Consumer Focus Scotland supports publication of solicitors complaints outcomes as law regulator SLCC ‘launders’ survey data out of FOI reach

Consumer Focus Scotland support publication of complaints against Scottish solicitors. OUTCOMES of complaints against Scottish solicitors should be published, says Glasgow based consumer protection body Consumer Focus Scotland in response to a new study being undertaken by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) of law firms' complaints handling, reported by Diary of Injustice at the beginning of May, Consumers ‘locked out of debate’ as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission carries out yet more research on how solicitors handle complaints

The SLCC’s latest study which is seeking disclosure of information from individual law firms on how solicitors deal with complaints has drawn sharp criticism from the legal profession itself and provoked calls by lawyers lobby groups to boycott the survey after fears were raised that actual complaints data would end up being published by the media as a result of Freedom of Information requests to the SLCC.

Lawyer’s so-called ‘independent’ regulator said it would avoid Freedom of Information laws by stashing data out of reach of media. Proving the SLCC has little interest in public opinion or confidence in it’s alleged role as an ‘independent’ regulator of solicitors, the law complaints quango responded to lawyers concerns by saying they would dodge Freedom of Information legislation by refusing to look at the actual complaints data gathered up by research company TNS Research International TNS-BMRB who are under contract to carry out the survey. The FOI dodge was reported by Diary of Injustice earlier in the month, here : Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'

Responding to questions over the SLCC’s latest complaints survey which effectively shuts out consumers, a spokesperson for Consumer Focus Scotland said : We are pleased that the SLCC is undertaking research to improve its knowledge of the ways in which firms of solicitors deal with complaints. Ideally, consumer complaints about legal services should be dealt with quickly and effectively at a local level, by the business or professional involved, so far as possible. Many complaints can be resolved by way of an apology or informal agreement at this stage, and only where local resolution fails, should the complaint then go to a higher complaints handling body.”

The spokesperson continued : “We know consumers find it important to see complaints data so wider consideration of how this might be best achieved for legal services in Scotland would be helpful. The SLCC currently produces some complaints data within their annual report. This includes information on the number of complaints it received, the areas of law to which these relate and the stage of the SLCC’s process at which these complaints were resolved.”

“In its ‘Complaints about solicitors’ research, the Scottish Consumer Council, one of our predecessor bodies recommended that performance targets for each stage of the complaints process be published. Case study examples are published routinely by ombudsmen in the public sector, and used to be published by the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman in its annual report. In 2010, a survey of our consumer network of volunteers to inform the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s model complaints handling process found that the publication of the outcomes of complaints was a particularly important principle for these consumers”

Consumer Focus Scotland in their previous incarnation as the Scottish Consumer Council conducted several studies & investigations into the notorious difficulties encountered by members of the public who are forced by circumstances to file complaints about their solicitors to the self regulating Law Society of Scotland and ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. In what is now well over two decades of surveys & investigations by consumer groups & bodies into the complaints processes of Scotland’s legal profession, very little has changed from the 1999 SCC report “Complaints About Solicitors”, with most clients encountering a significant anti-consumer prejudice when making complaints about their solicitors to the legal profession’s in-house closed shop regulators.

Scottish Consumer Council recommended independent regulation of legal profession in 1999. Writing in the Scotsman newspaper in September 1999, the Scottish Consumer Council’s Sarah O’Neill went some way to explaining the conclusions of the SCC’s “Complaints About Solicitors” report, going onto recommend the Scottish Parliament’s then Justice & Home Affairs Committee study the issue, saying : “The SCC report concluded that there must be an open debate about the merits of establishing an independent complaints-handling body. We therefore recommend that the Scottish Parliament should review the current procedure with a view to establishing an independent body to deal with complaints about solicitors in Scotland. We would encourage the Justice and Home Affairs Parliamentary Committee to find time to examine this issue and reach a balanced conclusion. The Scottish Executive has told us it has no plans at present to change the current system.”

Ms O’Neill went onto say : “We would not recommend a particular model for an independent complaints-handling body. The Scottish Parliament should carefully consider all possible options, having carried out a thorough review of the current system, before making any firm decisions. Whatever scheme is introduced, however, it is essential that it is seen to be transparent, fair and above all, independent.”

The Scottish Consumer Council’s 1999 report “Complaints About Solicitors” stated in its conclusion : “This report provides considerable evidence of consumer dissatisfaction with the way in which complaints against solicitors are presently handled in Scotland, both by solicitors and by the Law Society. We believe that there is an urgent need for both to adopt a more client-oriented approach to dealing with complaints. Solicitors must embrace the concept of client care, which would help to reduce complaints, while at the same time ensuring a better deal for clients. The Law Society’s procedure contains many major flaws, and we have suggested a number of ways in which these could be remedied. Were these changes to be carried out, this would go some way towards improving the lot of consumers who complain about solicitors.”

The SCC report continued : “However, such changes would not go far enough. It is essential that complaints are dealt with by a body which is seen to be independent and impartial. Those who complain must be able to feel that their complaint has been fairly dealt with. It is clear that the fundamental root of the problem from the consumer’s point of view is that the Law Society is seen as being on the side of the solicitor. The only effective solution to the problem is the establishment of an independent review body to deal with complaints against solicitors in Scotland”

An earlier research project commissioned by the SLCC in 2009 & carried out by the University of Manchester’s Law School in to the Law Society of Scotland's Master Insurance Policy revealed clients had committed suicide because of the way they had been treated over claims made against negligent or corrupt solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported on the Master Policy research revelations here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

However, the SLCC has steadfastly refused to monitor individual claims to the Master Policy in spite of being asked by members of the public to do so, and no detectable changes have been made to how the SLCC deals with complaints made against negligent solicitors.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has not released any further statements on the progress of the survey or any response to criticisms it is avoiding Freedom of Information laws by refusing to look at complaints data gathered by it’s contract researchers.

Meanwhile in England & Wales, the Legal Ombudsman is pressing ahead with full identification of solicitors & law firms who fail their clients, reported by Diary of Injustice in April, here : Clients of Scots solicitors miss out on ‘right to know’ as UK Legal Ombudsman moves to name & shame ‘crooked lawyers’ in England & Wales

As of 1 April 2012 the Legal Ombudsman began collating names of lawyers and law firms subject to complaints resolved by an ombudsman's decision. Any data collected will be made publicly available by the Legal Ombudsman at the end of July 2012 and then subsequently every quarter.

“Customer Service” main focus for Ex-Foreign Office Consul taking over as FIFTH Chief Exec at ‘anti-consumer’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission appoints latest Chief Executive. THE Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the quango set up by Holyrood msps and the Law Society of Scotland to ‘independently’ regulate crooked Scottish lawyers yet who’s highly remunerated board members have openly branded members of the public “frequent flyers”, “chancers” and demanded consumer groups be excluded from studies into the effects on clients of rogue lawyers has announced the appointment of it’s latest and now FIFTH in FOUR YEARS Chief Executive, Matthew Vickers.

Mr Vickers a former British Consul in the Canary Islands & Madrid, takes up the post on 5 June 2012 replacing Rosemary Agnew who left the legal complaints quango to be Scotland’s new Information Commissioner in charge of Freedom of Information laws.

