Friday, May 04, 2012

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

SLCCScottish 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.

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

Err is this legal?

We seem to have a legal regulator operating on the fringes of legality..

Not a very good public image is it Jane Irvine..

Anonymous said...

Well Peter I must admit this one is a stonker (as usual)

These research projects take months to arrange so I'm guessing Rosemary Agnew was in on all of this as she was still the Chief Executive up until last week.

We therefore have a research project with the stated aim of avoiding Freedom of Information which has possibly had participation from the new Scottish Information Commissioner (the very same Rosemary Agnew!).

If Angew was not involved in it, then there must be questions asking why was the Chief Executive not involved in any part of organising the research.

This is a good scandal.I do hope the newspapers pick up on this.

Anonymous said...

Very thorough reporting as always.I haven't come up against the trick involving third parties until now so thanks for this tip.
btw you made a cracking headline out of it!

Anonymous said...

This one should hurt a bit

Anonymous said...

“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.”

WOW !!!!!

What a bunch of total sleazebags!

Anonymous said...

Why bother having FOI if there are all these ways to evade it?

Anyway you have made the SLCC look a bunch of shysters again so good work.

Anonymous said...

I hope everyone who has a current or previous complaint in to the SLCC about their lawyer reads this story and realises what they are up against.

Anonymous said...

The Firm did something on this too although from a different angle.They claim in a poll that 96% of those voting wont take part in this consultation.

Anonymous said...

This is like passing a bag of dangerous drugs to someone else to hold for you while being searched by the Police.

Not something you'd expect from a Complaints Commission!

Anonymous said...

Is this the road to an OBE for Jane Irvine?

Hiding info from the public?

Anonymous said...

“steps had been put in place to see none of the complaints research data leaks out to the press, consumers or clients of solicitors.”

So,a criminal enterprise from the outset.

SLCC,Flaw Society & Faculty of Inadequates should be ashamed of themselves.They make the devil look like an angel.

Diary of Injustice said...

4 May 2012 13:21

Good point ... it will be looked into.

4 May 2012 15:49

However, as you see it is something you can expect from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ...

Anonymous said...

Even the Lord President has been stashing information so we cannot ask for it?

Well well well.Scotland's top judge relying on others to keep the goods so he doesn't need to declare.

Can Scots law get any more corrupt than this?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Err is this legal?

We seem to have a legal regulator operating on the fringes of legality..

Not a very good public image is it Jane Irvine..

4 May 2012 13:08

They dont care really do they because their real mission is to get lawyers off complaints otherwise why would they refuse to take the complaints info from the researchers?

What a horrible bunch of people running our regulation of lawyers.

Anonymous said...

You should have asked the new Information Commissioner for a comment - Rosemary Agnew.

I wonder what she would say about these institutions who evade FOI in this way..

Anonymous said...

I asked to see letters my solicitor sent in about my complaint and the SLCC said it was all confidential told me to get stuffed so they do have things they can publish they just don't want to because they are protecting lawyers

Anonymous said...

Very good report Mr Cherbi on how all these outfits avoid freedom of information requests.I see you even name the Scottish Court Service and the Lord President Lord Hamilton in all of these foi avoiding efforts.I'm looking forward to reading more about how our judges hide behind information laundering exemptions.

Anonymous said...

Cant say I'm surprised at some of the comments about this topic as it really is a dirty trick from the SLCC and so damn arrogant.

Proves yet again no one will ever get a fair hearing against a lawyer in Scotland.You really are better off avoiding them all and saving your money.

Anonymous said...

Is this the Scottish version of how to deal with Freedom of Information?

Fit for a banana republic!

Anonymous said...

Good you highlighted this one,Peter.I've come across this a few times doing fois for the paper and every time it's a cover up.

Anonymous said...

Have any so called Consumer Protection organisations raised so much as a peep about this, or have they all been bought off by the Law Society of Scotland I wonder.

Anonymous said...

They dont have much shame do they,telling everyone they are going to leave the data with the researchers instead of taking it on board themselves.

Cant see how the SLCC can call themselves a regulator of anything if they are treating the public like this.

Anonymous said...

Yes,good one Pete as usual there's no one like you to get right into these legal crooks!

Anonymous said...

Clearly the SLCC waited until they had their former Chief Exec in the Info Commissioner's job to announce this because if Dunion had still been on he might have said something about it breaking the spirit of foi at the very least.

