled by bureaucracy and this means no one is accountable for their criminal activities. The SLCC, Law Society, Sheriffs, Judges, Advocates all benefit from this system where they are outside the judicial punishments they administer to the ordinary man or woman.

Anonymous said...

I tend to avoid those sorts who lecture from the bannisters (as per the photo of Jane) you never know what they may get up to next!

Anonymous said...

Well this is all very odd.

Here we have a complaints body protesting its independence yet people who I think we would all value to be on it such as Mr Cherbi either want nothing to do with it or are completely shut out for the obvious reason the slcc is doing no good whatsoever for people stuck with problems made by their solicitors.

I realise the legal profession 'claims' it is paying for the slcc however as we see from Peter's continual investigations it is really the clients who are paying for the upkeep of Madam Irvine & friends through the legal fees paid back to solicitors.

Well Jane I think it comes down to this.If you want your quango to have any credibility at all you will have to start taking on or talking to people like Peter who we as the general public have more confidence in than anyone at your little operation on the stairwell.

nuff said!

Anonymous said...

This will be the £338 which saves all those bent lawyers every year from complaints or prosecutions.Its a protection racket!

Anonymous said...

Hello everyone,

I am forwarding the below request from Scottish Ombudsman Watch.

If anyone knows a journalist who is or could be sympathetic to concerns about the SPSO perhaps they can pass on contact details to Scottish Ombudsman Watch.

Much obliged,

Arthur Mc Farlane, Secretary, Integrity4Scotland.

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:42:10 -0800
From: info@scottishombudsmanwatch.org
Subject: Friendly newspaper reporters
To: aamcf@hotmail.co.uk

Do you or the I4S members know of any newspaper reporters who are sympathetic to stories about the spso.

If you do then could you send their contact details that would be appreciated.

Regards

Scottish Ombudsman Watch

Anonymous said...

I post under the name 'Kelly Matthews' and if you click on the below topics there you will see what I mean about their defensive attitude and running rings around them. These blogs really are a fascinating insight into their mindset.
=================================
Personally I am convinced all they think about is protecting the profession. Clients are just money to them and we see the mindset when Hudson states that Solicitors from Hell was a danger to the public. The man is out of touch with reality and I believe he truly believes this, web sites are the only protection clients have.

Anonymous said...

Close the SLCC and save all this money

Anonymous said...

These SLCC people are the utter dregs of the earth one of them told me to get lost on the telephone and put it down and that was because I asked what was happening about my complaint!

Anonymous said...

The truth is this is just a quango that can blow £3 million whilst achieving nothing of its Statutory purpose.
==============================
Yes its statutory purpose is an illusion. I took part in the Reforming Complaints Handling sent from the Law Society on bahalf of Cathy Jamieson who has the cheek to call herself a Justice Minister. Yes Cathy you had no intent in helping clients you were trying to close down Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers at the time.

The purpose of this quango is protecting lawyers, it was the intent from the start, another Law Society with a different name. Lawyers and MSP's the scum of the earth.

Anonymous said...

Here we have a complaints body protesting its independence yet people who I think we would all value to be on it such as Mr Cherbi either want nothing to do with it or are completely shut out for the obvious reason the slcc is doing no good whatsoever for people stuck with problems made by their solicitors. YES I TOTALLY AGREE.

I realise the legal profession 'claims' it is paying for the slcc however as we see from Peter's continual investigations it is really the clients who are paying for the upkeep of Madam Irvine & friends through the legal fees paid back to solicitors. THERE IS SOCH A THING AS LEGALISED CRIMINALITY AND THESE PEOPLE ARE IT.