In an announcement on the SLCC’s website, Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC, who was recently revealed to have met lawyers accused of professional misconduct in meetings where it had been agreed no records would be kept of discussions, said: "The SLCC is delighted to appoint Matthew as our new Chief Executive Officer. Matthew will bring fresh thinking to the SLCC just as we really start to push our performance for the benefit of all our service users - legal practitioners and consumers. In our search, in keeping with our aspirations for the SLCC, we set our sights high and were delighted to be able to select Matthew from an exceptionally strong field of candidates."

Matthew Vickers, who will join the SLCC as Chief Executive Officer on 5 June 2012, said: "Customer service and efficient and effective ways of working have been themes throughout my career, and I hope to help a talented and enthusiastic team build on what the SLCC has already achieved. As the gateway for legal complaints, the SLCC must inspire trust and confidence in the legal complaints system. It's vital that consumers and legal practitioners recognise us as impartial, accessible and independent if we're to continue to do so."

A biography published by the SLCC of Mr Vickers states :

Matthew is forty years old and originally from Merseyside. Matthew studied Modern History at Merton College, Oxford before a Master's in Industrial Relations at the LSE. Matthew later returned to Oxford for doctorate entitled "Civic Image and Civic Patriotism in Liverpool 1880-1914" and joined Safeway on graduate scheme in 1998 working at Ferry Road store in Edinburgh. Matthew moved to McCurrach UK in 2002, made Board Director in 2004 and later joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2009.

On completing doctoral research on the history of Victorian Liverpool, Matthew joined Safeway where he held head office and regional roles specialising in customer care and customer insight. He later joined McCurrach UK, serving on the Operating Board and taking overall responsibility for in-store execution for AG Barr Scottish and Newcastle.

In 2009, Matthew joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as British Consul in the Canary Islands, subsequently moving to take up the role of Consul in Madrid. Last year he was awarded the Foreign Secretary's Award for Service Delivery recognising his significant contribution to improving the support which the FCO offers to Britons abroad.

The latest Chief Executive of the beleaguered SLCC, widely viewed as anti-consumer from it’s failure to prosecute or strike off even a single crooked lawyer since 2008 (an even worse record than the Law Society of Scotland) certainly has a task ahead of him to improve the SLCC’s image if Scots consumers are to be able to trust the SLCC to carry out effective regulation of complaints without the usual inherent bias for lawyers.

One SLCC insider dubbed Mr Vickers “a visiting fireman” amid hopes by some in the organisation he can repair the law quango’s image & functionality.

The post of the SLCC’s Chief Executive has seen considerable controversy over the four year period of the hugely expensive yet under achieving law complaints quango which has burned up at least TWO MILLION POUNDS of taxpayers money and taken a further TWELVE MILLION POUNDS from the legal profession in the form of of complaints levies paid by solicitors, which in turn are recouped from hikes (or spurious additions) in legal fees demanded from clients.

Masterman meets MacAskill who backed secret payoff for ‘too ill to work’ former Chief Executive. A previous SLCC Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, held the role for less than a year, negotiated a secret, substantial payoff backed personally by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and resigned her position at the SLCC on grounds of “ill health”. Mrs Masterman then returned to work for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) in a “complaints reviewer” role, and was recently accused of whitewashing the circumstances of the death of Baby MacKenzie, which Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper reported on here : Deputy First Minister to look into death of baby McKenzie Wallace after parents complain of ‘whitewash’ report by SPSO investigator Eileen Masterman

The SLCC’s first Chief Executive, Richard Smith, also resigned from the role after disagreements about the way the SLCC was heading as a regulator. Mr Smith was then replaced by another civil servant before Mrs Masterman got the role, then after a few months the job was handed over to Rosemary Agnew. all reported by Diary of Injustice here : The £80K job no-one wants : Lawyers lobby seek FIFTH time unlucky Chief Executive for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission role

MIND YOUR P’s, C’s & D’s – SLCC attempt & name & shame flounders in alphabet soup

As the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission announced it’s latest Chief Executive, a number of bizarre ‘investigation examples’ & ‘determination examples’ using letters of the alphabet to refer to [crooked’ lawyers and consumers who made complaints about their lawyers have been published on the law quango’s website, in an effort to show the public what to expect from the SLCC.

However the ‘examples’ published by the SLCC fail to identify a single solicitor or law firm, in stark contrast to the policy of the Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales to publicly name & shame law firms & lawyers who fail their clients in more fuller & detailed publications of complaints. Complainers are also not identified.

In none of the examples published by the SLCC to-date, some of which are reproduced below, are there any references to any recommendation that a law firm or solicitor should be investigated for prosecution by the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.

All examples featured by the SLCC, appear to show a series of slaps on the wrist for lawyers & law firms who are not required to alert any of their other clients to complaints made against them and poor service they have given to previous clients forced by their predicament to complain to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

A legal insider who drew the SLCC’s case examples to the attention of Diary of Injustice claimed the public should in no way take these examples as being genuine …

Determination Example 3

Mr C complained about the service Mr P provided in relation to divorce matters, ailment and contact with his children. He alleged that Mr P failed to: represent and argue his case properly in court, act on his instructions regarding his ex-wife's failure to comply with a court order for contact, arrange acceptable alternative representation in his absence. At a court hearing he arranged for his ex-wife's (the defender's) solicitor to represent both parties

The Determination Committee considered afresh a wide range of information which included the Firm's file, Mr C's comments, Mr P's comments and the Service Standards.

The Determination Committee did not uphold any element of the complaint. Its view was that Mr P had exercised his professional judgement in relation to the representation and saw no evidence that this was improperly done. The Committee understood that it may have appeared odd to Mr C that his ex-wife's solicitor was instructed to provide alternative representation but this was not inadequate professional service. It is standard and acceptable practice for one party's agents to represent both parties where a case like this was calling in regard to a non-contentious matter, and it was appropriate in this case. There was no substance to the complaint about failure to follow instruction. Not only was Mr C was unable to clarify or provide any evidence of all of the instruction he claimed he gave to Mr P but where instruction was given, records demonstrated it was followed.

Investigation Example 1

Mr C complained about the service Mr P and his Firm provided in relation to his separation. He complained about the way the Firm advised him on costs and subsequently charged him. He alleged they charged nearly double the verbal quote and that they did not tell him when the costs became higher than the limit he was able to pay, even though they had agreed to. The Firm did not respond to his requests for a breakdown of costs for over ten months, they did not take payments from his debit card even though he instructed them to do so and the amounts they charged him differed between invoices without any explanation as to why.

Mr C was also unhappy with the poor communication and delay in dealing with his case. It took five months to draft a document Mr P told him was straightforward, by which time it was out of date. The Firm did not keep him informed or updated as the terms of business letter said they would. Nor did they respond to his complaint about the delay and the fees. At the point Mr C complained to us, the Firm had started to chase him for payment of his fees and although he paid them in full, did not acknowledge receipt.

The SLCC investigated this complaint by examining the Firm's files and all the information Mr C sent. We spoke directly with both parties and took into account all they had to say. We found that that Mr C's case was not as straightforward as it appeared to be. There were unavoidable reasons for the delay and although the fees were higher than originally quoted, it was clear the work was both necessary and instructed by Mr C. The SLCC did not uphold the allegations about these aspects of the service.

