Thursday, April 05, 2012

Law Society, Scottish Legal Complaints Commission criticised by judge over failures, delays investigating solicitor’s £232K client fund deficit case

SLCC Law SocietyLaw Society & SLCC criticised by judge amid concerns over dodgy complaints procedures. SENIOR Judge Lord Carloway of Scotland’s Court of Session has criticised the Law Society of Scotland's "inadequate system" of dealing with complaints against solicitors after failures & delays were revealed in a Law Society investigation of Greenock solicitor William Murnin, who has been suspended from practising as a lawyer since 22 July 2010 after a Law Society audit discovered a “potential” £232,000 deficit in the solicitor’s firm's client account.

It took the Law Society of Scotland over a year from May 2010, when they began their investigation, until June 14 2011 to submit the complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), which in turn led to the accused solicitor launching an appeal against the SLCC’s consideration of the complaint, on the grounds it was referred to the SLCC outwith its one year rule.

Reflected in the court’s opinion on the case, issued earlier this week, solicitor William Murmin had been accused of overcharging clients and was the subject of a lengthy investigation. The Law Society of Scotland’s Guarantee Fund Committee eventually met in January 2011, nearly a year on from the Society’s investigation into the solicitor and decided to make a complaint to the SLCC. The complaint, which was not submitted to the SLCC until June 14, some six months on from the Guarantee Fund Committee’s meeting, said Murmin "may be guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct regarding alleged breaches of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules 2001 through overcharging of fees to various client ledgers so creating a deficit on the firm client account".

The Court’s opinion reports that An allegation of misconduct was made against the appellant in relation to events occurring before 18 May 2010, when a financial compliance inspection of the appellant's firm by the second respondents revealed a potential deficit on the firm's client account of about £232,000. The second respondent's Guarantee Fund Committee met on 13 January 2011 and determined to make a complaint. The appellant was advised of this on 10 March, but the complaint was not submitted to the first respondents until 14 June 2011.

The complaint form, which was intimated to the appellant, read simply that the appellant: "may be guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct regarding alleged breaches of Rules 4 and 6 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001 through overcharging of fees to various client ledgers so creating a deficit on the firm client account".

However, it was accompanied by a letter which stipulated the amount involved and that the sum was made up of overcharging on thirteen different client files. It also gave some information on the background, including the date of the inspection, the invitation to the partners of the firm, including the appellant, and then to the appellant alone, to attend the Committee interviews on 1 and 22 July 2010. The appellant had not attended these interviews and, on the latter date, his practising certificate was suspended under section 40 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. Further details of the Committee meetings in September, October, November 2010 and January 2011 were given; it being said that it was at the final meeting that a decision was made to make the complaint. The accompanying letter was not copied to the appellant but it is not disputed that he was aware of the nature and extent of the allegations summarised in the complaint form.

By letter dated 24 June 2011, the first respondents intimated to the second respondents their intention: "to make a decision not to accept the complaint for investigation on the grounds that it has been made outside the time limits".

They invited a response on this and, in particular, whether: "There are exceptional circumstances that prevented you from submitting your complaint earlier...".

A similar, but not identical letter, was sent to the appellant intimating the first respondents' intention and requesting any comments before any decision was made. It stated that the second respondents had been asked to outline: "any exceptional circumstances which prevented them from submitting the complaint at an earlier stage".

The appellant made no comment. By letter dated 28 June 2011, which was not copied to the appellant, the second respondents submitted that "the subject matter to which the complaints pertain is of such a serious quality" that the first respondents ought to exercise their discretion to allow the complaint to be considered given the "overwhelming public interest in investigating these matters". There was no explanation proffered for the lateness of the complaint.

On 21 July 2011 the first respondents intimated that they were accepting the complaint and, in accordance with the statutory scheme, remitted it to the second respondents to investigate. The letter narrated that, "on the face of it, the complaint appears to be time barred". It was recognised that the second respondents could have complained timeously but had failed to do so. The letter continued:

"However, the [first respondents are] mindful of the severity of the allegations and the need to protect the public should the petitioner's practising certificate be reinstated. In the circumstances, the [first respondents recommend] that the need to establish the specifics of the complaint and the gravity of the allegations should be considered to be an exceptional reason for accepting the complaint even though it has not been made within [the first respondents'] time limits".

The solicitor, William Murmin, formerly of Murmin McCluskey in Greenock, then lodged an appeal on the grounds the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had erred in law in holding that, on a proper construction of Rule 4(6), a bare and unsupported assertion by the second respondents, that the misconduct complained of was grave, was sufficient to amount to exceptional circumstances, thus allowing the SLCC to investigate the case outwith its one year rule. The appeal, heard earlier this week by Lord Carloway, Lord Hardie & Lord Wheatley was refused, with the issue of expenses expressly reserved.

