Tuesday, January 29, 2013

LOOKING AFTER THEIR OWN : Tribunal Report finds solicitor gave away home of dementia victim, lawyer keeps job while family forced into court fight for return of house

Law Society of ScotlandAs anti-client as it gets – Lawyers self-regulation leaves many vulnerable clients without legal protection. VULNERABLE & DISABLED CLIENTS of Scottish solicitors should take note of the continuing weakness of self regulation of lawyers in Scotland, revealed in a recent report by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) where it was found that a solicitor who failed his client, a dementia sufferer, and gave away her home to relatives, has kept his job while the consequences of the solicitor’s actions and those of others have led to the client’s family being forced into a costly court battle to return the property to its rightful owners.

In a recent case featured in the Sunday Mail newspaper, solicitor Gerard Durkan (45) of the Glasgow based law firm of Harper Macleod LLP appeared before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) was found to have committed "serious and reprehensible" misconduct and that he had "clearly demonstrated a failure to act in the best interests of the client".

It was reported that Durkan knew another law firm acted for Catherine Kerr and that her son Robert had legal control of her affairs, yet after receiving instructions he overturned the son’s control and transferred Catherine’s two-thirds share of her £200,000 home to her other two children.

The tribunal found Mr Durkan guilty of Professional Misconduct and fined him £1,500, yet despite the effect Mr Durkan’s actions had on the family, and the necessity of yet more expensive legal action to return the home to its rightful owner, the lawyer run tribunal pointedly REFUSED a compensation claim made by the complainer.

The complaint made to the SSDT by the Law Society of Scotland, who investigated the case put to them by the SLCC against Mr Durkan, stated : that the Respondent (Gerald Durkan) failed to issue a terms of business letter to his mother Mrs  E  (Catherine Kerr) in connection with her instructions to transfer her interest in her  home at  Property 1, which she owned jointly with  the Secondary Complainer (her son);

(2) continued to act on his mother's behalf on 6 May 2009 in connection with the transfer of title and granting a Disposition for her 2/3rds  share of interest in  Property 1, despite acknowledging receipt and implementing the terms of a mandate received from Messrs. Cochran Dickie, Solicitor who had been instructed to act on his mother's behalf, on 30 April 2009;

and (3) failed to act in his mother's best interests by accepting her instructions to transfer her share in property 1, for no consideration, to his siblings  Mr A  and  Ms B.

The tribunal heard that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) had considered the complaint and, in terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 Section 6, remitted the complaint to the Law Society of Scotland to investigate, which culminated in the hearing before the tribunal.

Valerie Johnston, appearing for the Law Society of Scotland in her role as it’s ‘Fiscal’, told the tribunal the complainer’s family had been caused significant concern & distress at Durkan’s actions, and alleged that Durkan had gone along with a scheme concocted by other family members to transfer Catherine Kerr’s house to their interests.

The SSDT report said : Mrs Johnston stated that the Secondary Complainer and his family were present at the Tribunal hearing and they consider that the Respondent’s failures have caused a lot of distress, concern and difficulties. Mrs Johnston explained that  the Secondary Complainer’s perception was that there was a scheme devised by his brother to secure his inheritance which his sister went along with. The Respondent allowed himself to become involved in this scheme which caused a great deal of concern to other members of the family.

Mrs Johnston then advised that the Secondary Complainer and his family are not able to distinguish between the Respondent’s role in facilitating and the role of  Mr A  in devising the scheme. Mrs Johnston stated that she had looked at the file from Harper Macleod and had lodged this to give the Tribunal an idea of the tone of the  correspondence from  Mr A  which was terse to say the least. Mrs Johnston submitted that he was very much a driving force in this transaction. Mrs Johnston stated that Mr A was pushing for the transfer of title to go ahead without delay but the problems ought to have been clear to the Respondent.

It was also established the solicitor,Gerard Durkan, had been communicating with his vulnerable client via her son, identified in the SSDT report as Mr A, sending correspondence to her via his address, rather than at her home and the solicitor did not seek a meeting with his client to establish whether her instructions were her

The SSDT report said : Mrs Johnston accepted that the tenor of the correspondence was aggressive. She submitted that the Respondent’s main failure was to identify that he should have ensured that Mrs  E was acting independently. Mrs Johnston submitted that the Respondent should have issued a letter to Mrs E at the address where she lived. She stated that he did not do that. He sent all the correspondence to Mrs E at Mr A’s address. Mrs Johnston submitted that the Respondent should have seen Mrs E on her own and ought to have given her clear advice and followed that advice up with clear written advice and sent that to her home address.