There is no chance Agnew will stand up for foi here and now we see why she was given the job.There will be many more foi abuses by the SLCC on the cards and not a peep from the Info Commissioner indeed I will not be surprised if I hear the SLCC is to be made exempt from foi and Agnew hurriedly agrees.

Anonymous said...

I asked to see any letters my lawyer sent into the SLCC about my complaint and they refused.One of their investigators then said they would put details of what he said in their report and when I got it there was nothing in it.I asked again and they said they were refusing to reply to my letters ever again.What can you do against people like this who's aim all along was to destroy my life and complaint just the same way my lawyer has done.It's like being abused twice and them getting away with it.*HELP ANYONE*

Anonymous said...

FOI in Scotland must be very corrupt to have get out of jail excuses like this one used so easily & openly

Anonymous said...

Irvine and co must hold us plain ordinary people in a lot of contempt to issue such a statement pandering to lawyers demands for 'confidentiality'

If anyone gets a gong out of their work on the SLCC it really is time to give up all the honours rubbish for good because they are getting medals for ruining people's lives probably causing a few deaths while they are at it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

FOI in Scotland must be very corrupt to have get out of jail excuses like this one used so easily & openly

6 May 2012 17:49

This goes for most of the laws in Scotland not just Freedom of Information!

Anonymous said...

I have read and commented on issues reported by a Diary of Injustice for four years now. These lawyers are among the gutter trash of humanity evil, ruthless and unable to feel any guilt. And the SLCC and Law Society, they want to exploit what they regard as client subhumans. Stay away as much as you can folks, that is the best advice I can offer you. Treat them like venomous reptiles so that you don't get bitten.

Anonymous said...

And this is the system tha t Kenny McAskill and the SNP tell us we should be proud of and fight fight to protect.

Get rid of them and vote for someone who will end self regulation now.

Anonymous said...

Very good reporting and emphasises to the rest of us if anyone wants to know what is really going on with your lawyer or the Scottish legal system its better to come here than rely on the likes of the beeb who seem to be shunning all problems with solicitors.

I for one would like to find out just how much money is changing hands to ensure our broadcasters and certain rags with a Monday morning law page dont print how our legal system is really treating us!

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

I was one of the millions who did not vote in the elections. Many of societies problems cannot be solved by politics but the lawyer issue is easier to solve than mass unemployment if the political will was there. Sadly our elected representatives are more corrupt than the Law Societies of the UK.

Politics is not working, it is simply protecting the omnipotent at the expense of the masses, and many of them cannot see it.

Anonymous said...

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/forthepublic/solicitor-standards

"Solicitors in Scotland are expected to observe high standards of professional conduct. Having standards that are clear and understandable is good for both solicitors and clients. It lets the client know what standards to expect and lets the profession know what is expected of them".
==============================
To the Law Society of Scotland, we know your real policy of protecting your lawyers. You are human rights abusers, suicides, family breakdowns, the price some people have paid for dealing with you scum. Never trust a lawyer, your life may depend on it.

Anonymous said...

If they are doing this foi avoiding with their own research into complaints they will also be doing the same with real complaints made by the public.

No one stands a chance against this SLCC they are truly corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Age discrimination legislation was supposed to have outlawed default retirement ages, which is a blessed relief for the thousands contemplating working later to supplement their measly pension income. However, a ruling by the UK Supreme Court may mean your employer can scupper your plans..

It ruled that a solicitor who was forced to retire at 65 had not been discriminated against. So what does the ruling mean for you?

See more

http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/04/25/employers-can-force-you-to-retire/?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl4|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D106456

Anonymous said...

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

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.
===================================
£80,000.00 per annum, to destroy client complaints. Who said crime does not pay? This is one reason I did not bother to vote.

Anonymous said...

Too many secrets are being held back with these so called exemptions and clearly there is a lot of abuse going on too such as with complaints about lawyers.

Keep up the good fight!

Anonymous said...

When are all you people with problem lawyers going to learn the SLCC/Law Society are taking the p*ss about your complaints?

Get out there and start protesting like others if you want change.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society’s Edinburgh based Drumsheugh Gardens HQ is an unelected branch of government with dictatorial powers that is a danger to everyone living in Scotland. They do not advise government they control it. This is the great danger in filling a parliament with like minded individuals who have no guts and let lawyers abuse the voters.

Democracy is about giving voters choice, but are there any MSP's willing to put their names forward on Peter's blog to stand against the Law Society? Watch this space.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers must be one of the few professions in the modern world who do not want public feedback from clients on how they have been treated. Now surely this is evidence enough that none of them can be trusted. And the Police, why do they not arrest Law Society criminals?