However, it was apparent that neither Mr P nor his Firm kept Mr C informed. Their communication with him was sporadic, did not answer his questions and contained a lot of jargon that he may not have understood easily. There was no evidence they had answered his complaint. Had they communicated more regularly and effectively with Mr C to help him understand why there were delays and why the matter was more complex than originally thought, they may have avoided the complaint, and would not have caused Mr C the inconvenience of writing to them or of complaining.

We reported these findings to both parties and recommended a settlement that they both accepted. The Firm apologised. It also paid Mr C £550 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication. We did not recommend a rebate of fees because although they were higher that Mr C was expecting, the service and advice provided in relation to his separation were not found to be inadequate.

Investigation Example 3

Mr and Mrs C complained about the way Ms P and her Firm dealt with their house purchase. They were unhappy with her alleged failure to settle on the date they were expecting, 21 October 2010 which they agreed the week before in a telephone call. They called the Firm on 20 October to confirm everything was in order and were told by Ms P that she was not expecting to settle until 22 October. She said that settlement could not take place unless a new disposition was issued and delivered to the purchaser's solicitor for the next day. This was quite late in the working day. Mr and Mrs C decided they wanted settlement to take place on 21 October as planned. Ms P prepared a new disposition which was hand-delivered.

The settlement took place followed by settlement late afternoon on 21 October. This meant Mr and Mrs C could not complete their move and had to pay their removal company for an extra day.

When the SLCC examined the Firm's file and the information that Mr and Mrs C provided, it emerged that the conveyancing was not straightforward. There were problems with the sale of Mr and Mrs C's current property resulting from the completion of remedial works identified by their buyer's survey. We could see that Ms P had raised doubts in her letters about being able to settle on 21 October and had kept Mr and Mrs C informed. Equally, it was evident that she was aware that 21 October was their desired date. The consequence of the uncertainty about the settlement date meant that Ms P was unprepared for settlement on 21 October and as a result settlement was not until late in the afternoon of 21 October.

Our view was that the service was adequate and did not breach any Service Standards. We appreciated it was a stressful time for Mr and Mrs C and that they had done everything they could.; We could also see that the Firm had made strenuous efforts on their behalf and had managed to settle on the day they wanted. We considered very carefully the matter of the extra costs for the removal company, but did not recommend these be compensated as they were not the consequence of inadequate professional service.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, our findings and recommendations were accepted by both parties and no further action was taken.

Court of Session hears Legal Defence Union boss who met SLCC complaints Chief stands accused of SEVEN counts of misconduct by Law Society reporter

Court of Session's Lord Brodie hears Legal Defence Union boss accused of misconduct in Law Society report. DETAILS of a court case heard in Scotland’s Court of Session have revealed William Macreath aged 60, who is the head of the LEGAL DEFENCE UNION (LDU), a shady lawyer’s lobby group specialising in defending crooked colleagues has been accused of “five findings of inadequate services” and “seven findings of professional misconduct” by an unnamed reporter acting for the Law Society of Scotland. The stinging accusations against the LDU boss, who it was revealed last year had secret meetings with Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) in expensive Edinburgh hotels, are contained in one of four reports carried out by Law Society reporters investigating complaints originally made SEVEN YEARS AGO in 2005 by a fellow solicitor, Miss Norna Crabbe.

Details of the court case and allegations against Mr Macreath who is also a partner in Glasgow law firm Levy MacRae only came to light after the LDU boss petitioned the Court of Session for a Judicial Review against the Law Society of Scotland which in turn resulted in Miss Crabbe asking leave to enter the process and to lodge answers as additional respondent alongside the Council of the Law Society of Scotland in response to the petition filed by Mr Macreath.

Earlier this week, Miss Crabbe’s motion to the court to enable her to enter the case faced bitter opposition from advocate Helen Watts, acting on behalf of Messrs Simpson & Marwick who are representing Mr Macreath. During the debate on the case, the Judge, Lord Brodie who is known not to be a big fan of the media, heard the case had come about after it had taken the Law Society of Scotland no less than four reporters to wade through, investigate and report back on complaints made against Mr Macreath by Miss Crabbe in relation to litigation & legal services provided by Mr Macreath to Miss Crabbe over the dissolution of a firm in which Miss Crabbe had been a partner.

The court was told of how the third reporter who looked into the complaints made against Mr Macreath recommended that all heads of complaint made by Miss Crabbe against the petitioner be dismissed, with the exception of one finding of inadequate professional services upon which the third reporter recommended that no sanction be imposed on the petitioner in respect of that finding.

Miss Crabbe subsequently complained about the terms of the 2009 Report conducted by the third reporter and it was by way of response to Miss Crabbe's complaint about the 2009 Report that the respondent made its remit (which the petitioner avers was of a limited nature) to the fourth reporter.

In what appears to be a complete reversal of the third reporter’s findings, the fourth reporter reported in terms of the 2011 Report. In the 2011 Report the fourth reporter made five findings of inadequate services against the petitioner and seven findings of professional misconduct. The fourth reporter did not make a finding of inadequate professional services in relation to the one head of the complaint which had been upheld by the third reporter.

In response to the allegations, the court heard in Mr Macreath’s pleadings that he made detailed written representations to the respondent about the unfairness of the approach adopted in dealing with Miss Crabbe's complaint which led to the 2011 Report. The petitioner avers that he did not receive a substantive response from the respondents until 10 January 2012 when the respondent wrote to the petitioner advising that it proposed to proceed on the basis of the 2011 Report treating the 2009 Report as a nullity.

Details published by the court reveal Mr Macreath is seeking an interdict ad interim against the Council of the Law Society of Scotland from taking any procedural step to advance the disposal of the complaint by Miss Crabbe pending resolution of the proceedings; reduction of the Law Society’s decision of 10 January 2012 to set aside the 2009 Report and treat it as a nullity; an order by the Court ordaining the Law Society to set aside the terms of the 2011 Report; and an order by the Court ordaining the Law Society to obtain a supplementary report in terms specified at paragraph 14.4 of the petition.

However, after hearing both sides arguments in court, Lord Brodie granted Miss Crabbe’s plea to lodge responses, giving a fourteen day deadline for answers to be received by the court. The full terms of Lord Brodie’s opinion are reprinted below, however it should be noted there does not seem to be any mention of what work if any, the first & second reporters carried out with regard to Miss Crabbe’s complaints.

The opinion of Lord Brodie published by the Scottish Courts website is featured here and reprinted below : OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2012] CSOH 81 P47/12 OPINION OF LORD BRODIE in the Petition of WILLIAM COUPERTHWAITE MACREATH Petitioner; for Judicial Review of a decision taken by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland

Introduction

[1] In this application by motion in terms of rule 58.8(2) by Miss Norma Crabbe for leave to enter the process and to lodge answers as additional respondent to the petition, I heard Miss Crabbe in support of her motion and Miss Watts, Advocate, for the petitioner.

