Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Protection Racket : SLCC’s ‘whitewash’ investigation of Law Society of Scotland’s conduct complaint process ends in failure to publish full report

SLCCSLCC’s Investigation into Law Society’s conduct complaints system ends up in missing final report. AN INVESTIGATION carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) into the Law Society of Scotland's Conduct Complaints Process under powers the Society itself helped to frame in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 which created the SLCC has unsurprisingly resulted in the board of the hapless anti-client law complaints quango claiming it could take “reasonable assurance” in the Law Society’s overall complaints handling system, despite the fact the Law Society, SLCC and several solicitors continue to be locked in expensive courtroom battles in Scotland’s Court of Session over which of the two regulators has jurisdiction in complaints investigations.

Curiously however, while the announcement from the SLCC claimed the Law Society’s “processes, procedures and controls under review could benefit from a number of improvements”, no full report on the actual review has been made available to the public or media, and neither has any final report been published on the SLCC’s website, leading to concerns from some campaigners the SLCC and Law Society are operating on a closed shop loop, branded this morning by one Glasgow based campaigner as a “lawyer’s merry go round cover up society which does nothing for transparency or openness”.

The announcement from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, states that in November 2011 the SLCC concluded a review of the Law Society of Scotland's Conduct Complaint Process under its powers set out in section 36(5) of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The review concluded that the SLCC Board could take 'reasonable assurance' in the Law Society's overall complaints handling system but recognised that the processes, procedures and controls under review could benefit from a number of improvements.

While the SLCC has decided not to publish any report or details of how the review took place, a brief set of recommendations were published on the SLCC’s website, stating :

*Policies and procedures, including the Complaints Investigation procedures manual, should be finalised.
*Defined timescales and Key Performance Indicators should be established.
*An effective version control system should be implemented for key documents.
*The quality assurance process should be formalised and reviews documented.
*Management information on complaints could be refined, including the use of trend analysis.

The SLCC’s announcement went onto state “These findings have been discussed with the Law Society of Scotland which has accepted the overall finding of 'reasonable assurance' and the recommendations in relation to complaints handling. These will be monitored by the SLCC in terms of its on-going oversight role and some will form the subject of future reviews.”

However, no reports of discussions between the Law Society & SLCC have been published on the SLCC’s website, possibly due to claims from Commission insiders there have been “difficult moments” between the regulators during the review, and alleged insistence from the Law Society of Scotland the SLCC should not publish ‘certain material’ gathered during the review.

No one from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has issued any further comment on the review of the Law Society’s Conduct Complaints Process, and no statement has been issued by the Law Society of Scotland, leading observers to conclude the SLCC’s review was not a happy affair, leading in turn to the lack of published material on conclusion of the ‘independent’ law quango’s investigation of the Law Society’s conduct complaints system.

While the SLCC appear to have held back from criticising the Law Society over its closed shop complaints procedures, Court of Session judge Lord Carloway did not mince his words, claiming an opinion issued at the Court of Session last week the Law Society’s complaints procedures were failing to protect the public, after it emerged the Law Society had taken over a year to send a misconduct complaint to the SLCC about a case where Greenock solicitor William Murnin was alleged to have a “potential” £232,000 deficit in his firm’s client accounts.

Diary of Injustice reported on judge’s criticisms of the Law Society & Scottish Legal Complaints Commission last week, here : Law Society, Scottish Legal Complaints Commission criticised by judge over failures, delays investigating solicitor’s £232K client fund deficit case

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 neither the Law Society of Scotland or Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were able to explain to the court the year long delay in the Law Society’s reporting of the complaint to the SLCC, claims emerged last week from legal insiders ‘“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.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fortunately the judge seems to agree with you.

Perhaps the SLCC may have been better to wait on the conclusion of the case before coming up with the whitewash of the Law Society's complaints procedures.

In the light of Carloway's comments the SLCC now look dumb as well as corrupt.

Anonymous said...

A nice little arrangement between the Law Society & SLCC which goes something like this -

You write a report about me bearing in mind I created you and my people sit on your board and work in your offices.You can criticise me a little not too much though and I get the last say on what is published.You can make a quiet announcement leaving out all the nitty gritty and all will be quietly forgotten over time.

Anyone smell a big fat rat?

Anonymous said...

The LDU don't like news about their "negotiations" getting out..

It may give others ideas to ask if their complaint has gone the same way..

Anonymous said...

Many SLCC staff are fomer Law Society employees - despite the 'independence' the public was promised with its ne 'regulator' - so once again we see the tail wagging the dog.