The laws we live by are not applied to lawyers in the same way, if they were the Law Society would have closed years ago. If they hate feedback they must treat clients like S**t so avoid at all costs. You know is makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Benefit cheats will be fined up to £2,000 without being taken to court under new powers from Tuesday, which the Government said will save the taxpayer around £42 million over the next three years.

Under changes brought in by the Welfare Reform Act in England, Scotland and Wales, minimum penalties will be £350, while cautions will no longer be an option.

Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud said: "We always push for the strongest possible punishment for benefit thieves who are stealing money from the people who need it the most.

"When it makes financial sense to do so, we will prosecute through the courts but where very little or no money has been stolen we will fine people as well as recover any overpayment, hitting fraudsters where it hurts the most.

"We are getting tougher and no one will escape justice with a mere slap on the wrists."

Before today, fraudsters faced a maximum administrative penalty of £600 with a minimum penalty of £15.

Ministers said the tougher administrative penalties are the first of a range of new powers in the Welfare Reform Act designed to deter fraudsters.

Other penalties coming into effect in the future to tackle fraud include an immediate three year loss of benefit for serious or organised benefit fraud or identity fraud.
=================================
Oh and you Ministers, do not forget Legal Aid Fraud, lawyers are thieves too.

Anonymous said...

I wrote to the SLCC about my complaint and this Agnew replied told me they would not respond to any more letters!

Anonymous said...

They are screaming one simple fact.

NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN EVER TRUST A SCOTTISH LAWYER BECAUSE THE LAW SOCIETY, SLCC AND PARLIAMENT MAKE SURE THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAWS OF SCOTLAND.

IF YOU WANT YOUR LIFE RUINED TRUST A LAWYER AND THEN YOU WILL SEE THEIR SO CALLED REGULATORS ARE AS BENT AS THE BACK ROAD TO ARGYLE.

Anonymous said...

FYI Agnew was involved all along

Anonymous said...

Some unscrupulous solicitors see ways to cash in on death.

When someone close to you dies, you would want to be treated with respect and sympathy. You would hardly suspect that anyone would take deliberate advantage of your bereavement to come up with a rip-off that could cost the estate of the deceased – effectively the surviving family – tens of thousands of pounds.

See more

http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/05/08/the-sick-solicitors-that-prey-on-the-bereaved/?ncid=webmail4

Anonymous said...

This is an excellent blog whoever you are and very brave of you to go up against the worst kind of life - LAWYERS!

Hope you can find the time some day to write about stuff like the renewable energy rip off and how people are being held to ransom for paying for wind power just so politicians and civil servants can end up as directors & advisers to same companies!

Anonymous said...

KENNY MACASKILL, Scotland’s Justice Secretary who has seen the inside of a cell himself after being arrested by Police in London some years back after a football match, has announced a plan to require those convicted of assaulting Police Officers in Scotland to pay for their crimes via cash payments to “good causes”.
==============================
What did you get arrested for Kenny? As far as the good causes are concerned what do you advise, compensating the victims of crooked lawyers because the Master policy ot Guarentee fund will not. Personally I do not think Police Officers should be subjected to violence so we agree on that one, but never on your lawyer colleagues.

Anonymous said...

Aye fine work here Mr Cherbi as always there's no one to beat you on legal news that's for sure!

Freedom of Information means exactly the reverse when it comes to Scotland and we know this thanks to this blog's tireless efforts in exposing how the wool is pulled over our eyes by the legal establishment ever eager to plunder our savings!

Anonymous said...

If this isn't illegal (the steps the SLCC have taken to avoid holding the complaints data) it should be made illegal as it is disgraceful conduct from a public body,conduct with the sole intent of avoiding transparency and accountability.

Why are no msps saying something about this?Have they all been paid off by the Law Society or do they have tea & dog biscuits with Jane Irvine in some posh hotel?

Anonymous said...

If this isn't illegal (the steps the SLCC have taken to avoid holding the complaints data) it should be made illegal as it is disgraceful conduct from a public body,conduct with the sole intent of avoiding transparency and accountability.
================================
Even if it is illegal a person in a position of power needs to deal with it which means lawyers taking action against those who are protecting them. Those who police their own professions are like living without any form of Government where there would be no laws. Laws are impotent until an actor acts. If I get murdered and the police turn a blind eye my family are rightless. If lawyers steal clients money and no lawyer or the police act against the lawyer thieves the latter are above the law. I do not mean to be patronising, I am simply saying without enforcement there are no laws, even in a complex democratic country.