Lord Carloway, stating in his opinion what many clients, campaigners & observers to the decades old appalling system of self regulation of Scotland’s legal profession have known for years, said delays at the Law Society in taking action on cases “will risk the real possibility that serious complaints against solicitors will not be processed by the first respondents [Scottish Legal Complaints Commission] and the public will be denied the protection to which they are entitled.”

The judge also criticised the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for its role in the case, after it was revealed the SLCC had initially refused to accept the complaint against the solicitor, on the grounds it had been made outwith the time limit and had then changed its mind and would investigate, after the Law Society said the complaint was of “such a serious quality". Lord Carloway’s opinion stated “the court is concerned by the first respondents' (SLCC) exercise of their discretion to entertain the complaint outwith the time limit.”

The full opinion of Lord Carloway can be read here : OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CARLOWAY in the appeal by WILLIAM MURNIN Appellant; against (First) THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION; and (Second) THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND Respondents:

While Lord Carloway recorded in his opinion that no explanation for the delays was offered to the court, legal insiders have told Diary of Injustice this morning of allegations “there were negotiations going on between the Law Society & ‘representatives’ of Mr Murnin between January & June of 2011”, a pattern reminiscent of previous cases where solicitors have asked their colleagues, and solicitors working for the Legal Defence Union to intervene in complaints investigations and secretly bargain away any disciplinary action or overt publicity which may impact on their professional livelihoods. The allegations, put to one Law Society insider, have not been refuted.

No statement has been issued on the Law Society of Scotland’s website at time of publication.

However, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission late today issued the following statement, praising the court for its decision yet ignoring Lord Carloway’s ‘concerns’ the SLCC exercised its “discretion to entertain the complaint outwith the time limit”. The SLCC also claimed it had acted in the public interest in the Murnin case, although as previous coverage in the media seems to indicate the SLCC has refrained from acting in the public interest 99% of the time with regard to complaints made by clients about their solicitors to the hapless law quango.

jiSLCC Chair Jane Irvine, pictured finger-pointing on the SLCC’s multi million pound stairwell at its plush location in the Stamp Office, Edinburgh. Speaking after the ruling was issued, Jane Irvine the Chair of the SLCC stated "This is an important decision for the SLCC.  Not only does it recognise that we are making sound decisions in the public interest, it also recognises the vital role the SLCC has in the monitoring and regulation of the Scottish legal profession."

The SLCC statement went onto say : “The SLCC is pleased with the Court's ruling to refuse an appeal made by Mr W Murnin against the SLCC's decision to accept for investigation a complaint made about his conduct by the Law Society of Scotland. The SLCC accepted the complaint for investigation, even though it had been made outside the one-year time limit because the exceptional circumstances of the complaint led us to the view it was in the public interest to do so. The SLCC is very satisfied to note that the ruling acknowledged we applied our powers and discretion properly, in line with legislation and our own rules, and that we reached a well reasoned decision.”

The SLCC statement pointedly failed to give any further information on why the complaint took over a year to send to the SLCC, information, which Commission insiders allege “is well known to some senior staff and members of the SLCC’s board”.

Clearly however, this case demonstrates yet again there is NO SAFETY in clients allowing their solicitors to hold funds in client accounts. Clients are, and have been previously advised to withdraw any funds being held by or administered by Scottish solicitors, on the grounds the Guarantee Fund and the Law Society’s arrangements for detecting fraud & compensating clients for financial losses as a result of their solicitors actions, are wholly inadequate.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

If the SLCC had taken it on and the Law Society were challenging over time bar, the tables would have been turned.

Don't read too much into the criticisms.This amounts to little mre than selective justice to get the Law Society out of a tough spot.

Anonymous said...

Each are as bad as the other and nothing will change.

Anonymous said...

No one (Law Society,SLCC or the judge) seems to be bothered about whether the poor clients got their £232,000 back or not.Did they? and if so how many pence in the pound did it amount to given the notorious corruption of the "Guarantee Fund"

Anonymous said...

You can clearly see the subtext to this situation:-

That the Law Society of Scotland remain in absolute control of what happens, when it happens and how it happens...

That the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is nothing other than a tool to be used by the Law Society of Scotland to exert their will to protect their crooked member lawyers.

That the Law Society of Scotland have no intention of abiding by the rule of law and continue to defend the indefensible in open defiance of the Courts.

The Law Society of Scotland remain a criminal organisation because it is continually allowed to operate 'above-the-law' in Scotland.