Anonymous said...

No wonder Irvine refused to publish.

To come out with 5 points for improvement after screwing up complaints regulation since 2008 the SLCC have some cheek not publishing their full findings but no matter,Peter Cherbi's Diary of Injustice keeps the Scottish public much better informed than either of these two miserable lawyer loving entities.

Good to know at least one person can be trusted!

Anonymous said...

Little wonder the Law Society and solicitors lavish so much money on the SLCC.

It is their perfect rubber stamp.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC’s announcement went onto state “These findings have been discussed with the Law Society of Scotland which has accepted the overall finding of 'reasonable assurance' and the recommendations in relation to complaints handling. These will be monitored by the SLCC in terms of its on-going oversight role and some will form the subject of future reviews.”

haha.What a joke.

Here's a better plan.Sack Irvine,the entire board and the SLCC staff (who will be taken back instantly by the Law Society anyway) and make them pay back every penny lawyers have looted from clients 5 or 10 times over to pay for this blundering complaints regulator.

Called to the bars should be PUT BEHIND BARS!

Anonymous said...

Precisely that, a Protection Racket.

Anonymous said...

How would they deal with the likes of O'Donnell?

Give him a pat on the back as the Law Society did?

Anonymous said...

One group of lawyers ok's another group of lawyers to do as they please - just the same as the FSA and the bankers!

Anonymous said...

10 April 2012 23:04

Yes and dont forget an independent investigation into why four years have been wasted on the SLCC,which was trumpeted as a new deal for clients and complaints now turned into a huge disaster under MacAskill & co

Anonymous said...

No report = Cover up

Anonymous said...

How anyone can call the Law Society's conduct complaints procedure "reassuring" is beyond me,especially if you take the example of how they deliberately mishandled the complaints against my former solicitor Niels Lockhart who I see you have featured a few times.

Good work!

Anonymous said...

The Law Society Web Site States

"The Law Society of Scotland is the professional body for Scottish solicitors. We were established in 1949 and are financed by our members without any funding from government.

Not only do we regulate and represent all practising solicitors in Scotland but we have an important duty towards the public interest. All practising solicitors are members of the Society and are required to meet our high standards".
=================================
These people destroy lives for profit, they hide lawyer corruption and all of their members will not help lawyers victims, so if you want all of your rights stripped away trust a Scottish Lawyer. God help you if you do because the Law Society and the SLCC never will.

Anonymous said...

It seems the Herald have beenusing your blog to keep up with the news;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/law-society-attacked-by-senior-judge.17219778

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

How anyone can call the Law Society's conduct complaints procedure "reassuring" is beyond me,especially if you take the example of how they deliberately mishandled the complaints against my former solicitor Niels Lockhart who I see you have featured a few times.
---------------------------------
I totally agree the Law Society is a perverter of justice, dedicated to protecting their flock. Anyone in the know, knows that no one has legal rights against lawyers, and this indispitable fact makes them very dangerous.
Trust no lawyer.

Anonymous said...

and yet one of the SLCC's supposed investigators told me on the phone the Law Society was an absolute mess and diabolical to deal with

so who are we supposed to believe?

Anonymous said...

Wonderful postings everyone.

The SLCC is just a trick played on the Scottish People by the Law Society of Scotland controlled Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Establishment (which the Law Society of Scotland are but a part of) have to be protected at all costs.

Their Will is to opress the Scottish Public at every turn and to turn the country into a bile swilling nefarious stench of peutrifying gulch.

Anonymous said...

I'm inclined to agree this looks like back scratching between lawyers

Did the SLCC get their reward for compliance with Law Society wishes?

Dinner for the board on the Law Society or some other favours?

Anonymous said...

The Office of Fair Trading has the powers to ask for changes in areas where no explicit anti-competitive behaviour is going onbut firms are still not operating in consumers interests.

Perhaps it might be worth asking the OFT - and the supposed consumer protection organisations -why your deafening silence?

Anonymous said...

You may be interested to know one of the members of the SLCC's staff,a woman was overheard one night in a bar blasting off about "only being there for the money" and she also said the atmosphere at works stinks whenever a journalist by the name of Cherbi writes up a story on her bosses!

She also went on to say your stuff is 110% accurate and everyone suspects everyone else of being a mole for you or the Law Society.

So nice to have such dedicated staff around you Jane?

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't the SLCC been shut-down yet?

Anonymous said...