Lawyers historically have set up a system where they are a village and they protect each other. If I stole from a bank I would face one of Lord Hamiltons sheriffs or judges, if a lawyer steals from a client his lawyer pals are his judges, result the law is just words on paper.

Anonymous said...

SFH.net May 2012 Editorial
It’s a human right to lampoon politicians online, judge rules

PEOPLE have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court ruled yesterday.

A judge concluded that politicians should have “thicker skins than others” while ruling on a case in which a councillor was accused of making inappropriate remarks about his colleagues.
Malcolm Calver, of Manorbier community council in Pembrokeshire, Wales, had been censured by a standards watchdog for “bitching” about his colleagues on the internet.
He had claimed that minutes of a meeting had “more holes than Swiss cheese”, accused a fellow councifior of “disgraceful manipulation of children” and questioned the expertise of another.
But the High Court said that although his words were “sarcastic and mocking”, he was entitled to complain about the way council meetings were run.
Mr Justice Beatson said Mr Calver’s right to freedom of expression meant the ruling by the Adjudication Panel for Wales that he had broken the code of conduct for local government should be quashed.
The judge said it was important to remember “the traditions of robust debate, which may include some degree of lampooning of those who place themselves in public office”.
“The fact that the panel took a narrower view of ‘political expression’ and did not refer to the need for politicians to have thicker skins than others limits the weight that can be given to its findings,” he said.
The ruling may not bring peace to Manorbier, where Mr Calver was due to be returned unopposed as one of six councillors yesterday, but it is likely to be welcomed by those who use blogs, Twitter and Facebook to criticise politicians.
The case related to comments that Mr Calver wrote online in 2008 and 2009 about the standards of administration on the council, which governs the resort where Virginia Woolf and George Bernard Shaw used to stay.
All of its councillors had been returned unopposed because of a lack of candidates and officials described it “a failing council” and a “disaster zone”.
During an investigation into a dispute between Mr Calver and another councillor, the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales read his personal website, which included comments about the town hall and individuals within it. On Nov 5, 2010, Mr Calver was found by the standards committee of Pembrokeshire county council, of which he was also an elected member, to have breached the code that requires councillor to show respect and not bring their office into disrepute.
His comments included claims that the council “does not seem to understand the limits of its role”, and that it would “sail on” until the public realised how much of their money had been “wasted” and how much “dealing” had been carried out in secret.
Mr Calver also wrote that the council had “many skeletons in the cupboard” and that its “indulgence” in staffing had cost taxpayers more than £55,000, while the “absence of a competent clerk” had also lost it money. He said one councillor was elected only because “no ballot was had”, and warned that he would not be “browbeaten” by “anyone who wishes to inflict censorship”.
The councillor was ordered to attend a training session, and took his case to the High Court after his appeal to the Adjudication Panel for Wales was rejected. The panel said he could have resigned but chose instead to “bitch from the sidelines”.

By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor The Daily Telegraph, 4th May 2012.

Anonymous said...

Lord Hamilton and every lawyer under him are professionals with no credibility left. The only credible people in the lawyer debate are the people like Peter and his colleagues who are reporting these scandals.

Hamilton sits on his arse quite happy that lawyer corruption is being swept under the carpet. It is one law for your faction Hamilton and another for the public. Only a madman or the unwary would trust a member of Scotland's legal mafia. They truly are a law unto themselves.

Yes The Scottish Lawyer Coverup Commission at it again said...

Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'
=================================
Truth if it were needed folks that the only place to deal with these powerful criminals is on the internet, name all of those who have wronged you. Anyone know what is happening to Rick Rordowski's appeal?

Anonymous said...

Kenny MaTrashkill a scumbag Minister of injustice who rejects the principle of universality in all legal matters.

States have internal as well as external enemies said...

Professor Noam Chomsky on Government states that


... “if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.

In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow”.
------------------------------
If we apply the Professors statement to Law, How can a legal code have any legitimacy when the legal practitioners are assessed in the confines of a closed office system, and those within the profession reject naming and shaming?

Lawyers are against naming and shaming. This is done in cyberspace in the international court of human relations and as those in Law Society offices, such as Douglas Mill was and Hudson is they clearly reject the basic principles of justice.