The Law Society of Scotland hate Client victims and as this case demonstrates yet again, that they will do everything in their power (which is significant) to undermine the rule of law to the extent that their crooked lawyer member can avoid justice and always receive a 'light touch', whilst 'ZERO' consideration is given to the Client victim, all in contravention of the Law Society of Scotland's basic legal duty of care under the Solicitor (Scotland) Act 1980. (A Criminal Offence)

As such the Law Society of Scotland are a criminal gang and have no authority or standing under the 'real law', i.e. the law of the land. (different from the Law Society of Scotland Law, which is against the People of Scotland)

As by way of exemplifying the extent to which these criminals view their Client victims with utter contempt, I encourage you to go to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal website and refer to the Chairman's Report of 2010 cases....

There you will see the description of cases referred to the SSDT, which are identical in nature to this case's crooked lawyer....

The Chairman, an out and out crooked lawyer if ever there was one, describes the theft of Client victims money by a crooked lawyer as.....wait for it...................................as 'Borrowing Without Consent'


Yes, there you have it folks....

If you do not believe me, check it out for yourself.....


Given this is an account from a 'Court', which describes itself as being higher than the Court of Session but lower than the High Court, then there must be some legal justification for this finding in Law......

It sets an interesting Precedent...

So, in the future if any crook or burgler gets caught RED-HANDED, then it is simple, all they have to tell the Judge is that they were 'borrowing without consent' and that this is perfectly OK!

Anonymous said...

'SENIOR Judge Lord Carloway of Scotland’s Court of Session has criticised the Law Society of Scotland's "inadequate system" of dealing with complaints against solicitors after failures & delays were revealed'

Is this Judge expecting the Scottish Public to believe that an organisation which is supposed to be highly professional and be at the forefront of modern business standards and practices could possibly have "inadequate systems" in place to deal with their members, afterall it's not as if the Law Society of Scotland have not had time to perfect their systems or do not have the money to be able to buy-in the expertise to ensure that there systems are beyond reproach....?

No.

But what the Judge cannot say (for fear of losing his own job) is that the Law Society of Scotland are actively and routinely subverting the course of justice to impede the law-of-the-land so that their crooked member lawyer gets the lightest touch possible and for the Client victim to be treated as harshly as possible.

Why will the Politions and the Police not bring this house of cards down?

Because the Law Society of Scotland have inveigled themselves into such a powerful position in Scotland that they basically operate as a criminal gang with all that entails.

As if to exemplify their vile opposition to free speech, google Robert Green and Rusty who have been arrested for attempting to forewarn the good people of Scotland regarding the ongoing corruption all around us...with both of these gentlemen snatched off the streets and incarcerated?

Yes, this is Scotland.....

not Tunisia/Zimbabwe/Guantanamo?

Anonymous said...

Judge should have been more strong in his comments on the complaints system.He knows it,we know it.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland is defectively a CRIMINAL ORGANISATION, it protects almost
ten thousand Crooked Solicitors in Scotland, These Solicitors can steal your money, abort you case, steal your home or business, run up massive accounts for doing nothing, and you can do nothing to them, because you are referred to another Criminal Organisation SLCC. The people that run this organisation are nothing but Criminal SCUM, with many crooked Solicitors and Corrupt Police Officers sitting on the Complaints Process. And Scotlands Corrupt Police Forces has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Corrupt Law Society of Scotland, that it cannot investigate complaints from anyone about a Solicitor stealing money, property or assets, they have to get permission from the Corrupt Law Society of Scotland. And our Corrupt Sheriffs and Judges will not severely criticize our corrupt and crooked Solicitors that steal Clients money or assets, as they were all once a Member of the Corrupt Law Society of Scotland, and they will not Criticize a fellow BROTHER, if so they will find themselves being stitched up in a sexual or financial scandal. Now isn't that a surprise in Corrupt, Criminal infested Scotland, and our Corrupt MSPs will do nothing about this corruption and criminality, as most of the Cabinet SNP and Labour are stuffed with crooked Solicitors. That is why the Legal Profession in Scotland is called the Legal Mafia. A legitimate Criminal Organisation that is untouchable.

Anonymous said...

Good to see you did your homework on the unexplained delay.Good sources?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a fiddle!

I think the judges should come down hard on the Law Society & SLCC.Its about time both are scrapped and we get some independent regulation of lawyers instead of the mishmash this ruling shows is not working!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

No one (Law Society,SLCC or the judge) seems to be bothered about whether the poor clients got their £232,000 back or not.Did they? and if so how many pence in the pound did it amount to given the notorious corruption of the "Guarantee Fund"

5 April 2012 15:51

Everyone will be too busy lining their pockets to worry about the clients!

Anonymous said...

Is the SLCC (Edinburgh Supper Club) still open?

I thought that it got shut down after every client victim stopped going to them?

Anonymous said...

So another backroom deal done by the Law Society, SLCC and the accused - who just happens to be a Scottish lawyer.