Well Jane I think it comes down to this.If you want your quango to have any credibility (SHO WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CREDIBLE BUT IT CAN NEVER BE) at all you will have to start taking on or talking to people like Peter who we as the general public have more confidence in than anyone at your little operation on the stairwell. YES PETER CHERBI IS A "THORN IN THEIR FLESH" TO QUOTE MR DOUGLAS MILL'S ATTITUDE TO A CLIENT AND WE THORNS ARE MONEY TO LAWYERS NOTHING ELSE. THEY RUIN PEOPLE AND THEN LOCK THE GATES TO JUSTICE BY REFUSING TO REPRESENT THEM AND USING A FACADE OF SO CALLED INDEPENDENCE TO COVER THEIR CRIMES UP. I HAVE SAID BEFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REASON WITH THESE PEOPLE, THEY WANT US TO GO AWAY AND LET THEM MAINTAIN THEIR PROFITABLE CLIENT RUINING NETWORK. "THORNS IN THE FLESH" PUT YOURSELF IN PETER CHERBI'S SHOES MILL, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING FOR THE CROSS, HAMMER AND NAILS.

Anonymous said...

MPs are to be asked to throw out restrictions to the government's proposed "bedroom tax" in the latest round of parliamentary wrangling over Iain Duncan Smith's welfare shake-up.
=================================
This government would privatise the air we breathe if they could, I think Mr Smith hates the unemployed. I have a degree and a trade Mr Smith and the construction industry I love has been destroyed. When I am paying my taxes I am a valuable member of society but I become a leper when powers outside my control force me out of work you want to
penalise me further. Anything or anyone in the public sector except government quangos like Mr Salmonds SLCC Mr Smith is training his telescopic sights on.

Anonymous said...

£338 paid once and you can be rest assured they recover it thousands of times over from their poor clients

Wake up people.Stop using lawyers who cost the earth promise everything and do nothing but harm you.

Anonymous said...

(Putting the issue of the number of complaints upheld aside for a moment) Isn’t this levy, just like insurance or professional fees like solicitors have to pay to renew their practicing certificates? Say there are 5,000 solicitors in Scotland (I’ve no idea how many there are actually) and they all pay £338 each. That’s nearly £1.7m. So in reality, not all of the SLCC’s budget is taxpayers’ money, it’s actually solicitors’ money.

And BTW the SLCC can’t arrest or prosecute someone. Only the police and crown office do that.

Anonymous said...

Tesco has called on the government to stop forcing youths to undertake work experience in exchange for receiving benefits, after the supermarket came in for criticism for participating in "slave labour".

The consumer giant has instead said young people will be offered a choice between being paid for a four-week placement with a "guaranteed" permanent job if they perform well, or participating in the scheme which protects benefits.
==============================
Numbers matter this SLCC are exploiters too but they and their Law Society want to crush freedom of expression to maintain their corrupt ways.

As for young people, I remember Mrs Thatchers Youth Training Scheme, I was a time served joiner and was lucky not to be on the scheme. If Mr Cameron wants young people working create the economic conditions for apprenticships, get the construction industry going again and the knock on effects will be felt through the economy. Mr Cameron knows there is a difference bewenne what a Prime Minister wants to do and what he or she can do. Long live non violent dissent. Mr Cameron or Mr Clegg's sons will not be working for benefits.

Diary of Injustice said...

21 February 2012 15:54

Solicitors get their money from where ? Thin air ?

Solicitors get their money from their clients, whether by fair means or foul (increasingly, foul).

There are 10,000 or so solicitors in Scotland, so its £2.8 million, not 1.7

Many of the in-house lawyers are getting their subs paid for by whoever they work for, Scottish Government, local authorities etc .. clearly taxpayers cash.

The same applies for in-house lawyers subs to the Master Policy, which are paid for by their employers ... again, taxpayers cash.

The Crown Office and Police are not prosecuting lawyers, at least not for the majority of offences above the occasional road traffic accident. The SSDT and Law Society of Scotland are not prosecuting lawyers, they don't want to. The SLCC has never asked for any powers to discipline solicitors nor apparently does it ever intend to.

Anonymous said...

15:54 I dont think you will catch out Mr Cherbi with vague claims solicitors are funding the levy on their own.Clearly they are recovering the money from legal fees met by clients.

On the issue about prosecuting solicitors I have read enough to know the Crown Office are avoiding prosecuting or even charging solicitors even when it comes to legal aid fraud as Peter already revealed sometime last year.Legal aid is paid for by taxpayers isn't it?