Mrs Johnston stated that on receipt of the mandate from Cochran Dickie the Respondent should have had further concerns about Mrs  E’s instructions. However what he did was to write to Mrs E at her son, Mr A’s address and email a copy to  Mr A. Thereafter the Respondent ignored the mandate and proceeded with the transaction to dispose of Mrs E’s two thirds share of her home and left her in a position where the only remedy is proceedings in the Court of Session to reduce that Disposition.

Mrs Johnston stated that she had obtained information from  the Secondary Complainer  about the position regarding the action in  the Court of Session. She advised that defences have been lodged by  Mr A  although not by his sister, that the adjustment period expires on 19 September 2012 and therefore the action is very much still ongoing. She explained that the action is to reduce the Disposition and both sides have Legal Aid. Mrs Johnston advised that the problem is that if Mrs  E  requires to go in to residential care, the local social work department have stated that they regard her two thirds of the property as her asset and so she  would have to be self funded.

In response to a question from the Chairman,  the Secondary Complainer  advised that if his mother has to go in to social work care,  and the disposition is not reduced  the social work department have advised that they would pursue his brother and sister for the costs of that care.

After hearing lengthy submissions from the solicitor’s representative, William Macreath, who also brought along Professor Robert Rennie, the Client Relations Partner in Harper to support their solicitor Mr Durkan, the tribunal found that Durkan had failed to meet Catherine on her own to try to establish her true wishes. The tribunal went onto state that the solicitor should have been "aware of the possibility of manipulation of Mrs Kerr" by relatives.

Diary of Injustice readers will be familiar with solicitor William Macreath, a senior partner in the Glasgow law firm of Levy McRae who are a controlling force of the shady Legal Defence Union (LDU), an organisation set up to defend solicitors accused of failing their clients. Diary of Injustice has featured numerous reports on the Legal Defence Union HERE

William Macreath also stands accused of SEVEN COUNTS of MISCONDUCT by a Law Society reporter, and featured in a related DOI article here : Court of Session hears Legal Defence Union boss who met SLCC complaints Chief stands accused of SEVEN counts of misconduct by Law Society reporter

An independent report  authored by the University of Manchester’s Law School for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission linked the Legal Defence Union to the suicides of clients who had attempted to make claims against the Law Society of Scotland’s sinister Master Insurance Policy which protects solicitors accused of negligence. More on the University of Manchester’s report can be found here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Diary of Injustice also investigated & reported on secret meetings held between Mr Macreath and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Evidence gained via FOI requests & insider tips was published by DOI in an earlier report here : Investigation reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's links, secret 'off the record' dealings with lawyers lobby group Legal Defence Union

The full findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal in the complaint against Mr Durkan and the lengthy defences submitted by the solicitor’s Legal Defence Union representative can be read online here SSDT report : Law Society of Scotland v Gerard Durkan : or at the SSDT website here : Law Society v Gerard Durkan

The Interlocutor issued by the SSDT on 30 August 2012, although curiously only published recently, states: The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 4 June 2012 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Gerard Durkan, Solicitor, Harper Macleod LLP, Solicitors, The Ca’D’Oro, 45 Gordon Street, Glasgow;

Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct cumulatively but not severally in respect of :

(1) his failure to issue a terms of business letter to a client for work undertaken on her behalf in respect of the transfer of title to her home with the result that the client, whom he knew or ought to have known was a vulnerable person, his partner having identified a diagnosis of dementia, and therefore susceptible to manipulation by her family, and could not safely or reasonably have been assumed by the Respondent to be fully aware of what actions in respects of her rights in the property or otherwise the Respondent was undertaking on her behalf or the consequences thereof;

(2) his failure to act in the best interests of his client , a vulnerable person who was susceptible to manipulation by her family;

(3) his taking instructions from her through her son who was to benefit from the transfer of the title to her home without providing her directly with advice at any time on the implications of her actions or the alternatives available to her;

(4) his continuing with the transfer of title in the face of a mandate terminating his agency;

(5) his writing to the client after receiving the mandate without the consent of the new solicitors she had instructed;

