FIVE YEAR FIDDLE : Rogue lawyers refuse to pay fines & client compensation orders, standards in legal profession at 'all time low' as Scots consumers remain unprotected by £3M a year Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Independent’ regulator has made no difference to poor standards in Scotland’s legal profession STRUGGLING to shake off it’s pro-lawyer, anti-client image, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) published its 2012-2013 annual report last week, revealing the regulator now deals with more complaints per year. The report also reveals the SLCC’s ‘free’ mediation service, which is generating costs & fees of over £45K to mediators, is resulting in a rising numbers of complaints resolutions instead of cases going on to investigation, determination, and potential disciplinary action against rogue lawyers.

The so-called ‘independent’ regulator of lawyers created six years ago by the Scottish Government at a staggering multi-million pound cost to taxpayers which has never been paid back, also published claims it made compensation awards and fee rebates to clients who were victims of crooked law firms to clients of “over £250,000.

Claims of a feather don’t necessarily match together – SLCC 2012-2013 annual report  Figures contained in the SLCC’s own annual report reveal a very different version on the ‘over £250K compensation figure’, showing that law firms are regularly refusing or delaying to pay fines imposed on them by the regulator, forcing the SLCC to resort to costly court action when dodgy law firms & lawyers refuse to pay up to clients now turned into financial victims.

Figures in the annual report actually reveal there were 49 cases where the SLCC was forced to take recovery action against solicitors & law firms who refused to pay up after the SLCC had made compensation awards to clients.The SLCC said it’s action recovered over £72,000 of compensation for complainers in these cases but gave no further details of the cases concerned.

The SLCC said “We continue to see cases of non-compliance where practitioners fail to pay awards which have been made against them by us. We take a firm line on this and use Sheriff Officers and the Small Claims Court processes where necessary to enforce outstanding sums.” The SLCC went onto claim : “We have the full support of the Law Society of Scotland in tackling non-compliance where a solicitor refuses to pay.”

The SLCC continued “In addition, we have found that complainers sometimes have to wait a considerable length of time to receive compensation or fee rebates where a Judicial Factor or Trustee has been appointed. They may also only receive partial compensation.”

“We have raised this point with the Law Society of Scotland. Whilst we understand that other creditors’ interests need to be considered, it is essential that the complaints system incorporates effective redress mechanisms. We are concerned that in an increasing proportion of cases, complainers are at risk of not receiving full redress.”

“In addition to the risk of inadequacy of redress, we are incurring increasing costs in seeking to enforce our decisions. Since we are funded by a levy on the legal profession, these costs are borne by the profession as a whole.”

In two cases, the SLCC was critical of the Law Society’s administration of the investigation and/or its decision-making. The regulator revealed the Law Society paid a total of £500 compensation to the complainers (plus £20 towards their costs).

The SLCC also asked the Society to reconsider one of these complaints which resulted in a complaint being upheld which the Society had previously decided not to uphold. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the SLCC found that in the two other cases, the Law Society had carried out its investigations generally satisfactorily.

While the claimed improvements contained in the annual report may be welcome in some quarters, notably the Scottish Government who are in need of positive figures from it’s inept creation of the SLCC in 2008 by Kenny MacAskill, the SLCC’s statistics and rumours surrounding the identities of law firms continually subject to client complaints actually reveal some unsurprising facts :

(i) Solicitors & law firms who continually abuse clients  & consumers in complaint after complaint are using the SLCC’s perceived bias towards the profession and the regulator's lack of powers to avoid complaints investigations,

(ii) Solicitors and their ‘professional representatives & support organisations’ (aka Legal Defence Union, Law Care, Law Society etc) are manipulating paperwork, dates of legal work carried out on behalf of clients, and also the regulator’s mediation service to ensure lawyers who are subject of complaints remain in a job with a clean record, thus avoiding claims for negligence, dishonesty and sanction as a result of prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal .

Keen to promote the image of the SLCC as ‘improved’, even though the evidence appears to show the regulator at a five year stand still, Chief Executive of the SLCC, Matthew Vickers, said “We’ve made some significant improvements in our performance this year but there is no room for complacency. Where lawyers haven’t met the standards which the public should expect, we act to put things right. Where we do make awards we follow up strongly to ensure that redress becomes reality. We believe that our trend analysis and guidance contributes to improving legal services and we look forward to continuing to work with the professional bodies to build public trust and confidence in the Scottish legal profession.”

Once hailed as a hope to clean up crooked lawyers, the SLCC achieved so little in 5 years. The SLCC also published a five year review of it’s work, which can be viewed online here : The SLCC Five Years On - Facts & Figures. Commenting on the review, Bill Brackenridge, SLCC Chair said : “The review is a good measure of progress and while there is still work to be done it clearly demonstrates the benefits of having an independent regulator. I would encourage the profession to continue to work closely with the SLCC in order to promote best practice, further reduce the number of complaints and continue to improve the reputation of the legal sector with clients, the public and stakeholders”.

In reality, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has moved on little since its creation in 2008. Consumers of legal services in Scotland are as unprotected now as they have been for decades under the lawyer investigates their own culture of the Law Society of Scotland.

Indeed, the Law Society of Scotland appears more in charge of regulation of its own member solicitors than ever before, leaving the SLCC as some bystander, far from innocent, and far from having the will to clean up legal services or protect consumers from the costly consistent horrors of dealing with Scotland’s legal profession.

And, as far as independence goes, the ‘independent’ regulator of complaints against Scottish solicitors, is hardly independent at all as Diary of Injustice revealed earlier this year here : A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP : Investigation reveals Scotland’s ‘independent’ legal regulator is mired in family, business & personal links to legal profession & Law Society

The cost of this five year stand still you ask? Well, poor legal services in Scotland for one, poor client protection for another, hundreds of lawyers escaping regulation & penalties, and a whopping £3 million pounds a year to run the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on top of the millions every year Scottish solicitors take in ill gotten gains from clients and get away with it.

So, got a complaint against a lawyer ? Well, tell us in the media about it before or during your trip to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Its amazing what some attention, and little transparency can achieve these days…

MEDIATION – Far from free, and a dodge for dodgy lawyers to escape penalty

Included in the SLCC’s annual report were claims their “free mediation service is an effective early complaint resolution method with 75% success rate.”

However, a response received from the SLCC in relation to a freedom of information request made by DOI journalists revealed a slightly different story which anyone thinking of going into mediation may wish to consider :

Of the 134 cases eligible for mediation in the last year, 43 cases were settled at mediation, 14 cases were not settled at mediation, 1 case was withdrawn by the complainer, 76 cases were marked as "did not happen", which refers to the fact that the parties did not agree to go to mediation.

The SLCC were asked for statistics on the numbers of mediation outcomes accepted or rejected by complainer or solicitor. However, the SLCC claimed “There is no way of knowing this information. The outcome of the mediation process is agreed between the parties, the mediator does not suggest the settlement. Any settlements reached are confidential.”

Asked about the numbers of mediation cases sent back for investigation, the SLCC disclosed “Any cases that are not settled at mediation will be passed to a Case Investigator to begin the investigation process. In the period in question 90 cases were sent for investigation.”

In spite of claiming its mediation service to be free (to clients), the SLCC disclosed in its FOI response the total cost representing the cost of the mediator and the room hire etc amounts to £45,210.

In the period from 25/04/13 till 30/06/13 the SLCC said it had identified 3 cases which were closed following settlement at mediation. The combined costs of these cases (mediators costs and room hire) amounts to £1335.30

Commenting on the SLCC’s mediation process, a consumer affairs representative who has seen documents from a client who’s case was unsuccessful in mediation, said : “The SLCC’s mediation scheme only seems to guarantee that any lawyer who faces a complaint and who is lucky enough to end up in mediation, can drag out discussions for months, settle for much less than the client appears to have lost, and then go on to find another victim to rip off.”