So not prosecuting any of the lawyers for stealing the legal aid seems to be a bit iffy wouldn't you say?

Anonymous said...

The SSDT and Law Society of Scotland are not prosecuting lawyers, they don't want to.
================================
Yes Peter exactly save the Penman's Lockhart's and any other scumbag who ruins a client.

A seriously sick system indeed.
Independent regulation, these words are a joke, they are the law as anyone who has fought them knows only too well.

Anonymous said...

Hmm very interesting.I hadn't realised those in house ratbags were also getting their insurance subscriptions paid out of our pockets.How did you come by this information Peter?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
(Putting the issue of the number of complaints upheld aside for a moment) Isn’t this levy, just like insurance or professional fees like solicitors have to pay to renew their practicing certificates? Say there are 5,000 solicitors in Scotland (I’ve no idea how many there are actually) and they all pay £338 each. That’s nearly £1.7m. So in reality, not all of the SLCC’s budget is taxpayers’ money, it’s actually solicitors’ money.

And BTW the SLCC can’t arrest or prosecute someone. Only the police and crown office do that.

21 February 2012 15:54

Spot the lawyer lover! who seems to have got it ALL WRONG!

Anonymous said...

As MacAskill said himself "He who pays the piper calls the tune" so with all these lawyers paying the SLCC there's little wonder Madame Irvine & co are doing bugger all about crooked lawyers.

It would be like criminals paying the Police not to investigate (oh sorry we already have that in Glasgow,Edinburgh and a shit load of other toons!)

MacAskill should get vertical for a change and smell the reality unless maybe he is part of the problem.

Diary of Injustice said...

21 February 2012 18:47

The information on Master Policy payments covered by taxpayers money came out via an investigation and a little help from unnamed Scottish Government sources willing to speak out ...

The Scottish Government pays the Master Policy subscriptions of its own 200 plus legal team with the cost treated as "an expenses claim" per solicitor ...

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Government pays the Master Policy subscriptions of its own 200 plus legal team with the cost treated as "an expenses claim" per solicitor ...

Well I think this should be stopped immediately because even I know the insurance payments for lawyers are a LOT more than the £338 payable to the SSDT.

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Government has again warned the UK Government that their Housing Benefit reforms will remove over £54 million a year from the Scottish economy and put thousands of tenants at risk of increased rent arrears and even homelessness.

The Westminster Bill will reduce the amount of housing benefit support that can be given to tenants in the social rented sector by introducing new size criteria for working-age Housing Benefit claimants, who have extra bedrooms.

People who are judged to be “under occupying” their home by one bedroom will have their housing benefit slashed by 14 per cent. Where they are under occupying by two or more bedrooms the deduction is 25 per cent.

The new criteria for under occupation could mean that ill or disabled people, who use a spare bedroom for medical equipment, may all be affected.

The House of Lords has twice debated and sought to amend these provisions in the Bill. Their latest amendment would seek to exempt certain vulnerable groups from the deductions:.
=================================
The Tories and Clegg's lot would be setting up gas chambers if they could get away with it, pure scum.

Anonymous said...

One lawyer ruined me and many other lawyers refused to help me. They knew I had a case. The only decent lawyer is one that has passed away, they are pure scum. Any person who reads what this blog exposes and trusts lawyers should be sent to the psychiatric hospital. They deserve all they get.

Anonymous said...

Legalised robbery and they are writing the laws allowing it all to happen

Anonymous said...

That comment earlier sounds like some smart alec from the SLCC who claims not to know how many lawyers there are in Scotland yet knows the SLCC does not prosecute.

Times must be tough at the SLCC!

Anonymous said...

The government is willing to review its controversial work experience scheme following concerns expressed by major employers such as Tesco, the employment minister Chris Grayling has said.

But he stressed he was not going to be rushed into a decision on the basis of "one weekend's negative headlines".