(6) his failure to meet with his client on her own to satisfy himself of her instructions;

(7) his arranging for his client to sign the documentation for the transfer of title without providing her with advice particularly about the consequences of this in relation to her right of residence;

(8) his remitting the signed documentation to solicitors acting for the disponees notwithstanding that he had received and had purported to obtemper a mandate which terminated his agency;

Censure the Respondent; Fine him in the sum of £1,500 to be forfeit to Her Majesty; Find the Respondent liable in the expenses of the Complainers and of the Tribunal including expenses of the Clerk, chargeable on a time and line basis as the same may be taxed by the Auditor of the Court of Session on an agent and client, client paying basis in terms of Chapter Three of the last published Law Society’s Table of Fees for general business with a unit rate of £14.00; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Respondent.

Edinburgh 30 August 2012. The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 4 June 2012 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Gerard Durkan, Solicitor, Harper Macleod LLP, Solicitors, The Ca’D’Oro, 45 Gordon Street, Glasgow; and having considered the Secondary Complainer’s claim for compensation make no order for compensation.

The Sunday Mail report on the case :

Lawyer who took dementia victim's home keeps job Sunday Mail 13 January 2013Lawyer who took dementia victim's home keeps job

Sunday Mail, January 13 2013

A lawyer who handed over an 86-year-old dementia sufferer's home for free has been fined for misconduct.

Gerry Durkan, 45, knew another law firm acted for Catherine Kerr and that her son Robert had legal control of her affairs.

But he overturned Robert's control after being given instructions, then transferred Catherine's two-thirds share of her £200,000 home to her other two children.

Durkan, a partner in law firm Harper Macleod, denied wrongdoing over the 2009 event but has now admitted his guilt.

Instead of striking him off for what they called his "serious and reprehensible" misconduct, the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal fined Durkan £1,500.

They said his conduct was a "single failing" and was unlikely to be repeated.

The panel found that Durkan had failed to meet Catherine on her own to try to establish her true wishes.

He had "clearly demonstrated a failure to act in the best interests of the client". They added that Durkan should have been "aware of the possibility of manipulation of Mrs Kerr" by relatives.

Robert has launched a court action to try to have the house in Bishopton, Renfrewshire, returned to his mum. Durkan was unavailable for comment.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

Go to a lawyer and lose your house - sounds about right for the Scottish legal profession!

Anonymous said...

If he was eventually brought to book by a compolaint to the SLCC why have the SLCC not issued a Press Release in the same style as SLAB trumpeting their success in collaring a solicitor we should be told about..

Anonymous said...

Ah one of Austin Lafferty's definions of "ideal clients" only this time its an old lady with a house AND DEMENTIA.

Not surprised the lawyer kept his job.After all what importance is the client or the fact the house was hived off in obviously suspicious circumstances.

Notice also no Police involvement probably because the reptiles at the Crown Office wont allow lawyers to be arrested for ripping off clients.

Anonymous said...

"Edinburgh 30 August 2012. The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 4 June 2012 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Gerard Durkan, Solicitor, Harper Macleod LLP, Solicitors, The Ca’D’Oro, 45 Gordon Street, Glasgow; and having considered the Secondary Complainer’s claim for compensation make no order for compensation."

as in f*off client you are getting bugger all just go see a lawyer and spend some more of your money trying to put right what Durkan did

Next part of the story will be when it all ends up badly in the court and the judge tries to cover up for the lawyer handing the house over and finds nothing happened here just move along folks

Anonymous said...

It is quite staggering that Mr. Macreath was allowed within a mile of these hearings, but then perhaps the reason for delaying any investigation into, or decision regarding, his alleged offences has also been responsible for delaying publication until now of the interlocutor issued by the SSDT on 30 August 2012.

Anonymous said...

Page 15 of the report states

Mr Macreath stated that he would first deal with the Respondent’s personal
circumstances. Mr Macreath advised that the Respondent is a partner in Harper
Macleod and stated that Professor Rennie, the Client Relations Partner in Harper
Macleod was present at the hearing to support the Respondent and to confirm how
seriously the firm takes this matter. Mr Macreath advised that the Respondent is aged
44 years and has been a solicitor since 1990. He joined Harper Macleod in around
1996 and has been a partner for 7 or 8 years and is now a member of the LLP.