Calls for Justice Secretary to get tough with anti-transparency judges as Judicial Investigator reveals weak-by-design scrutiny fails to protect public from errant judges

Annual report of Judicial Investigator calls for Scottish Govt action, raises concerns of judicial transparency. MOI ALI, Scotland’s first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) has today published a damning report on how the judiciary deal with complaints made by members of the public against Scottish judges. In her second annual report, Moi Ali details case histories, problems with confusing rules, and raises a series of significant concerns over the lack of scrutiny & transparency in the judiciary.

Ms Ali has spoken in the media at length regarding her annual report, calling on the Scottish Government to raise the level of scrutiny of the judiciary and give the JCR extra powers which already exist in England & Wales.

JCR admits office lacks much needed powers – Report. The Judicial Complaints Reviewer’s 2012-2013 annual report is published today on the JCR’s website, available here or can be viewed online via DOI here. Among many issues of concern raised in the JCR’s annual report are instances where the Judicial Office has refused to share files and paperwork in relation to complaints made against judges and how were handled.

The report also makes reference to refusals by Lord President Lord Brian Gill to hand over information to the JCR, claiming Moi Ali’s office is a "Third Party" and that data cannot be shared with her office for reasons of confidentiality. while in England & Wales, the same information is published online.

It also emerged that even though a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the JCR & Judicial Office earlier this year on respective roles, responsibilities and agreed undertakings, the situation regarding the contents of files has not been resolved to Ms Ali’s satisfaction.

JCR publishes consultation on rules. Additionally, and of equal importance, the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has also published a highly critical and detailed consultation response to the Lord President on proposals to revise rules on complaints against the judiciary. The consultation document can be viewed online via DOI here : Judicial Complaints Reviewer Responses re Rules consultation public document. Moi Ali has recommended significant changes to rules on judicial complaints, clarity of procedures and also the amending of rules to allow complaints to be made about the Lord President, something which currently cannot be done.

The Sunday Mail newspaper reported this weekend on issues raised in the JCR’s second annual report, including calls from Moi Ali for the Scottish Government to act over the lack of scrutiny and transparency in Scotland’s judiciary.

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill urged to improve scrutiny of Scotland's judges after claims they stifle public complaints

We, Scotland's judges, stand accused of making the process of complaining about us impossibly difficult. You, our toothless watchdog, have been deliberating. So, have you reached a verdict? YOU'RE GUILTY, M'LUDS

MOI ALI, the country's first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer, says she is currently powerless to do more to help the public understand the complex legal complaints system.

News Special : By Russell Findlay Sunday Mail 15 Dec 2013

KENNY MacASKILL has been urged to get tough with Scotland’s judges after a watchdog warned they are stifling complaints and dodging scrutiny.

Moi Ali was appointed by the SNP’s Justice Secretary as the country’s first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer but, before delivering her second annual report tomorrow, she voiced fears that her role is mere “window dressing” and needs more teeth if it is to hold judges to account.

Ali says people find it virtually impossible to understand confusing rules about how to complain about judges, sheriffs and JPs. She said: “They are legal rules, written by lawyers for other lawyers to use. To me, the perspective is completely wrong. You write the rules for the public, not for lawyers.”

She believes that former solicitor MacAskill must bring in new laws to end judicial self-regulation.

Ali, who also sits on the Scottish Police Authority board said: “I think fundamentally the problem is the legislation. “The way it’s created, it’s about self- regulation so you have judges judging judges’ conduct. There isn’t really an independent element.“I’m presented as the independent element but, without the powers, I can’t be independent. We have the appearance of independent oversight but not the reality.”

Ali’s post was created by the Scottish Government in the face of fierce opposition from judges. With a ￡2000 annual budget, no staff and no office, she has been forced to work for free in addition to the three days per month for which she is paid.

She said: “There was a genuine recognition that something needed to be done. “But I think with any professional group, whether it’s the judiciary or any other powerful group of people, it’s quite difficult to take them on. “And I think that appearing to do something when actually, perhaps, doing the bare minimum is an easier way of addressing it. It’s a bit like being in a straitjacket.”

Ali has caused consternation in government and judicial circles by publicly admitting she is powerless. All she can do is review how complaints are handled by the Judicial Office for Scotland, which is headed by top judge Lord President Lord Gill.