Tesco, one of the largest participants in the year-old work experience scheme, has suggested the government drop the rule allowing job seeker's allowance (JSA) to be withdrawn from those who prematurely leave a placement. It fears the rule makes the scheme appear compulsory.

Two weeks' JSA can be docked if someone leaves a work experience placement after more than a week. Employers are reviewing whether to stick with the scheme in the face of heavy protests organised by groups such as UK Uncut.
===============================
Oh and they are taking money off me for having a spare room. They are fine when I am paying £10,000.00 a year to the exchequer but I lost my job and hey presto, I am a liability. Politics is always about that line, with lawyers they are criminals but work inside the line of self regulation and the unemployed, well would Grayling bump us off if he could?

Berlin wall same thing, before the wall came down those poor oppressed people from the Eastern block, the west wanted them set free. Knock the wall down, they become economic migrants taking west German jobs.

Allwaly the line where you are wanted or rejected depending on your circumstances. Salmond, Clegg, Milliband and Cameron have more in common than they would have us believe. You will not find any of their offspring working for benefits, chop, chop, chop, yes politicians "every little helps".

I would not trust any of these four men, especially the Scottish one and I am Scottish.

Anonymous said...

Social Market Foundation funded by big business. The SMF want to stop OAP Bus Passes and Winter Fuel Payments.

See more at

http://www.intmensorg.info/

I am not saying the SMF would murder people but one political theorist warns that where there are masses of unemployed, old, sick, people the holocaust could happen again and she was not only talking about the Jewish people she means any group that was surplus to requirements. It will not happen now but that does not mean it can never happen.

Anonymous said...

Just to take Peter Cherbi up on his point of MP payments.

I was formerly employed in the GLSS and can confirm in-house subs to the Master Policy are paid by the Scottish Executive.

One year I remember it was about £1,500.

I also remember Peter's writing gave the team a lot of work issuing Ministerial advice!

Anonymous said...

MacAskill should get vertical for a change and smell the reality unless maybe he is part of the problem.
================================
MacAskill is a man with great prejudice against the people who elected him and against Scotland. But there are ten to twelve thousand people MacAskill has buckets of compassion for his legal colleagues.

If he had to make a choice he would shoot lawyers clients to protect lawyers. MacAskill is antijustice, he is 100% behind the Penmans, Mills, Yellands and all of the other scum that make up the legal profession. When does anyone ever heal lawyers criticising lawyers, I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

"A VULNERABLE PENSIONER was left HOMELESS & HAD TO STARVE HERSELF to pay legal fees after being threatened by Kilmarnock solicitor Niels S Lockhart over a missed £100 payment of legal bills which were originally being paid by Legal Aid. Esther Francis, 70, had gone to Niels Lockhart for help in a dispute with her housing association and was originally put on legal aid by the lawyer who has already claimed around SIX
HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS of legal aid money in previous years for other clients, however she was not told by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) her solicitor, Mr Lockhart had ‘voluntarily’ withdrew himself from being able to provide legal aid, AFTER he was accused by SLAB of making excessive legal aid claims"
==============================
Hamilton Advertiser Thursday January 12th page 19.

A Stonehouse man who falsely claimed Legal Aid approx £3500.00 found guilty at Airdrie Sheriff Court
sentenced to 150 hours community service.

Lawyers taking £560,000.00 of Legal Aid not even charged, and allowed to keep working for unsuspecting clients by the Law Society of Scotland. Did they face a public court. NO.

Another case of political difference in the administration Scottish justice.
================================
This is what Members of the Scottish Parliament really stand for. It is also an example of going to a lawyer because you have a problem and ending up with a bigger problem.

All of the powers that be are scum, treating an old lady like this and the Law Society and MSP's do nothing. Shame on all of you.

Anonymous said...

Talking about difference Peter you know what amazes me about many people with sectarian viewpoints. I know Protestants who does not talk to their wives when Celitc beat Rangers and Catholic men who do not talk to their Protestant wives when the football results are against them. Now if we approach this logically both groups of men are blaming their wives for something out of their wives control.