So Durkan was able to bring along the complaints partner to support him.

Exactly who was brought along to support the son of the demetia victim?

Answer; No one and they had to rely on a Law Society 'fiscal' (a lawyer) to speak for them.

Anyone get a sense of what I'm saying here as in lawyers looking after their own (just as the title of the story reads!)

Anonymous said...

What a mad word of self regulation these lawyers live in when a lawyer accused of 7 counts of misconduct defends another lawyer accused of similar!

As you have always said Peter its time to stop lawyers looking after their own.

Anonymous said...

Fiddle from start to finish, this guy has been a lawyer long enough he knew the score and brought along enough heavyweights to stop the loonies at the tribunal striking him off

Anonymous said...

Harper McLeod now up there with the law firms people should avoid using

Anonymous said...

I cant believe people are still using lawyers for house transactions, I am on my fifth now and took care of all transactions myself and guess what no problems. If you choose one of Scotland's spineless thieving bastard lawyers everything always takes an eternity and has a 99% chance of going tits up. Stay away from them.

Anonymous said...

seems enough here for a striking off surely?

Anonymous said...

And who underpins this corruption. MSP's. They are Law Society staff elected by us. The Law Society did not hijack the Scottish parliament. Your MSP's are choosing to support these criminals. They are complicit actors protecting the most corrupt house in Scotland.

Party difference and even difference between MSP's of the same political party vanishes because they all support Scotland's unaccountable secretive judiciary. You the client will be robbed of legal rights to protect corrupt lawyers. MSP's are complicit in Law Society crimes against you and me. It is a Law Society dictatorship manifesting itself as democracy.

Complain to any MSP and see how far you get.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone see those protesters from the Paedophile Society of Scotland protesting at the Scottish Parliament today?
Apparently they wanted more legal aid to line their pockets!!!!

Anonymous said...

Time for clients to leave Harper Macleod or should they now be called Harmer Macleod?

Anonymous said...

Only in Scotland can someone accused of being a crook represent someone accused of being a crook and it just so happens we are talking about lawyers again

Anonymous said...

Why wasn't this guy arrested for handing over the woman's house to her kids?

Anonymous said...

Another good news story about the grubby greedy filthy corrupt Scottish legal profession.
Just when are people going to learn to stay away from lawyers who rip them off??

Anonymous said...

What?No sign of Elaine Motion doing the rounds at SSDT Christmas parties to get crooks off the hook?

Anonymous said...

VULNERABLE & DISABLED CLIENTS of Scottish solicitors should take note of the continuing weakness of self regulation of lawyers in Scotland ............ AND AVOID USING ANY BLOODY LAWYERS IF POSSIBLE!

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21245700


Legal challenges

Labour's Malcolm Chisholm said of Mr MacAskill's changes: "The cabinet secretary has been forced to modify a very bad bill so it ends up simply as a bad bill."

Tory MSP Annabel Goldie added: "I'm glad the cabinet secretary has yielded to his metaphorical beating over the head and improved what was a poor situation and made it somewhat better."

Alison McInnes, of the Liberal Democrats, told parliament: "Legal professionals and members of the public alike are concerned about the potential impact that this bill will have."

Cameron Tait, of the Edinburgh Bar Association, said lawyers would not act in cases where outstanding contributions had not been paid.

OR IN CASES LIKE THE ROBBERY OF THE CHERBI FAMILY.

Mr Tait said he expected the legislation to come into force in August, adding: "At that time, there will be a number of legal challenges that will be taken in situations where contributions are not paid. FUCK OFF.

"There are issues outstanding as to whether or not the contribution system will be compliant with the European Convention of Human Rights." BEGGARS BELIEF HIT LAWYERS IN THE POCKET THEN HUMAN RIGHTS COME INTO THE EQUATION.

Ann Ritchie, president of the of the Glasgow Bar Association, added: "I've do doubt whatsoever that there will be challenges when accused people remain unrepresented." CIVIL CLIENTS ARE UNREPRESENTED WHEN THEIR ASSETS ARE STOLEN BY A LAW SOCIETY THIEF. THESE LAWYERS MAKE ME SICK.

Anonymous said...

aye liwyers look after their own no doubt about it

they were all hanging about at Holyrood today with posters complaining about criminals having to pay their own legal aid! stuff em all I say!

Anonymous said...