Scotland is actually a legal dictatorship. If a member of the public is ruined by a lawyer,

The police will not act.

The SLCC Law Society control The MSP's. When a client is against his crooked lawyer, the twelve thousand Scottish lawyers are against the client too. Just ask any of them to take your crooked lawyer to court. So what if the Law Society can control forensics, etc. A client gets murdered, police forensics are controlled by the Law Society. Is this far fetched? Possible or not? You decide.

Mr Salmond wants independence. This situation will get worse if he realises that goal. He turns a blind eye to the above, he is clearly not fit to be Scotland's First Minister. But one thing you can be sure about, he will rely on the vote of the unthinking mob. A legal system that is based on favours and protection of its actors cannot equate to a universal justice system. Scotland is in danger of falling into Salmond's trap and I am a Scot and British too.

Anonymous said...

I am in no doubt the SLCC released this report while the case was going on in order to influence the judge's decision..

Anonymous said...

lawyers scratching each other's backs is about right!

Anonymous said...

My SNP msp refused to get involved in my complaint after being ordered to leave me without help by his SNP handlers

Anonymous said...

Now you've make them look a bunch of crooks they will have to publish this 'report' or its a cover up!

Anonymous said...

The SLCC and Law Society are ignorant of their ignorance. They just do not understand client needs to be protected from what threatens their interests in legal terms. Their blind prejudice against clients is destroying the institution of trust between the profession and the public.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation rests on self-delusion. The Law Society believes they can destroy as many clients as they want because the supply of clients is infinite but they are dangerously wrong. For every lawyer they save they create another enemy, another person to spread the word about this evil human dirt. He calls us evil human dirt I hear them say. But they are dirt, because the members of the Law Society reject the principle of universality. How would Austin Lafferty react in Peter Cherbi’s shoes? The Law Society is a powerful but complacent example that democracy does not mean universal legal rights. For rights to be universal someone has to watch the self regulators. The Law Society can control the press to some extent and the MSP’s bend over for their lawyer friends and spit on those who voted for them but the Law Society cannot control tongues. As a well known double glazing company states “one satisfied customer leads to another”.

Anonymous said...

I also got let down badly by the SNP. When I couldn't engage a lawyer after my legal team ripped me off the CAB advised me to seek help from my local MSP who not only did nothing but participated in ruining my case further. 200% True the SNP are running a country within a country and I dont know what its name is but I do know its not Scotland!!!!

Anonymous said...

My SNP MSP refused to meet me when I disclosed to him that the Law Society of Scotland were involved in criminal behaviour by colluding with the SLCC to keep their crooked lawyer member out of jail!

Anonymous said...

What percentage of the population of Scotland do you think believe that the SLCC is not just another arm of the Law Society of Scotland, similar to the SSDT, who exist only to hammer clients?

Less than 10% or less than 5%?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I'm inclined to agree this looks like back scratching between lawyers

Did the SLCC get their reward for compliance with Law Society wishes?

Dinner for the board on the Law Society or some other favours?

13 April 2012 00:48
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Try a brand new mercedes?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I am in no doubt the SLCC released this report while the case was going on in order to influence the judge's decision..

14 April 2012 19:32
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Agreed, this press release was carefully timed so as to media manage the situation?

The SLCC still seem to be under the misaprehension that ANYBODY believes ANYTHING they say?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
My SNP msp refused to get involved in my complaint after being ordered to leave me without help by his SNP handlers.
-------------------------------
This is the reason I stopped voting altogether. Why bother voting for a representative if that person rolls over when the Law Society bark. People are indirectly voting for Law Society power because they control policymaking in all things legal. We have a factional state within a stte.

Anonymous said...

Have you noticed that the law society of Scotland have now widened the sphere they wish to influence the Government on and do not now just lobby on legal issues but everyday issues
as well?

Anonymous said...

What has been established as a matter of fact? :

The law society of Scotland are crooks?

The SSDT are crooks?

The SLCC are crooks?

The Crown Office are crooks?

Judges/Sheriffs have been presiding as crooks?

Some Police have shown themselves to be crooks?

Elish Angiolini is currently under criminal investigation by the Police for being a crook?


Where do we go from here??....



B. Brush

Anonymous said...

It's been a free for all for Scottish lawyers for years where they have plundered their clients money with gay abandon, so much so when you sit down and discuss your case with your Scottish lawyer you cannot help but think his mind is wandering to the model of Porsche he is imagining out of screwing you over your case?

It's time the Police raided the law society of scotlands offices and confiscated their computers?