I cannot get my head round people who hate others on these grounds especially when many of them marry into the religion they are meant to detest. From what I hear there are a few among out MSP's. Tells us a lot about their intellects.

Anonymous said...

Prime Minister David Cameron and culture secretary Jeremy Hunt are set to meet football representatives to discuss how to combat racism in the sport.
=================================
Perhaps he should look at his own views he likes his isms in the form of Classism when he wants to hammer young people instead of getting them real training and opportunities. We do not all have £150,000.00 a year Dave and thirty million from dad.

I would love to see the world through David Cameron's eyes.

Anonymous said...

Can no one count? Its nearly 3.4 million.

Anonymous said...

The Agnew letters to the Law Society,FoA etc are a bit of a laugh!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Just to take Peter Cherbi up on his point of MP payments.

I was formerly employed in the GLSS and can confirm in-house subs to the Master Policy are paid by the Scottish Executive.

One year I remember it was about £1,500.

I also remember Peter's writing gave the team a lot of work issuing Ministerial advice!

22 February 2012 11:14

Nice to know Mr C's efforts are keeping you on your toes!!!

Indymedia Scotland said...

For all you campaigners out there remember it is DIRECT ACTION which needs to be taken against people stealing your money or your lives and liwyers are no exception when they go on the stealing game

http://www.indymediascotland.org/node/26538

Also you might be interested in how Scottish Labour is paying off its people with huge sums of public money http://www.indymediascotland.org/node/26331 500K for one pay off alone !

Anonymous said...

So its self regulation by another name with the lawyers still paying for it out of what they recover/steal from clients.

Little wonder the SLCC is just as self serving of the legal profession as is the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates.

Anonymous said...

Oh and they are taking money off me for having a spare room. They are fine when I am paying £10,000.00 a year to the exchequer but I lost my job and hey presto, I am a liability. Politics is always about that line, with lawyers they are criminals but work inside the line of self regulation and the unemployed, well would Grayling bump us off if he could?
==================================
A POLL TAX ON THE MOST VULNERABLE, THIS IS THE POLL TAX IN REVERSE, THATCHER TAXED INDIVIDUALS CAMERON WANTS TO DEDUCT MONEY FROM BENEFITS BY TAXING IF A PERSON HAS SPARE ROOMS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THIS POLL TAX DOES NOT AFFECT EVERYONE.

Anonymous said...

The numerous reports on this blog and elsehwre confirm that there should be 3 questions on any SNP independence referendum slip;

1. Do you want full independence?

2. Do you want enhanced tax
raising powers for the
SNP/Scottish Parliament?

3. Do you want to abolish the
Scottish Parliament?

Anonymous said...

Hmm this funding of the slcc seems to be a sore point for the legal fraternity however Peter is correct.Solicitors earn their money by representing clients therefore it is the clients who are ultimately paying for the slcc and from what I have read so far I can imagine solicitors will easily take the £338 from client after client until they either end up getting caught out or complained about.

A pretty rotten state of affairs thankfully exposed here for all to see.

Good work!

Anonymous said...

The truth is this is just a quango that can blow £3 million whilst achieving nothing of its Statutory purpose.
================================
Statutory purpose is meaningless simply because a lawyer has to act against a lawyer. So whatever is written into law, it is simply words without enforcement.

Anonymous said...

Even though Sturgeon's decision was timed to coincide with Reporting Scotland last night she ordered an investigation into NHS Ayrshire and Arran after a nurse did some FOI legwork and found out a lot of deaths have been covered up http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17124290

I'm not convinced the Health Secretary's civil serpents did not know what was going on in Ayrshire just like I'm not convinced the Justice Secretary did not know the Crown Office was refusing to prosecute lawyers accused by the legal aid board of stealing millions - one of your stories if I remember correctly.

So why did MacAskill not order an investigation into the Crown Office after all that came out and what does it really take to order an investigation into the Crown Office anyway because its not just legal aid thieving lawyers they refuse to investigate and it seems the Crown Office are a law unto themselves and get away with murder or do they have the goods on MacAskill because he always cow tows to the Lord Advocate's gang haven't you noticed?