I do believe I am right in saying there is no one as good at ripping off the Scottish people as the Scottish people themselves.

Wake up folks and ditch all these miserable legal mafia cretins,you dont need them to sort your lives out!

PS love your petition about the judges hope it succeeds!

Anonymous said...

Who exactly is paying for all this legal action the son is having to take to get his mother's house back?
If its the son this is a disgrace - the lawyer and the Law Society should be made to pay every penny.

Anonymous said...

Instead of striking him off for what they called his "serious and reprehensible" misconduct, the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal fined Durkan £1,500.
==============================
New name the Scottish Solicitors Defence Tribunal. These creeps are worse than those they claim to discipline. Perhaps they get a slice of the booty.

Anonymous said...

Just think how much was probably missed out of the complaint detail and the tribunal hearing.. and that Office of the Public Guardian sound a right bunch of twits.I bet its full of lawyers and their friends!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Only in Scotland can someone accused of being a crook represent someone accused of being a crook and it just so happens we are talking about lawyers again

29 January 2013 21:31

You dont even know the half of it!Even the judges are crooked and benefits cheats!

Anonymous said...

Mrs Johnston submitted that the Respondent should have issued a letter to Mrs E at the address where she lived. She stated that he did not do that. He sent all the correspondence to Mrs E at Mr A’s address. Mrs Johnston submitted that the Respondent should have seen Mrs E on her own and ought to have given her clear advice and followed that advice up with clear written advice and sent that to her home address.

THIS CAN ONLY BE DECEITFUL WRITING TO SOMEONE VIA SOMEONE ELSE WHO CLEARLY HAS A VESTED INTEREST

Anonymous said...

Just when are people going to learn to stay away from lawyers who rip them off??
99999999999999999999999999999
This is the problem. It is not that simple. People are coerced into trusting lawyers because access to many legal issues is impossible without using them. They have an outright monopoly on providing and blocking access to legal services, they control it all. And then their colleagues have a monopoly on coverups. Brian Gill will never change this setup. [He must think we are fools indeed].It is a form of extortion without punishment. This family are fighting the same system that protected their lawyer. It's a perverted sick setup indeed, a judicial anachronism. Victorian my arse.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

If one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected--those, precisely, who need the laws's protection most!--and listens to their testimony.
==================================
Solicitors from Hell removed from internet by the Law Society. They do not want the public hearing their ruined clients testimony.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 20.29 you are correct .There is no need to use a lawyer for house purchase. I f the lawyer makes an error there is no protection whatsoever they will twist it round and it will be you thats made the error. Many people are now thinking very serious of abandoning solicitors altogether. I will knock on doors where I see a for sale sign and let them know what can really happen and tell them of D O I and the need for change. LETS ALL SPREAD THE WORD>

Anonymous said...

How many other cases are the SSDT covering up and not publishing?

Its bad enough the lawyers only get a slap on the wrist and a small fine (they will make this up by fleecing another client) anyway all lawyers found guilty of anything should be forced to tell all their clients and have it on public display

Anonymous said...

It sounds to me as if the son's 'independent and impartial' law society 'fiscal' must have been soft peddling to allow Durkan to get away with anything less than being struck off.

Anonymous said...

Lawyer who took dementia victim's home keeps job. There is a surprise.

Anonymous said...

In truth these bastards can do no wrong, they are legalized thieves.

Anonymous said...

This is what we now expect.

Anonymous said...

Guess what - Our ex solicitor started writing to my wife via her sister's address saying he felt my wife was trapped in a bad marriage and wondered whether she wanted to have a chat about a divorce.This all started after the scumbag helped another client falsify details in a contract he had with my firm and wanted to get out of and their little scheme failed after I found out about it.My solicitor had been secretly working with this former client in an attempt to threaten my firm with bankruptcy so they could buy up the company on the cheap (client had made an offer to settle which basically was the value of the firm and he knew we had no other assets as our then solicitor had given him all the details).My wife wrote a letter to the solicitor telling him if he wrote to her again she would report it and she went (with her sister as a witness) to the Police with the letter and wanted the scumbag charged but they said it was a civil matter and said take it to the Law Society (who are doing nothing about it).I have spent the last year alerting my business partners customers and friends to the perils of doing business with Scottish lawyers and many have listened and withdrawn their business.I regularly copy them in on things you have written about as it is so factual.Incidentally there is nothing wrong with my family,my wife has just had our third child and is thrilled to bits we no longer have any lawyers pestering our business (I encourage anyone reading this to dump their lawyers immediately and do all their own legal work,its very easy really and saves thousands of pounds a year)
Keep up the good work whoever you are.