Then add to the mix some
'accidental on purpose' delay, a thoroughly hypocritical misrepresentation of the facts by the SLCC when the matter eventually is brought into the open, and there you have it, the reasons why the SNP MUST END SELF REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN SCOTLAND NOW.

Anonymous said...

What chance have we got when the crooked Scottish Lawyers' watch-dog describes 'theft' of their crooked Scottish lawyer colleague as 'Borrowing Without Consent'?

What the hell are the Police getting paid for?

Anonymous said...

Law Society will have a word in his ear during their next undisclosed get together.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland is defectively a CRIMINAL ORGANISATION, it protects almost
ten thousand Crooked Solicitors in Scotland, These Solicitors can steal your money, abort you case, steal your home or business, run up massive accounts for doing nothing, and you can do nothing to them, because you are referred to another Criminal Organisation SLCC. The people that run this organisation are nothing but Criminal SCUM, with many crooked Solicitors and Corrupt Police Officers sitting on the Complaints Process. And Scotlands Corrupt Police Forces has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Corrupt Law Society of Scotland, that it cannot investigate complaints from anyone about a Solicitor stealing money, property or assets, they have to get permission from the Corrupt Law Society of Scotland. And our Corrupt Sheriffs and Judges will not severely criticize our corrupt and crooked Solicitors that steal Clients money or assets, as they were all once a Member of the Corrupt Law Society of Scotland, and they will not Criticize a fellow BROTHER, if so they will find themselves being stitched up in a sexual or financial scandal. Now isn't that a surprise in Corrupt, Criminal infested Scotland, and our Corrupt MSPs will do nothing about this corruption and criminality, as most of the Cabinet SNP and Labour are stuffed with crooked Solicitors. That is why the Legal Profession in Scotland is called the Legal Mafia. A legitimate Criminal Organisation that is untouchable.
===============================
This comment is 100% accurate in fact I could not put this better myself. The teflon brigade are 1000% untouchable. It is also why we must post our experiences on web sites, the only way around this criminal network.

Anonymous said...

I've been waiting 6 months for the SLCC to give me an answer on my complaint after the last time I asked and they said they would not acknowledge any more letters or phone calls from me until they were ready.The people at this organisation hate the public you should hear the way they speak on the phone and their letters are worded as if spiteful illiterates write them.

Anonymous said...

Judicial factor appointed to legal firm Ross Harper

A judicial factor has been appointed to legal firm Ross Harper on the petition of the Law Society of Scotland.

The Society applied to the Court of Session for the appointment to protect clients' interests after it inspected the firm's books and became concerned about the accounting records. It said it was unable to give further details.

Ian Mitchell from Henderson Loggie Chartered Accountants has been appointed as interim judicial factor.

The firm has five offices based in Glasgow, Hamilton and East Kilbride. Only last month it held a dinner to mark its 50th anniversary and announced the winner of a scholarship prize worth up to £70,000, to support a student through their law degree and then a traineeship at the firm.

However four partners are understood to have left the firm last autumn due to differences over management style. Four partners currently remain.

The firm was founded by Professor Ross Harper who also became President of the Law Society of Scotland in the late 1980s.

Henderson Loggie are contacting all of the firm’s staff to inform them. Solicitors and trainees at the firm can also contact the Society’s professional practice helpline during office hours: 0131 226 7411.

Clients of the firm who have concerns can contact the Henderson Loggie office in Dundee on 01382 207060.

Anonymous said...

Check out the Legal Aid Scams


http://www.intmensorg.info/legalaid.htm

Anonymous said...

Another good way to expose crooked lawyers in Canada. Personally I would never trust one of them worldwide, graduate vermin who prey on innocent people for profit.


http://www.dirtylawyer.com/html/form.html

Anonymous said...

“The Law Society of Scotland's compliance team carries out regular inspections of all solicitor firms in Scotland to ensure that they comply with rules on dealing with clients' money. If an inspector suspects that client money is missing or the accounting records are so poor they cannot tell if client money is missing, the Law Society of Scotland can request the Court of Session to appoint a Judicial Factor to that firm to protect the public and other solicitors. The decision to make the appointment is for the Court.”
================================
Hey Law Society of Scotland, if you think we believe this patronising bulls**t "protect the public" never, never, never. You are the greatest enemy of every member of the public in Scotland, a cesspit of radical evil who torture people for reputations and profit.

Between 1999 and 2003 Ross Harper Solicitors taught my family what lawyers are and you taught us what you are. I have told people for years you are professional untouchable criminals and your press release about protecting the public is bulls**t. A lawyers court is an office structure of the lawyers pals, Joe Bloggs, well he faces a public trial. People see the words The Law Society of Scotland and think corruption.