[2] Miss Crabbe objected to my hearing Miss Watts on the ground that, contrary to what appears on the Form 23.4 lodged on behalf of the petitioner, written intimation of opposition had not been given to her on the day that the opposition was lodged with the General Department, as required by rule 23.4(4). The relevant timetable of events, according to Miss Crabbe, was that she intimated her intention to enrol the motion by fax on Monday 30 April 2012. She enrolled the motion on Wednesday 2 May. Those acting for the petitioner lodged a form of opposition to motion (Form 23.4) with the General Department on 2 May but only intimated that opposition in writing to Miss Crabbe by way of letter which arrived on Thursday 3 May. The motion came before me on Friday 4 May. While I understood Miss Watts to dispute that there had been a failure to intimate opposition on 2 May, she accepted that she had handed an amended Form 23.4 to Miss Crabbe on the morning of 4 May prior to the motion calling before me. The amended Form 23.4 stated that the motion should be refused on the basis that the applicant was not directly affected by the issues raised in the petition and lacked the necessary interest and standing to justify her participating in the proceedings.

[3] Rather than taking further time to explore the factual dispute, I proceeded on the basis that, as Miss Crabbe claimed, written opposition to her motion had only been intimated to her on 3 May 2012 and that therefore there had been a failure to comply with rule 23.4(4). Rule 2.1 gives power to the Court to relieve a party from the consequences of failure to comply with the Rules of Courts. It is not entirely clear to me that there are necessary consequences of a failure to comply with the requirement to give written notice of opposition on the day of lodging it, at least where the motion is starred, the other party is on notice that the motion is opposed and the other party has attended to make her motion. But, assuming that it was open to me to refuse to hear Miss Watts or to grant the motion irrespective of its merits, I decided that it was entirely inappropriate for me to do so andto the extent that my hearing Miss Watts required me to exercise my powers under rule 2.1, I did so. In my experience at least, a motion such as this is unusual. It did not appear to me free from all difficulty. I welcomed the assistance which might be provided from either side of the bar and Miss Crabbe did not suggest that she had suffered any prejudice from having a shorter rather than longer period of notice of opposition.

The petition

[4] The petitioner is a solicitor. The respondent is the Law Society of Scotland. The petitioner seeks judicial review of a decision taken by the Council of the respondent, acting through its Regulation Department, and intimated by letter dated January 2011, to treat its report dated 28 September 2009, on a complaint against the petitioner (by Miss Crabbe) as a nullity and to proceed on the basis of the report, dated June 2011, on the same subject.

[5] Miss Crabbe is also a solicitor. The petitioner acted on her behalf between 1998 and 2005 in relation to litigation arising out of the dissolution of the firm of which Miss Crabbe had been a partner. Miss Crabbe became dissatisfied with the services provided to her by the petitioner in relation to this matter and in August 2005 intimated the complaint to the respondent which is referred to in the petition. The then statutory provision regulating such complaints was section 33 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Section 33 requires the respondent to investigate a complaint made by any person with an interest and thereafter make a written report to the complainer and the practitioner concerned. It is averred in the petition that the respondent has appointed a series of four separate reporters to deal with Miss Crabbe's complaint. The report dated 28 September 2009 ("the 2009 Report") was a report by the third reporter and the report dated June 2011 ("the 2011 Report") was a report by the fourth reporter.

[6] The 2009 report by the third reporter recommended that all heads of complaint made by Miss Crabbe against the petitioner be dismissed, with the exception of one finding of inadequate professional services. The third reporter recommended that no sanction be imposed on the petitioner in respect of that finding. Miss Crabbe subsequently complained about the terms of the 2009 Report. It was by way of response to Miss Crabbe's complaint about the 2009 Report that the respondent made its remit (which the petitioner avers was of a limited nature) to the fourth reporter. The fourth reporter reported in terms of the 2011 Report. In the 2011 Report the fourth reporter made five findings of inadequate services against the petitioner and seven findings of professional misconduct. The fourth reporter did not make a finding of inadequate professional services in relation to the one head of the complaint which had been upheld by the third reporter.

[7] The petitioner avers that he made detailed written representations to the respondent about the unfairness of the approach adopted in dealing with Miss Crabbe's complaint which led to the 2011 Report. The petitioner avers that he did not receive a substantive response from the respondents until 10 January 2012 when the respondent wrote to the petitioner advising that it proposed to proceed on the basis of the 2011 Report treating the 2009 Report as a nullity.

[8] In these circumstances the petitioner seeks interdict ad interim against the respondent from taking any procedural step to advance the disposal of the complaint by Miss Crabbe pending resolution of the proceedings; reduction of the respondent's decision of 10 January 2012 to set aside the 2009 Report and treat it as a nullity; an order by the Court ordaining the respondent to set aside the terms of the 2011 Report; and an order by the Court ordaining the respondent to obtain a supplementary report in terms specified at paragraph 14.4 of the petition.

Rule of Court 58.8(2)

[9] Rule 58.8(2) provides as follows:

"Any person not specified in the first order made under Rule 58.7 as a person on whom service requires to be made, and who is directly affected by any issue raised, may apply by motion for leave to enter the process; and if the motion is granted, the provisions of this chapter shall apply to that person as they apply to a person specified in the first order".

Discussion

[10] It was Miss Watts's submission on behalf of the petitioner that Miss Crabbe was not a person "directly affected" by any issue raised in the petition. The petition would not resolve Miss Crabbe's complaint against the petitioner. To the extent that Miss Crabbe's patrimonial interests had been adversely affected by the petitioner's conduct of her affairs then her remedy was an action for damages. Moreover, it was not in the interests of expedient determination of the petition that Miss Crabbe should be allowed to participate. A two day first hearing had been fixed in the petition for 14 and 15 June 2012. It was likely that that hearing would have to be discharged if Miss Crabbe were to be added as a party.

[11] Miss Crabbe and Miss Watts were agreed that authoritative guidance as to what is meant by "directly affected" for the purposes of Rule 58.8(2) is to be found in the judgment of Lord Reed in AXA General Insurance Ltd v The Lord Advocate 2011 SLT 1061 at paras.170 to 175. In that passage, Lord Reed explains that the traditional analysis in terms of title and interest as a requisite for locus standi in a private law context, as set out in D & J Nicol v Dundee Harbour Trustees 1915 SC (HL) 712, is inappropriate where what is in issue are questions of public law, which is likely to be the case with an exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction. At para.174 of his judgment in AXA Lord Reed considers the terms of Rule 58.8(2). He explains that stipulation in the rule that a person must be directly affected by any issue raised, is no more than a reflection of the pre-existing requirement that a person must have sufficient interest. It is no more restrictive than that.

[12] There may be instances where having made a complaint to a regulatory authority the complainer should be taken to have surrendered any private interest in the matter to that authority but on the admittedly fairly superficial understanding of the scheme under the 1990 Act which I was able to glean from the parties' necessarily brief submissions, I do not see this to be such a case. It would appear from the petitioner's averments that the respondent involved Miss Crabbe in the complaints process. It entertained Miss Crabbe's complaint about the 2009 Report. It invited her to submit material which she claimed had not been considered by the third reporter. The petitioner complains of lack of procedural fairness on the part of the respondent in its consideration of the complaint. It is at the very least arguable that just as the petitioner had an expectation of procedural fairness, so did Miss Crabbe. The petitioner complains of delay on the part of the respondent. So did Miss Crabbe when she came to address me. It may be that, in contrast to the petitioner, Miss Crabbe has no direct patrimonial interest in the outcome of the complaint, but I consider that I am entitled to have regard to her interest in being vindicated in the event of her complaint being upheld just as the petitioner has an interest (additional to any purely patrimonial interest) in being vindicated by the complaint being dismissed, either in whole or in part. Depending on the outcome of the complaint, I would expect parties to consider that they had "won" or "lost" to a greater or lesser extent. The terms of the operative reporter's report may not be determinative of the complaint but any final decision will have to be based on that report, hence the petitioner's wish for the 2011 Report to be set aside in favour of the 2009 Report with any further report being limited to an identification of the documentation which was not available to the third reporter and a decision on the significance, if any, of such additional documentation. If it is clear that the petitioner has an interest in setting aside the 2011 Report in favour of the 2009 Report, then, conversely, I would see Miss Crabbe as having an interest, albeit perhaps not a patrimonial interest, in the 2011 Report remaining as the operative report.