Anonymous said...

Legal fees to settle personal injury claims after motor accidents are costing UK consumers a total of £2.4m a day, the insurance industry says.

This legal fee bill is the equivalent of £1,666 added to motor insurance premiums every minute, said the Association of British Insurers (ABI).

Adding that legal costs often exceeded compensation payments, the ABI said revealed that:

* One insurer's average claimant legal costs in 2010 represented 142% of the sums received by injured victims

* A recently reported compensation claim for a work-related injury for £12,750 settled out of court attracted legal costs of £74,000
* A legal bill of £37,250 was run up in settling a claim for £15,000 in respect of injuries sustained by a woman who fell into the moat at a castle
* Between 2004 and 2011 there has been a 5% rise in NHS legal costs, but a 130% increase in claimant legal costs
* In the financial year 2010/11 the NHS paid out £257m in lawyers' fees following claims.

James Dalton, the ABI's head of motor and liability insurance, said: "Since its introduction in 2010 the fast-track process for settling lower-value personal injury claims has led to significantly quicker compensation payouts. But the fixed costs in the process remain too high.

"The UK's compensation system is riddled with disproportionate and excessive legal costs, often exceeding compensation awards. This means higher insurance costs for motorists and businesses and a heavy cost burden on local authorities and the NHS."

He went on: "The Government must press ahead with the much-needed reform of our dysfunctional compensation system, which, together with the ban on the selling on of personal details of potential claimants, will enable solicitors' fixed fees to be reduced to more realistic levels.

"Lower legal costs will help bring down the cost of motor insurance for all drivers."

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Too many people are making money from encouraging others to make 'no win no fee' claims, which can drive up costs like motor insurance and fuel fears of a compensation culture.

"We have already committed to reducing the current £1,200 fee that lawyers can earn from small value personal injury claims and we are working with claimants and defendants to determine how this can best be achieved.

"We are also taking forward plans to radically reform the system. Under our plans total costs will be reduced and unnecessary claims discouraged because the financial and legal risk of each case will be shared more evenly by all involved. Valid cases will still be able to be pursued."

Anonymous said...

I do not understand how such a rotten set up as the SLCC was passed by Scottish msps.

In England & Wales as you know we have the Legal Ombudsman,an office not staffed by former Law Society employees or others from the profession as seems to be the case with your Scottish Legal Complaint Commission.

Obviously there is far too much influence over the regulator by those it is supposed to be regulating and then some more if I have correctly read Mr Cherbi's report on last year's budget intervention by a Scottish Executive Minister.

The Legal Ombudsman is by no means a perfect solution to complaints against solicitors in England & Wales however I believe it is doing a better job and seems to have more trust from consumer groups than the SLCC in Scotland.

I really think you need to start again on the regulation side of things in Scotland and come up with a more independent less quango style approach as the SLCC has taken.

Anonymous said...

These are the same SLCC people who now refuse to answer my questions about my own complaint against my solicitor simply because I asked them to tell me why my solicitor is using one of their letters in court to say they have cleared him even though the SLCC investigator said in his last letter months ago they have still got a lot of work to do before sending me the result of their investigation.

Disgusting state of affairs.

Anonymous said...

Conveyancing & executry practitioners admitted three plus years £338

aka the gutless scum who rip off the dead

they pay £338 a year bribe money to Irvine so they can get away with thieving all the money from dead people

Anonymous said...

Only you and the other web sites Peter will ever give a client a chance. These evil bastards are just like the Great Train Robbers, the difference is their crimes are legal.

The woman in the picture like all of her colleagues must feel sick when they receive written complaints from the public. Avoidance through naming and shaming is the only option. So long as MSP's support the Law Society justice for clients is impossible. They are not fit to sit in Parlaiment.

MSP's are scum said...

MSP's would spend twenty million a year protecting lawyers. MSP's and Lawyers all scratch each others back. Peter said the SLCC and SSDT do not want to prosecute lawyers, neither do MSP's. They think the status quo is fine.