She said: “I’m sorry to say that I do think there was an element of window dressing. “The system is about investigating complaints about the judiciary but that whole system is run by the judiciary. “Without any proper, external, genuinely independent oversight, you’re not going to have public faith and confidence. “I know people will be very unhappy with me using the term window dressing but I think there is an element of that.”

Scotland’s system trails behind England and Wales, who have an Office for Judicial Complaints.

In addition, there is a powerful independent ombudsman who can overturn decisions, order reinvestigations and compensate victims.

Ali said: “England and Wales started doing this, and a whole lot more, in 2006. “We’re not even where they were at when they started so we’ve got an awful lot of catching up to do. “The fact we have a JCR and not an ombudsman, to me, says it all.”

Some senior figures within the judicial system privately dismiss Ali as an “outsider” and unqualified to comment.

She has also angered judges by backing a Holyrood petition by legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi calling for a register of interests for judges.

Lord Gill sparked cross-party anger by twice rejecting a plea by Holyrood to give evidence to the committee. He said the Scotland Act allowed him to avoid parliamentary scrutiny as it ensures judicial independence from political meddling.

But critics said that the Act is to protect judges from being quizzed over courtroom decisions not administration issues.

Ali said: “I think it’s a confusion between independence and accountability. I really do think it’s as basic as that. The dividing line is completely clear.”

Ali has led by example by voluntarily publishing her own register of interests, even though it took six months to get it on the JCR website. Her annual report details 20 alleged breaches of the complaints rules by the Judicial Office.

She has also scored two victories for the public since taking the three-year post.

One is that Lord Gill has now agreed to supply people with some details about the outcome of
their complaint. And he has also agreed to inform the JCR about the outcome of cases which she refers to him.

She said: “I’ve made some small differences but it’s progress. “But really it’s difficult to make an impact within the constraints that I’m in at the moment.”

MacAskill has already dismissed calls to tackle the powerful judiciary with new laws but Ali wants him to think again.

She said: “In the past few years in Scotland, there have been some really good things being done in all sorts of different sectors. “I don’t understand why this appears to be the one sector that is really behind. “I don’t think there’s an appetite for looking at the legislation again. “I think it will have to be looked at again at some point because, at the moment, Scots citizens have a lot less protection than they do in England and Wales. “If I was asked to create something to deal fairly, effectively, efficiently and transparently with complaints about the judiciary, I would not invent this.”

The Judicial Office for Scotland: “The review of the existing complaints rules ends tomorrow. “The responses will then be considered in full by the Lord President.”

JUDGES IN DOCK

Probed after bawling out a dog walker

A judge was accused of a "tyrannical rant" at a woman walking her dog.

The dog walker was left "shaking with nerves" and felt "very intimidated" by the unnamed judge, who told her to put her pet on a lead.

Her complaint was dismissed as being "without substance" by the Judicial Office for Scotland because he was not acting as a judge at the time.

But the Judicial Office's own guidelines state that complaints can be made about judges' conduct inside and outside court.

The dog walker said ; "The point is that he is a judge and. as such, may be expected to adhere to a certain standard of personal conduct and behaviour to all members of the public."

Ali agreed and upheld the complaint that the Judicial Office had breached their own rules.

Accused of insensitivity over disability.

A disabled woman complained about a judge who, she claimed, ignored her medical condition.

The woman said that the judge did not consider her "mental and physical disabilities and current aggressive medical treatment".

The Judicial Office kicked out the complaint because it was "primarily about judicial decisions".

But Ali found that the Judicial Office rules were breached because the complaint also related to the judge's conduct so should have been investigated.

She also said that "further investigation" would be needed to establish if the judge had been insensitive.

However, Lord Gill disagreed with Ali's opinion.

IF I AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS LEGALESE MEANS

Watchdog Moi Ali slates the legal jargon which is used to deter ordinary Scots from complaining about judges.

She fears the complex Judicial Office for Scotland rules are not fit for purpose.

She said ; "If you have a set of rules that you can pick up and not understand, then they can't be fit for purpose.

And the public don't understand. They are not written in any understandable way.