[13] Were it to be suggested (and Miss Watts did not so suggest), I would not be satisfied that it would be an answer to Miss Crabbe's wish to participate that her interests can be adequately protected by the respondent's opposition to the petition. It may be that the respondent will take and maintain all relevant points available in answer to the petition but Miss Crabbe has no guarantee that that will be so. It may be that with a view to the economical conduct of the litigation, Miss Crabbe will not choose to add anything to what is put forward on behalf of the respondent, but she cannot know in advance whether the points which are to be insisted upon on behalf of the respondent and the way in which the proceedings are conducted will exactly coincide with her view of her interests.

[14] Miss Watts argued that it was not in the interests of the expedient determination of the petition that Miss Crabbe be allowed to participate. Miss Watts envisaged that the hearing fixed for 14 and 15 June 2012 would have to be discharged. I am not satisfied that this is necessarily so but were it to be so I do not see it as a consideration which could prevent a directly affected person being granted leave to enter the process.

Decision

[15] I shall therefore grant Miss Crabbe leave to enter the process. Miss Crabbe sought leave to lodge answers and I would grant leave for her to do so, ordaining that these be lodged within 14 days of the date of the interlocutor granting leave. [16] I reserve all questions of expenses.

LEGAL DEFENCE UNION – DEFENDING CROOKED LAWYERS, ACTING AGAINST CLIENTS :

The LEGAL DEFENCE UNION (LDU) is a small, yet powerful organisation which regularly represents crooked lawyers against investigations of client complaints which are carried out by the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). It is now well known the LDU regularly intervene in cases and make submissions to both the Law Society & SLCC on solicitors behalf while the clients who have made the complaints are routinely refused access to the LDU’s submissions, dubbed by some complaints insiders as “more often than not, threatening & intimidatory”.

A report into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy carried out by the University of Manchester Law School in 2009 for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was handed documents linking the Legal Defence Union to suicides of clients who had complained about their solicitors. Details of the cases were referred to in the report, which can be read in an article by Diary of Injustice here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Investigation revealed Legal Defence Union rushed to aid £600K dodgy legal aid claims lawyer. Diary of Injustice conducted an in depth investigation into dealings between the Legal Defence Union and the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), revealing James McCann, a solicitor acting for the LDU brokered a deal between SLAB and the Law Society to deter action on complaints filed by SLAB against sole practitioner Niels S Lockhart, a solicitor who SLAB accused of making inflated claims for legal aid work after raking in SIX HUNDRED & SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND POUNDS of legal aid funds between April 2002 to March 2005.

Diary of Injustice reported on the secret deal struck between the Legal Defence Union, Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland to get Niels Lockhart off the hook from potentially being struck off, in an earlier article, here : One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case

The secret SLAB report on Niels S Lockhart, obtained in 2011 by Diary of Injustice under Freedom of Information laws, can be viewed online here : SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD S31 COMPLAINT REPORT TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND : NIELS S LOCKHART

Legal Defence Union boss secretly met SLCC Chair Jane Irvine in no notes meetings at posh Edinburgh hotel. A further investigation carried out by Diary of Injustice into dealings between the Legal Defence Union and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission revealed a series of secret off the record meetings at the plush Balmoral hotel in Edinburgh between Jane Irvine, the Chair of the SLCC and William Macreath, despite the fact Mr Macreath was under investigation by the Law Society of Scotland at the same time over complaints filed by solicitor Miss Crabbe. That report can be read here : Investigation reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's links, secret 'off the record' dealings with lawyers lobby group Legal Defence Union

Documents obtained from the SLCC under Freedom of Information disclosures revealed Mr Macreath and the SLCC Chair exchanged correspondence and letters agreeing that no notes of their meetings would be kept. The FOI disclosures can be viewed online or downloaded here : Legal Defence Union & Law Care involvement in complaints to SLCC & here : FOI Disclosure : Involvement & meetings between Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Legal Defence Union

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was asked for their reaction over the allegations against Mr Macreath and what impact it may have on any discussions held between the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine and the LDU Boss. No response has been received at time of publication.

'Bonus Starved' Crown Office staff claim £10.5 million seized from crooks, while court officials refuse to say how much has actually been paid back

Crown Office staff lacking the usual big bonus payouts have turned to seizing more of crooks cash. WHILE Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) battle headline after headline of collapsed prosecutions & failed investigations, allegations of corruption, evidence fiddling, racism, professional bias and poor value for money over it’s near ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUND administration & wages cost,  a glimmer of light has emerged in it’s efforts to raise the amounts of cash ‘seized’ from crooks in the last financial year to around £10.5 million, according to figures announced yesterday by the Solicitor General. with £7 million coming from convicted drug dealers, money launderers and fraudsters while the Civil Recovery Unit claims to have recovered over £3.5 million during the same period.

In announcement from the Crown Office reporting this year's POCA figures, Lesley Thomson, the Solicitor General said : "Taking over £10.5 million from criminals is another great achievement by our dedicated Proceeds of Crime teams. "Just as important as the sum recovered is the disruption caused to individual criminals and serious and organised crime groups in Scotland. "Depriving criminals of their money and assets can significantly disrupt their activities, prevent them from re-investing their profits, and make it difficult for them to carry out their criminal enterprises. When the money and assets go so does the status and power.

The Solicitor General continued : "There is no place in Scotland for those who want a lifestyle funded by crime. We will continue to work closely with law enforcement agencies to use Proceeds of Crime laws to make Scotland an increasingly hostile place for these criminals. "I also welcome today's publication of the Civil Recovery Unit's second Annual Report which provides further information about its activities over the past year."

Campaigners for legal reform have serious doubts over the credibility of Crown Office claims they pursue those who profit from criminal activities, pointing out that in cases where solicitors have financially ruined their clients and when matters were reported to the Crown Office, charges were dropped because of a perceived bias that Scotland’s prosecutors were refusing to prosecute their colleagues in the legal profession. In one recent case reported by Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper, a lawyer who was the subject of reports to the Crown Office, ‘moved escaped to Italy’ while the Law Society of Scotland dithered over taking further action. It later transpired the Crown Office had REFUSED to prosecute the lawyer even though matters had been reported to it’s Procurator Fiscal in Stirling.

Another equally serious issue of Crown Office failure was revealed in a Diary of Injustice investigation where Freedom of Information legislation revealed the Lord Advocate & prosecutors at the Crown Office had allowed FOURTEEN solicitors to escape charges for millions of pounds of legal aid fraud. More on this story can be read here : FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escape justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years

Other than the almost accidental recovery of funds from now deceased solicitor James Muir, who stole a staggering 1.8 million pounds of legal aid from right under the noses of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, officials were unwilling to give figures for the remaining 13 solicitors apparently successful theft of taxpayer funded legal aid.