If it is right for Mill and Hudson to deal with complaints in the offices private realm, it is right for us to post our experiences of dealing with their lawyer colleagues in cyberspace. How can these too men have a shred of credibility when they reject the principle of universality?

What lawyer said “Clients were stupid”? Peter Cherbi is making a mockery of you all. Good man Peter. But I must add that this Law Society and SLCC, plus the MSP's who bend over for them and kick those who voted for them these people are internal enemies of the Scottish people who have done nothing about client suicides, people left without legal rights. One thing the philosopher John Stuart Mill was right about is that "democracy does not necessarily mean freedom". Try getting a lawyer to sue a crooked lawyer and you become one of Scotlands rightless persons. It will get worse if Salmond gainst Independence for the political class, the Legal Dictatorship they condone will get worse too.

Trust none of them.

Anonymous said...

Clients and Solicitors, this is wrong, the reality is potential victims and solicitors. as long as the Law Society or the three witches from the SLCC control things you are all potential victims of MacAskill's beloved lawyers.

Anonymous said...

I would never complain about a lawyer through the oficial channels now. It is a frustrating experience where we have no rights.

You might as well make paper planes out of your complaints letters because I promise you the Law Society and SLCC are against ruining lawyers for the public. Plato wrote two thousand years ago about his character Glaucon "we can make secret unions to cover up our crimes." These two crooked groups are the modern version Glaucon's idea.

Trust no lawyer.

Anonymous said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/10/david-davies-david-cameron-incompetent-_n_1505549.html?ref=uk-politics

David Cameron is leading an incompetent government and needs to change course or risk being booted out of a power, a Tory MP has said.

David Davies, who sits on the right of the Conservative Party, made the comments in the wake of the drubbing his party received at last week's local elections.

In a letter to the South Wales Argus, the Monmouth MP apologised to his constituents for what he said was "incompetence of the highest levels of government".

"David Cameron needs to change his tact very rapidly other wise he's not going to be in position for very long," he said.

"I am sure he realises his supporters are not happy with what's going on."

"If I sound like I'm being critical I am. I have been a been loyal for the last couple of years, although I have voted against the government on certain things like the EU referendum question, but there comes a point when it is becoming more difficult to remain so loyal."

Davies, not to be confused with former Tory leadership candidate of the same name, added his voice to those of a number of Tory backbenchers who blame the election losses on the government's decision to introduce House of Lords reform and gay marriage.

Last night several Tory MPs voiced their anger at rebels such as Davies and Nadine Dorries for voicing their opposition in public.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I asked to see any letters my lawyer sent into the SLCC about my complaint and they refused.One of their investigators then said they would put details of what he said in their report and when I got it there was nothing in it.I asked again and they said they were refusing to reply to my letters ever again.What can you do against people like this who's aim all along was to destroy my life and complaint just the same way my lawyer has done.It's like being abused twice and them getting away with it.*HELP ANYONE*

6 May 2012 13:12

Anonymous said...
I wrote to the SLCC about my complaint and this Agnew replied told me they would not respond to any more letters!

8 May 2012 17:38
Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

For heaven's sake...

Go to the Police & ask them to investigate the individuals who were responsible in the organisation for acting unlawfully against you.

Cite Mr Cherbi's website as proof of the corruption.

Ask the police for a Crime Number (not an incident number - if they give you an incident number then you know they are trying to palm you off!)

I believe that the reason the Law Society of Scotland made the Scottish Government make the SLCC a quasi Public Office was that it was always intended to be a criminal organisation which was organised as a punishment to genuine clients of crooked Scottish lawyers who had forced the Scottish Government into capitulate and attempt to force the Law Society of Scotland to give up self regulation?

However, the criminal acts perpetrated by those Office Bearers at the SLCC, where they have colluded with the Law Society of Scotland can all be traced back if enough wronged complainants report to the Police.

(Note I have used the correct word 'complainants' to describe victims of crooked lawyers. Whereas the Law Society of Scotland and their arms refer condescendingly to victims of their members as 'complainers'! - Check your dictionary to see the difference and see the contempt that they hold against you?)

Anonymous said...

If the SLCC is a criminal organisation, then by the Law of Convention & with regard to contributory negligence, then so too are all of it's staff?

Do the SLCC staff have personal indemnity insurance?

If not, this may be a vehicle to close down this corrupt institution overnight?

Anonymous said...

Wow!
This is properly corrupt!
and what is Dunion going to do about this little Fio avoiding show then??