Anonymous said...

Do not expect justice from the Scottish justice system. It is designed against the public interest.

Anonymous said...

I dare say there are some good lawyers but they never seem to show their faces or criticise the way their profession has become so corrupted.
====================================
Yes they are so good they will not represent you against one of their colleagues who ruined you. Personally I prefer the ones who have stopped breathing.

Anonymous said...

These are the same SLCC people who now refuse to answer my questions about my own complaint against my solicitor simply because I asked them to tell me why my solicitor is using one of their letters in court to say they have cleared him even though the SLCC investigator said in his last letter months ago they have still got a lot of work to do before sending me the result of their investigation.
============================
The persons dealing with your complaint and your lawyer put all of them on Solicitors From Hell 2.


At least we will know who they are.

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi and many of you may not realise there is a member of staff at the Scottish Exec who has been emailing trojan links to a series of critical websites with the aim of taking over and closing down those who click on the contents of the email.I understand one of the mails may have accidentally been sent to the information commissioner so anyone complaining about it may be onto a winner.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
These SLCC people are the utter dregs of the earth one of them told me to get lost on the telephone and put it down and that was because I asked what was happening about my complaint!

21 February 2012 00:38
-----------------------------------

A criminal organisation!

Anonymous said...

Naming and Shaming is the only way forward.

These people do not have a conscience but at least the Public will learn what these crooks are like and will report to the Police instead.

Once the SLCC is disbanded, we need a system whereby the client victim is properly compensated.

This will require an immediate uprating of the levy to £1,000.00 per month for each Scottish solicitor to begin to solve the problems of their own making.

If they bleet that they cannot afford it (anyone out there know a poor Scottish lawyer?) then tuff. Go out of business, you brought it on yourself.

10,000 Scottish solicitors paying £1,000.00 per months gives a compensation pot of £120 Million a year.

If this was set up at a rolling system for the next 10 years then this should just about cover the damage caused by our Scottish solicitors.

After the ten year period is up, a review based on the statistical facts should be carried out by a trustworthy source like Which?.

This review will determine whether or not the Scottish solicitors have stopped their criminal practices and the £1,000.00 per month levy can be lowered according to the risk posed to client victims.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter

Your blog seems to have got the legal world talking about getting rid of the SLCC!

See here http://www.scottishlawagents.org/news/slcc-what-price

SLCC - What Price?

By SLAS Spokesperson

We have received the following email from a member:

Dear Secretary,

If the Society of which you are so worthy a Secretary decided to increase the subscription by 60% then I am sure that many members would simply vote with their feet and you would no doubt have a flood of resignations.

I am astonished that the SLCC proposes to increase the annual levy by 60%. I do not see how that could be justified even in good business conditions but in the current climate I would have thought that this proposed increase deserved to be described as both unreasonable and unacceptable.

Is there anything that can be done?

Yours sincerely

(Signed)

One other aspect of the SLCC has been drawn to our attention. It appears that there have been a number of litigations between SLCC and the Law Society. It seems that Scottish solicitors fund both sides of these disputes. It is a little bit like the man who reversed his first car into his second car in the driveway. It just seems to be a strange way to spend your money.

We are not aware of any complaints as to how SLCC gets on with its business but the nature of the institution appears to present the risk of significant damage in the future.

It is, of course, entirely within the power of the profession to operate its own efficient complaints system and render the statutory body superfluous. Comment is invited.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Mr Cherbi and many of you may not realise there is a member of staff at the Scottish Exec who has been emailing trojan links to a series of critical websites with the aim of taking over and closing down those who click on the contents of the email.I understand one of the mails may have accidentally been sent to the information commissioner so anyone complaining about it may be onto a winner.

24 February 2012 10:05

If this is true I assume laws are being broken.

There should be a Police investigation and whoever doing it charged.

Diary of Injustice said...

28 February 2012 10:39

SLAS appear to have been sent to do the Law Society's bidding ...

Remember, nothing is as it appears in Scotland's justice system, or the legal profession at large ...