Anonymous said...

Ah now we know why he was able to get away with it - if you read the other story on the judge discounting medical reports its plain to see anyone with a disability or illness or something like that is easy meat for the courts system and our judges because they just don't give a hoot hence the son now has to go to court to recover his mum's own house!

Anonymous said...

TAKE MY CLIENTS HOUSE PLEASE!

HOW CAN ANYONE TRUST HARPER MACLEOD AGAIN!

Anonymous said...

This is a classic case of FRAUD, DECEIT and CRIMINALITY?

The Police should have been alerted and the Lawyer dealt with by the Crown Office (if they could be trusted, which they can not) and the lawyer probably sent to jail?

Instead the Law Society of Scotland and their alter ego's the SSDT & the SLCC have been allowed to perpetrate their criminal behaviour in manipulated secrecy?

Well done the DOI team and thank you for alerting us to all of these criminals?

Anonymous said...

The SSDT are simply a criminal organisation?

Another case of a lawyer BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENT (i.e. THEFT to you and me)?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Go to a lawyer and lose your house - sounds about right for the Scottish legal profession!

29 January 2013 16:54
Ttttttttthhhhhhhheeeeeeefffffffftttttttttttttt

Once again another poor unfortunate client victim USED by a Scottish crooked lawyer as a CASH TREE?

She has been severely pruned!!!

Anonymous said...

C,mon the Police......

What the Fu## are you playing at?

Ignore those crooks at the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office and save the People from these crooks......We are dying here and you are just standing by watching???

Anonymous said...

The whole SSDT, the SLCC and the Law Society of Scotland should be investigated by the police for their part in this perversion of the course of Justice?

Anonymous said...

Incredible that the Law Society's Fiscal and the SSDT have colluded in inferring that THE CROOKED LAWYER is somehow the innocent party and that he was talked into being party to a FRAUD against his own client?

How could this poor unfortunate 'victim' (The Crooked Scottish lawyer) be expected to:

1) Know the law?

2) Act in accordance with the law?

3) Act in the best interests of his client?


After all, the opposite of the above seems to be the considered norm for a Scottish lawyer?

Anonymous said...

Once again, the vulnerable client victim is punished and humiliated into the bargain for being the victim of a crime perpetrated by a Scottish lawyer?

Anonymous said...

The SSDT's REWARD for the crooked Scottish lawyer for the apparent 'serious and reprehensible conduct' is a derisory so-called fine representing around 1% of his annual salary?


Thereby, the SSDT are once again allowed to publicise their propaganda of hate of clients by showcasing that such a 'crime' committed by a Scottish lawyer is ultimately considered by them to be trivial and insignificant and that all other Crooked Scottish lawyers can continue to 'fill-their-boots' and continue to BORROW THEIR CLIENTS MONEY WITHOUT CONSENT with avarice and impunity?

Anonymous said...

In any civilised country this crime would surely result in a custodial sentence?

In Scotland, it gets a pat on the back and an insidious snigger?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Lawyer who took dementia victim's home keeps job. There is a surprise.

30 January 2013 23:42
-------------------------------------:(

Smells like a CASH TREE?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...

Only in Scotland can someone accused of being a crook represent someone accused of being a crook and it just so happens we are talking about lawyers again

29 January 2013 21:31

You dont even know the half of it!Even the judges are crooked and benefits cheats!

30 January 2013 10:32
())()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(

You forgot to mention that the trial of the crooked Scottish lawyer was held at the notoriously crooked SSDT, which itself is owned and operated by the evil and hopelessly corrupt Law Society of Scotland?

No surprise then when they arrive at the foregone conclusion which surprise surprise is totally corrupt, that Nobody and I mean Nobody believes such is their incredible history of corrupt and criminal decisions, where facts and the truth are as foreign as Zaphod Beeblebrox?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
In truth these bastards can do no wrong, they are legalized thieves.

30 January 2013 23:45
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Proof positive that Scottish crooked lawyers continue to be 'above the law'?

The sooner we make citizens arrests the better?