The investigation into the Crown Office and legal aid fraud carried out by Diary of Injustice also revealed one of the solicitors accused of legal aid fraud was actually married to a Crown Office prosecutor, a fact which the Crown Office deliberately concealed from the public. More on that story can be found here : Admissible Evidence ? Crown Office Prosecutor married to lawyer accused of legal aid fraud, both still working, Legal Aid Board ‘convinced of guilt’

Lindsey Miller, Head of the Serious and Organised Crime Division (SOCD) and the COPFS POCA Champion, said : “The Proceeds of Crime Act is a powerful tool in our armoury in the fight against crime in Scotland. We continue to make maximum use of the legislation to deprive criminals of money and assets. We target people who make money from all types of crime, from serious and organised criminals engaged in money laundering and drug dealing, to individuals committing tax and benefit fraud and immigration offences. We have also applied to the court in a number of cases this year to have administrators appointed to take control of houses where accused have been unable or unwilling to sell them to pay the confiscation order. This sends a strong message that the Crown will not tolerate delay and prevarication in the payment of an order. Our priority is disrupting and dismantling criminal enterprises, and we will continue to work with the police, SCDEA, HMRC and DWP to achieve this aim."

However, Mr Millar and the Crown Office have not answered questions over how much was seized from a Scottish Judge who was charged with Benefits Cheating, and is understood to have remained on the judiciary.

In the case of the Benefits Cheat judge, reported by Diary of Injustice here : ALL THE LORD PRESIDENT’S MEN : Benefits cheats, drunk drivers & tax dodgers, yet identities of convicted Scottish judges to remain secret for now the Crown Office protected their identity and refused to disclose any further details about the case, even where it was being held, despite COPFS staff regularly putting out Press Releases naming & shaming other benefits cheats.

The Crown Office have also still to answer questions over why no confiscation orders have been served on a solicitor, recently reported in the media to have committed mortgage fraud to obtain properties in Edinburgh.

A detailed investigation into the case of the solicitor falsely claiming a higher salary to obtain a morgate revealed the Crown Office had blundered and not even picked up on details published on the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal of the solicitor’s mortgage fraud, more on which can be read here : Law Society of Scotland ‘deliberately failed’ to report mortgage fraud solicitor to Crown Office as cosy Tribunal deal allows lawyer to escape justice

Another lawyer who stole 116K from clients also slipped the Crown Office ‘net’, featured in an article here : Lord Advocate Mulholland in the dock as Crown Office dithers over prosecuting yet another CROOKED LAWYER who stole £116K from client accounts

Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill said : "I welcome this excellent work by police and prosecutors, seizing millions cracking down on gangsters and their ill-gotten gains. Criminals don't contribute to our communities, they live off them and serious organised crime has an impact on everyone in Scotland, harming communities and legitimate businesses through drugs, extortion and counterfeit goods. "That is exactly why cash seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act should be used to benefit communities which have suffered from criminal acts. "Our CashBack for Communities programme invests crooks' cash in building better, safer, stronger communities, improving facilities, taking young people off the streets and putting them on a positive path. We have invested over £45m in providing opportunities for some 600,000 young people to take part in hundreds of thousands of free sports and cultural activities since CashBack began in 2007.

The Justice Secretary continued : "Last year amendments were made to the Proceeds of Crime Act to provide law enforcement agencies with additional powers to target a wider range of criminals and criminal conduct. We are continuing to look at other ways to refine the Act to make it even more effective, and we are working closely with the Home Office to do so. We have also allocated approximately £2 million funding for financial investigators in the police and the Crown Office, to ensure even more criminals are targeted." 

In spite of the Justice Secretary’s fine words over recovering assets from criminals, Mr MacAskill was quick to support Crown Office staff linked to legal aid fraudster solicitors, more of which was featured in an earlier article by Diary of Injustice here : Justice Secretary’s discredited defence for Crown Office in 14 legal aid fraud scandals as links between accused lawyers & Scots crime agencies emerge

The amount recovered by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Civil Recovery Unit in the last 12 months brings the total secured since the commencement of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) in 2003 to over £69 million, which it is claimed has been put to the Scottish Consolidated Fund to be reinvested in Scottish communities via the CashBack for Communities programme.

However, as the Sunday Mail newspaper reports, in spite of the high profile announcement from the Crown Office over this year’s £10.5 million figure of cash seizures from crooks, officials refused to give actual figures as to how much money has actually been paid back. The paper reported : “Officials also admit they don’t know how much of the £10.5million has been paid. The Scottish Court Service said: “We don’t have a breakdown.” 

A regular court observer told Diary of Injustice earlier today : “This now annual show from the Crown Office seems more like a pitch for increased salaries or the return of lavish bonus payments”.

He continued : “If you take into account the high profile failures of prosecutions in the courts, and more case collapses than I’ve had hot dinners, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant proportion of monies recovered from criminals will end up going on court fees, legal fees and lawyers jollies”

Human Rights record of Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee ‘non existent’ claims Glasgow Human Rights Network report for Holyrood msp group

Holyrood’s Justice Committee has a poor record of considering Scots Human Rights, claims report. THE Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee has been condemned in a report produced by academics from the University of Glasgow for the Cross Party Group on Human Rights at Holyrood as having  "a reductive and sceptical pattern of attitude towards human rights". The critical report goes on to challenge the pitiful role of the Justice Committee, often seen by the public as partisan & protective of vested interests, and claims the committee “… rarely makes reference to the regional and global human rights regimes of which the UK is a member, and when it does it appears to see human rights merely as a constraint on the administration of criminal justice.”

The report (pdf), also available online here : Scottish Parliament Committees’ Perspective on Human Rights produced by Dr Kurt Mills, Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights at the University of Glasgow and Convenor of the Glasgow Human Rights Network found deficiencies in approach in several of the existing structures, most notably the Justice Committee. For example, the report notes that when discussing issues such as inclusivity of the justice system, legal aid and prisons, the Committee did not make reference to human rights which the authors found “extremely concerning.”

The findings of the report will echo with many members of the public who have asked the Justice Committee to consider issues of grave importance concerning many aspects of Scots law only to be rebuked by a divisive, prejudiced & at times, flippant group of politicians, who appear to have little regard for the inclusive Human Rights of all of Scotland.

The report calls for the Scottish Parliament to establish a separate Human Rights Committee because the current committee system has failed to adequately consider human rights issues. 

A Press Release from the University of Glasgow reports that Dr Kurt Mills, Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights at the University of Glasgow and Convenor of the Glasgow Human Rights Network which produced the report said: “We found that whilst there is some consideration of human rights at Holyrood, consideration of such issues is haphazard at best. The committee with the official mandate for human rights, the Justice Committee, exhibits, according to the report, "a reductive and sceptical pattern of attitude towards human rights." It rarely makes reference to the regional and global human rights regimes of which the UK is a member, and when it does it appears to see human rights merely as a constraint on the administration of criminal justice.”

Dr Mills continued : “It is clear that for the Scottish Parliament to adequately live up to human rights obligations found in the UK Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights, and many other international human rights instruments to which the UK is a party, it needs a mechanism whereby all relevant legislation can be considered from a human rights perspective. Current arrangements are not adequate. The most reasonable course of action is to create a human rights committee within the Scottish Parliament to act as a focal point for such review and discussion.”