I don't understand the purpose of some of the rules and some of them are cross-referenced with Acts of Parliament."

Ali has submitted a damning 25 page report to Scotland's top judge, Lord President Lord Gill, who is reviewing the rules.

In it, she says : "One of my principal concerns relates to the style and tone of the rules and the way in which they have been constructed, giving an impression that they are devised to deter people from complaining, to find reasons to reject a complaint at the earliest opportunity and to over-protect the judiciary."

She cites numerous examples of archaic language which many people would struggle to understand.

For example, Section 5.4.b states : "If sent by electronic means indicated to be acceptable a document is to be treated as valid only if it is capable of being used for subsequent reference."

Ali has urged Lord Gill to bring in new rules which will be "fair, proportionate, transparent and easy to understand."

Dodgy legal aid claims, negligence, dishonesty … If regulation really worked, crooked solicitors struck off by ‘old boys club’ Tribunal could be stopped earlier to protect public, clients & reputations

Tribunal & regulators fail to protect public from crooked lawyers. A PARADE of recent cases before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT), involving solicitors who previously appeared before the tribunal on numerous similar complaints, only to be put back into profession with a light fine or slap on the wrist, confirm the current system of self regulation of Scotland’s legal profession is failing to protect the public, consumers of legal services and established clients of law firms.

Last month, the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal met to consider seven complaints lodged by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against solicitor Alistair George Kay, who previously appeared before the SSDT in 2007 on a number of complaints and was found guilty of Professional Misconduct, fined £1000 and censured.

In the latest hearing, the Tribunal considered an “extensive catalogue of behaviour” including “two cases of a complete failure to respond to Law Society correspondence and statutory notices, a failure to respond to correspondence to Master Policy insurers, a failure to respond to correspondence from another firm of solicitors, a failure to pay the Respondent’s insurance excess, a failure to keep proper accounting records for a period of some three years, false declarations in five accounts certificates, and a failure by the Respondent to complete the appropriate paper work to allow a new executor to be appointed which led to the necessity of a court action being raised to allow the executry to be properly dealt with.”

The tribunals findings state the respondent (Alistair Kay) “had clearly been involved in dishonesty. The false declarations made in five accounts certificates were  deliberate and considered acts of dishonesty carried out over a period of two years.”

A now familiar and recurring tale of how solicitors treat their clients, how law firms fraudulently manage clients finances and law firms accounts, emerges in further excerpts of the SSDT’s report which stated “The Respondent’s conduct was an ongoing course of conduct that covered a period in excess of four years.The Respondent’s conduct clearly presented a danger to the public, a clear example of that being the effect of his conduct on the executry of Ms A.The Respondent’s conduct was extremely likely to seriously damage the reputation of the legal profession. His complete failure to co-operate with  his professional body could be seriously detrimental to the public trust in solicitors.

The way the Respondent had  failed to respond  to  these matters as they each arose demonstrated both a lack of remorse and insight into the consequences of his conduct. The Respondent’s conduct clearly demonstrated that he was not a fit person to be a solicitor. His misconduct was directed towards his own professional body, his colleagues, the Master Policy insurers, and most seriously his own clients.

The Tribunal considered that there were two particular aggravating factors to the Respondent’s case which caused  it  a great deal of concern. The first was the Respondent’s willingness to resort to dishonesty to try to cover his misconduct, by making false  declarations in five separate accounts certificates. The second was the apparent complete lack of care or concern on the part of the Respondent for his own clients as particularly demonstrated in his behaviour in relation to the executry of Ms A, resulting in particularly difficult consequences for that executry.  The Respondent has also failed to take any part in the Tribunal proceedings.