The findings of the report have been backed by politicians and representatives from civic Scotland. The Convenor of the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on Human Rights is the SNP MSP John Finnie:  “This report is an important examination of Parliament’s committee system’s consideration of human rights issues.  I am sure that the Parliamentary authorities will give the report appropriate consideration including a review of the need for a Parliamentary human rights committee.”

That view was endorsed by Shabnum Mustapha, Director of Amnesty International Scotland :  "Amnesty International welcomes the findings of the report which has cast a light on some of the missed opportunities to raise human rights as part of Scottish Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. We urge the Scottish Parliament to look at how human rights considerations can be better embedded in the work of the Parliament."

Carole Ewart, Convener of The Human Rights Consortium Scotland (HRCS), also voiced her support : “The Human Rights Consortium Scotland welcomes the report which confirms the anecdotal experiences of our members that human rights are insufficiently addressed by committees in the Scottish Parliament. We repeat our call, first made in early May 2011, that the Scottish Parliament establishes a Human Rights Committee to ensure transparency, accountability and compliance with human rights law and with Section 29 of the Scotland Act.  We believe that mainstreaming  human rights across its business will improve the design, delivery and funding of public services, reduce risk of spending public money on compensation payments and  prioritise spend on the people who need services the most.”

It is a matter of record that since it came into existence in 1999, the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee has never once passed a pro-consumer reform or positively considered a public petition seeking to clean up Scotland’s “Victorian” justice system or reform key areas such as regulation of Scotland’s legal profession or deal with issues relating to Human Rights of clients & consumers against the vested interests of those in the legal establishment.

Constituents of MSPs have reported issues over the years to Diary of Injustice where politicians from all parties have failed abysmally to publicly push issues of Human Rights in the Scottish Parliament while on the other hand, being ever happy to issue congratulatory appreciations & events for some professions accused of serial breaches of mounting numbers of constituents Human Rights.

Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission says it will avoid FOI requests by stashing lawyers dirty complaints info with researchers. THE Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has responded to calls from a representative body & lobby group for lawyers to boycott a research project into complaints against Scottish solicitors, by assuring the legal profession that any data collected from law firms over how they deal with complaints from clients will AVOID Freedom of Information legislation (FOI) because the data gathered ‘will be held confidentially by a third party’ (in this case, a commercial firm of pollsters) and thus not subject to FOI requirements of disclosure.

Responding to a call by the Scottish Law Agents Society (SLAS) for solicitors to effectively not participate in the survey, reported by Diary of Injustice here :  Consumers ‘locked out of debate’ as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission carries out yet more research on how solicitors handle complaints, the SLCC sought to alleviate concerns over complaints data falling into the hands of the media & FOI requests, stating : “While it is the case that the SLCC is subject to Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), it should be noted that information is being ingathered on a confidential basis by the researchers purely for the purpose of statistical analysis by them. Information from individual legal firms, or data that could identify any legal firms or individual practitioners, will not be passed on to the SLCC.”

The statement from the SLCC has been widely taken to mean it has signalled to the Scottish Law Agents Society that it’s plans for how the research is gathered and by whom, will deter any leakage of the complaints data to the media or to journalists, individuals or other solicitors making Freedom of Information requests for full disclosure of the research and how it will eventually arrive at any conclusions.

A spokesperson for the SLCC added : “The SLCC sees this as a valuable piece of research which will inform all of our stakeholders, including both the profession and consumers, about how complaints are being dealt with. In particular, the results of the research will inform the SLCC when issuing guidance to the profession on hw practitioners deal with complaints made to them – this is one of the SLCC’s statutory functions contained in Section 40 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.”

The spokesperson continued : “Prior to engaging the researchers, the SLCC discussed the research with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, both of whom agreed to assist the SLCC in conducting the research. In terms of funding, the cost of the research was included in the SLCC’s budget for last year – ie the budget approved in April 2011. It therefore has no impact on the budget recently approved for the forthcoming year, nor has it an impact on the level of next year’s levy.”

A legal insider confirmed to Diary of Injustice this morning, the new research being carried out by the SLCC was discussed with the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates. He indicated that “steps had been put in place to see none of the complaints research data leaks out to the press, consumers or clients of solicitors.”

Diary of Injustice further asked the SLCC what its intentions were if the effective boycott of the research by SLAS resulted in a lack of solicitors or law firms participating in the project, after SLAS released a lengthy tirade against the research plans earlier this week, claiming : “The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has written to solicitors’ firms requesting disclosure of information regarding complaints made against firms by clients and, presumably, other interested parties. It is always a matter of great difficulty for solicitors to disclose to third parties information derived from their clients’ files. There is an instinctive reaction to treat clients’ information in the same way that clients’ money is treated and to regard it as not being at the disposal of third parties. There is also the issue as to the privacy of the solicitor’s own business information. When we sought the views of a number of experienced practitioners and advisers as to whether this information should be supplied to SLCC, the immediate response was unanimously negative.”

SLAS went on to list 10 points concerning the SLCC’s complaints research project, among them suggesting a delaying action, and also advising member solicitors they had no obligation to hand over complaints information to the SLCC.

The SLCC responded to the SLAS statement, confirming it had no powers of compelling solicitors to take part in the research. The SLCC spokesperson said : “In respect of your questioning concerning solicitor participation, the SLCC is confident that it shall receive helpful contribution from solicitors when conducting its research into complaints. While the SLCC does not have the power to compel solicitors to take part in the research, we aver that most will consider the results of this research to offer valuable guidance to the profession on how practitioners deal with complaints made to them.”

Late yesterday, a senior Scottish Government insider indicated his displeasure of the way in which the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was seeking to cover up complaints data from the public. He said : “Earlier this week the Chair and the outgoing Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission used the media to publicly criticise the Scottish Government for not prioritising the SLCC or allowing it leeway to work within its legislative framework, which they also condemned as being badly written, complicated and costly to operate. Now they are telling lawyers they don't need to worry about their complaints data being made public because the SLCC, a body which is FOI compliant is going to have someone else hold the data so it can avoid any FOI request for its disclosure ? These people don't know if they are coming or going.”

A report on the media interview in which Jane Irvine, the Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and the SLCC’s now former Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew, criticised the Scottish Government and the 2007 Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act, can be read in an article featured on law blog Scottish Law Reporter, here : After spending £14 million, legal complaints pair admit "We are crap and so is the law that created us" as one jets off to £80K position as FOI Chief

While Jane Irvine remains Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Rosemary Agnew has now left her position as the SLCC’s Chief Executive, replacing Kevin Dunion as Scotland’s new Information Commissioner, which was reported by Diary of Injustice earlier this year, here : SHHH HAPPENED : Scotland’s new Information Commissioner to be Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew, rebuked FIVE TIMES for being ANTI-FOI.

It is of course very difficult to have confidence in public bodies or regulators who are required to comply with Freedom of Information legislation to take such overt steps to ensure important information such as how solicitors deal with complaints is withheld from the public by using what can only be described as unfair and foul means to inhibit transparency & accountability. However, Diary of Injustice will follow this research project and report issues & developments relating to it in the public interest.

PLOY TO AVOID FOI : THIRD PARTIES USED TO STASH DATA FROM PUBLIC GAZE

Allowing ‘third parties’ to collect, collate or hold data on behalf of another is a popular device used by many public bodies including most Scottish Government departments, local authorities.

The tactic is also commonly used throughout NHS Scotland, Scottish Water, environmental regulators, most Ombudsmen, the Scottish Parliament, and throughout the justice sector including the Scottish Court Service right up to even the Lord President’s Office in an effort to avoid information falling into public hands via FOI requests using exemptions under Section 3(2)(a)(i) the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, where data held by a third party on behalf of another is usually exempt from disclosure.

Consumers ‘locked out of debate’ as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission carries out yet more research on how solicitors handle complaints

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission commissions more research on complaints against solicitors. FOURTEEN MILLION POUNDS and FOUR YEARS LATER, with little to show for it in the way of struck-off ‘crooked lawyers’ or clients happy their complaints were fully resolved or fully compensated for their losses, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has announced it is to embark on YET ANOTHER round of research into how Scottish solicitors ‘deal with complaints’ and ‘the subject of those complaints’ with the commissioning of a new research project, this time being handled by TNS Research International TNS-BMRB for an as yet undisclosed sum.

The research is to be conduced via telephone interviews between TNS Research and law firms, although there is apparently no obligation on solicitors to participate. Clients & consumers WILL NOT be asked for their input in the SLCC’s latest research.

Diary of Injustice recently reported on another SLCC research project into how the Law Society of Scotland handled conduct complaints, here : Protection Racket : SLCC’s ‘whitewash’ investigation of Law Society of Scotland’s conduct complaint process ends in failure to publish full report. However, the SLCC has so far refused to publish its full findings, limiting published information to a brief mention on it’s website.

Consumers of legal services in Scotland should not expect any improvement in how the SLCC address client complaints after the close of this research, as no improvements to complaints handling at the SLCC have taken place since October 2008 in spite of a number of costly research projects undertaken by the notoriously anti-client legal complaints watchdog whose board members branded financially ruined clients as “frequent flyers” and “chancers”.

An earlier research project commissioned by the SLCC in 2009 & carried out by the University of Manchester’s Law School in to the Law Society of Scotland's Master Insurance Policy revealed clients had committed suicide because of the way they had been treated over claims made against negligent or corrupt solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported on the Master Policy research revelations here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

However, the SLCC has steadfastly refused to monitor individual claims to the Master Policy in spite of being asked by members of the public to do so, and no detectable changes have been made to how the SLCC deals with complaints made against negligent solicitors.

The SLCC’s announcement of the new research :

SLCC Research into complaint numbers and practitioners' handling of complaints

As part of its oversight role the SLCC monitors complaints and identifies trends in practice, in relation to how practitioners deal with complaints and the subject of those complaints.  This includes undertaking research.  The latest research the SLCC is carrying out is into complaints made to, and dealt with, by the legal profession in Scotland.

The SLCC has commissioned TNS-BMRB to carry out research into:

the numbers of complaints which solicitors and advocates deal with on an annual basis, including those made directly to the practitioners which are never referred to the SLCC, and complaints which are made through the SLCC's complaints process; and
whether the number and types of transactions carried out by practitioners have any correlation to numbers of complaints received by the SLCC.

During April and May 2012, TNS-BMRB will be contacting Client Relations Managers (CRMs) and advocates for information about their practice (where applicable) and complaints, including:

the size of the firm (e.g. number of partners and Scottish qualified staff practising in Scotland);
scope of practice areas;
the number of transactions, by practice area, the firm dealt with in the last 3 years;
the number of complaints received in the last 3 years, by practice area; and
from whom complaints originate (e.g. from clients or other third parties).

For CRMs, the research will be conducted via a telephone interview, which should take an average of 7 - 10 minutes.  A data sheet will be emailed in advance of the interview to allow CRMs time to retrieve records and to use that information as an aide memoire during the interview.  Advocates will be sent questionnaires to complete and return by post. The SLCC aims to collate information about general complaint handling and expertise employed by those who deal with complaints, and to identify whether there are any unmet training needs.

Practitioners will be asked about:

the processes and procedures in place to deal with and record complaints;
how complaints are disposed of;
the outcome of complaints (e.g. resolved, action taken where complainer remains dissatisfied); and
the level, frequency and type of training (either internally or externally) which they have received regarding complaint handling, how to improve services to prevent/avoid complaints and client care, and how this knowledge and training is disseminated to employees.

The telephone interviews will be carried out during the first few weeks of May 2012.  Advocates should receive their information pack in the first week of May.  Once all data has been obtained from the telephone interviews, the information will be collated, scrutinised and a report prepared by TNS-BMRB.  The SLCC will publish a report on its research in due course. The participation of practitioners is critical to the success of this research and to enabling the SLCC to provide advice, guidance and support in relation to complaints handling in the future which adds value to and reduces costs to the profession. Please refer also to the SLCC Strategy and Corporate Plan  and the SLCC Operational Plan.

There has been no media reaction as yet from the Law Society of Scotland to the SLCC’s latest research plan, however the Scottish Law Agents Society has condemned the SLCC’s complaints research proposal, also raising issues about the SLCC’s compliance with Freedom of Information legislation and pointing out solicitors are not required to hand out complaints information to the SLCC’s researchers. SLAS invited their members to submit their own reflections and suggestions in relation to this development, and issued a statement on their website, reprinted here : SLCC REQUEST FOR FIRMS’ COMPLAINTS INFORMATION

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has written to solicitors’ firms requesting disclosure of information regarding complaints made against firms by clients and, presumably, other interested parties. It is always a matter of great difficulty for solicitors to disclose to third parties information derived from their clients’ files. There is an instinctive reaction to treat clients’ information in the same way that clients’ money is treated and to regard it as not being at the disposal of third parties. There is also the issue as to the privacy of the solicitor’s own business information. When we sought the views of a number of experienced practitioners and advisers as to whether this information should be supplied to SLCC, the immediate response was unanimously negative. The following observations are offered:

1. The notice given by SLCC of this enquiry is insufficient to enable the solicitors’ profession to give collegiate consideration to and to make a considered decision upon the very important issue as to whether or not this sensitive information should be disclosed. 2. The cost of this exercise has to be borne by the solicitors’ profession and no information has been provided as to whether that cost has been estimated and as to whether the exercise will be cost effective. 3. No information is given as to whether or how SLCC has satisfied itself that this exercise falls within its statutory remit and its entitlement to expose solicitors to these costs. 3. The SLCC request does not advise as to whether or not there is any obligation on the part of solicitors to provide this information. 4. Information held by solicitors is private whereas information held by SLCC is subject to Freedom of Information enquiry, disclosure and publication. 5. Law Society officials recommend that firms disclose this information to SLCC. 6. Solicitors do not have any obligation to disclose this information to SLCC. 7. A better option might be for the information to be gathered within the profession where it would remain confidential and beyond the scope of Freedom of Information enquiry and only the conclusions be transmitted to SLCC. This might be achieved through the faculty structure or through the Scottish Law Agents Society. 8. Any research carried out at this stage might helpfully include enquiry into the extent to which the current complaints system accommodates abuse of process by persons who are dissatisfied with proper legal findings 9. The best initial response to this enquiry might be to ask for a further period of time to enable the foregoing issues to be considered and resolved.