As a result of the complaints, Kay was struck off the roll of solicitors, reflected in the decision which stated :

The Tribunal having considered the amended Complaints at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Alistair George Kay, Solicitor, 73 Bruntland Court, Portlethen, Aberdeen; Direct that Orders be issued under Section 53C(2) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980;

Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of his repeated failure to respond timeously, openly and accurately to reasonable enquiries made of him, and statutory notices served upon him by the Law Society; his breach of Rule 6 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Professional Indemnity Insurance Rules 2005;

his failure to respond timeously, openly and accurately to reasonable enquiries made of him by the Master policy insurers;

his breach of Rules 4, 8, 9 & 10 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Etc Rules 2001;

his false declarations made in five separate accounts certificates;

his failure to sign and return the application for confirmation and other papers sent to him by Messrs Andersonbain & Company and his failure to respond timeously to reasonable enquiries made of him by Messrs Andersonbain & Company; Order that the name of the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland

Commenting on the tribunal's findings, a legal insider said the SSDT and the Law Society could and should have stopped Kay much earlier.

A similar tale of missed opportunities and bungled regulation emerges from the discipline tribunal’s findings in the case of Steven Angus Anderson, formerly of Messrs Andersons, Solicitors & Notaries, 2 Hillkirk Street Lane, Springburn, Glasgow.  Anderson, who appeared at the SSDT in September of this year in relation to a complaint filed in 2011 by the Law Society, was also struck off after a catalogue of failures emerged in the SSDT’s blistering 87 page report, available here :

After consideration of the evidence, the tribunal’s decision found Anderson guilty of multiple failures including breaches of legal aid regulation.

The decision stated : The Tribunal having considered the Complaint at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Steven Angus Anderson, Solicitor, formerly of Messrs Andersons, Solicitors & Notaries, 2 Hillkirk Street Lane, Springburn, Glasgow ;

Find the Respondent Guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to respond to correspondence from another solicitor, his failure to implement a mandate, his failure to respond to correspondence from and statutory notices served upon him by the Complainers; his obtaining or attempting to obtain payment from the Scottish Legal Aid Board by persistent breaches of the Legal Aid Regulations, Code of Conduct and Relative Guidance and Otherwise and in particular:

(i) by making multiple and / or repetitive grants of legal advice and assistance;

(ii) by charging or attempting to charge the Scottish Legal Aid Board other than for work actually and necessarily done;

(iii) by holding unnecessary meetings with clients which inflated fees;

(iv) by acting or accepting instructions to act unprofessionally, giving inappropriate advice and doing work under the Legal Advice and Assistance Scheme where the value of the subject matter rendered it inappropriate to do so having regard to the terms of Regulation 17(1) of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Regulations 1996, or where the client claimed to have means that placed him beyond the scope of the Advice and Assistance Scheme;

(v) by granting legal advice and assistance to persons already in receipt of Legal Aid for the relevant subject matter contrary to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1996 Section 7(2); and

(vi) by submitting accounts twice in respect of single pieces of work; Order that the name of the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland;

Anderson, a Glasgow based solicitor had previously appeared before the tribunal on two separate occasions, once in 1999 where complaints were thrown out, and again in 2008 where the tribunal found Anderson guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of his failure to respond to correspondence and statutory notices from the Law Society, but let him continue working as a solicitor.

Clearly, much of the detail contained in the tribunal’s reports in relation to the above solicitors, will be all too familiar to clients and regular readers who have been forced to file complaints regarding similar poor conduct by their solicitors.

Time and again, particularly throughout the last twenty years, the same serious issues of lawyers deceiving their clients, taking the legal aid board for a ride, solicitors fiddling their own accounts, embezzlement, negligence, dishonesty, fraud, etc … crop up in case after case of complaints made by clients against their solicitors.

As things currently stand, this trend will continue as there are increasing numbers of solicitors and others in the legal profession who appear to have little incentive to be honest, and certainly do not fear the current, discredited system of self regulation where the old boys club of the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal do their best to protect their colleagues in arms.

Add to that, a courts system headed by vested interests with an unhealthy opposition to transparency, those same vested interests who are too busy flying around the globe at taxpayers expense, increasing their undeclared earnings, connections & personal wealth by using connections with big name law firms who use the regulatory system to dodge complaints and ruin clients, you have the perfect recipe for the situation the Scottish legal profession now finds itself in – akin to groups of sharks on the hunt for a quick buck, some valuable trinkets left on a client’s mantelpiece, and a few nice properties once owned by deceased clients … and not one single criminal charge or investigation to worry about.