Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Dishonesty Factor: Scottish solicitors accused of dishonesty ‘less likely to be struck off’ than dishonest lawyers who face tougher regulation in England & Wales

Contrary to profession’s view, evidence from clients suggests dishonesty in Scots solicitors is rewarded, not punished. SCOTTISH solicitors “make false representations in order to improve their client’s position, not necessarily their own”. This was a claim made by solicitor Alistair Cockburn, Chairman of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) in response to key questions raised by BBC Journalist Sam Poling in the recent investigative programme Lawyers Behaving Badly.

The claims made by the tribunal Chief led to startling revelations over how the lawyer led discipline tribunal which is charged with making findings against members of Scotland’s legal profession deals with allegations & evidence of dishonesty against rogue solicitors.

Insisting the discipline tribunal was ‘robust’ and had a duty to the public, the Chair of the SSDT went on to justify his position, stating “One has to assess the extent to which anyone suffered in consequence of that dishonesty.  You have to take into consideration the likelihood of re-offending and then take a decision.” Mr Cockburn went onto claim dishonesty is not commonplace and would result in solicitors being struck off. The SSDT Chair told the BBC journalist: “Normally dishonesty will result in striking-off.”

However, many clients who make complaints about dishonest solicitors will be surprised at the SSDT Chair’s claim, given the fact most complaints involving dishonesty encounter resistance on the part of the legal profession's self regulatory bodies such as the Law Society of Scotland and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).

 Solicitors sometimes make false representations – SSDT Chair Alistair Cockburn speaking to the BBC.

Sam Poling asks: The Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal hears all serious conduct cases against solicitors. Last year they struck off nine of them. But is this robust enough?

Alistair Cockburn Chairman, Scottish solicitors discipline tribunal replies: It is robust in the sense that it doesn’t just give convictions on the basis that somebody’s brought before us charged by the Law Society.  We are mindful, particularly when reminded of the lay members, of a duty to the public.

One is always concerned when there is deception but you can have a situation where solicitors simply lose their place. They make false representations in order to improve their client’s position, not necessarily their own. And you would take that into account in deciding what the penalty was but there’s no suggestion that such conduct wasn’t deemed to be professional as conduct. 

Sam Poling: So there are levels of dishonesty which sit comfortably with you, satisfactorily with you?

Alistair Cockburn: No it’s not a question of saying sitting comfortably with me.  I’ve told you…

Sam Poling: OK that you would accept?

Alistair Cockburn: No I’d be concerned on any occasion that a solicitor was guilty of any form of dishonesty.  One has to assess the extent to which anyone suffered in consequence of that dishonesty.  You have to take into consideration the likelihood of re-offending and then take a decision.  But you make it sound as if it’s commonplace.  It isn’t.  Normally dishonesty will result in striking-off.

The position on dishonesty taken by the SSDT boss appears to conflict with that found by many clients who are forced into the unenviable position of having to complain about their solicitor.

After months of waiting on results from regulators run principally by lawyers, most clients who file complaints against their solicitors will be all too aware that regulators often refuse to even look at claims of dishonesty due to the fact a proven case of dishonesty against a solicitor may entitle clients to claim compensation from the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund, and raise potential legal action in Scottish courts.

More often than not, solicitors who are dishonest to their clients, and solicitors who regularly make dishonest representations – even before judges in a court of law, will not be struck off simply because regulators will ensure such cases never appear before the tribunal or see the light of day in a complaints decision found against a fellow solicitor by his colleagues in the profession’s own self regulator.

Unsurprisingly, the Scottish tribunal’s view of claims of dishonesty by solicitors – a common theme in almost all complaints made by members of the public or clients against the legal profession in Scotland, contrasts sharply with the opinions of legal experts in the rest of the UK who insist dishonesty is a striking off offence.

The BBC asked a panel of three legal experts from England & Wales for their opinion on the case of John G O’Donnell and how he was dealt with by the discipline tribunal which related to a case where O’Donnell was accused of borrowing £60K of clients money without consent. The panel easily concluded solicitors accused of dishonesty should be struck off as there was a risk to the reputation of the legal profession and the risk of reoffending was too great.

Dishonesty in the legal profession: Risk factors mean it is a striking off offence – English legal experts.


Andrew Hopper QC said: “I cant get my head round borrowing in this context. Somebody explain to me how you can borrow something without anyone knowing about it. That’s just taking.”

Andrew Boon Professor of Law, City university, London said : “They actually say in the judgement they would have struck him off but the client hadn't complained.”

Andrew Hopper QC “We’re dealing with a case of dishonesty and that affects the reputation of the profession. I would have expected this to result in striking off.”

Andrew Boon, Professor of Law: “The critical thing is the risk factor. If somebody has been dishonest once the likelihood is that they are going to be dishonest again unless they’re stopped.”

As Sam Poling went on to report: “but he [O’Donnell] wasn't stopped. The tribunal simply restricted his license so that he had to work under the supervision of another solicitor.”

In Scotland every year and for well over two decades, there are and have been thousands of enquiries and complaints to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) and the Law Society of Scotland.

Almost all complaints against solicitors indicate at at one stage or another, the solicitor was dishonest to their client, either by making a false representation to them as to the progress of their case, or making false representations to cover their own positions.

More often than not, as in the case of Borders solicitor Andrew Penman, who a Law Society reporter found in 1994 had deliberately deceived a bank, had attempted to put files in order with an implication of dishonesty while doing so, hardly any complaint against a Scottish solicitor which documents dishonesty on a grand scale, has ever resulted in a striking off.

Mr Penman, who still works as a solicitor at Stormonth Darling solicitors in Kelso, was never struck off, and the Law Society along with its most senior staff set out to ensure any legal action against Mr Penman would never make it to court, the case and its history reported in detail HERE.

Contrary to the Law Society’s claims during the 1990’s, the Penman case was not a blip. Evidence from hundreds of complaints since the 90’s show is more common than not for the dishonesty of a solicitor to be rewarded in the Scottish legal profession with a continuing practicing certificate, just as in the O’Donnell case and hundreds, potentially thousands of others, rather than result in a striking off.

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lawyers rewarding themselves for lying - yeah it sounds like lawyers right enough!

Who is this solicitor who is on about dishonesty and making false representations?

I am really surprised one of them said that out loud.There should be a full investigation into all these false representations and the lot of them put behind bars.

Anonymous said...

It is obvious dishonesty must be part of just about every complaint about lawyers out there so how can someone say it is not common when it obviously is

Anonymous said...

You can just tell it took some sleazy Scottish lawyers to come up with this "borrowing without consent" phrase to cover the fact one of their colleagues stole money from a client.

Just look how the English QCs react to this statement - yes exactly like normal people would react to it and they believe he should have been struck off instead of just sent back to work under the cover of another sleaze merchant Scottish lawyer.

You really hit the nail on the head with this one BBC and Peter Cherbi.

Anonymous said...

A good advertisement not to trust any Scottish lawyer until they clean all this complaints mess up

Anonymous said...

Sam Poling: So there are levels of dishonesty which sit comfortably with you, satisfactorily with you?

Alistair Cockburn: No it’s not a question of saying sitting comfortably with me. I’ve told you…

Sam Poling: OK that you would accept?

Alistair Cockburn: No I’d be concerned on any occasion that a solicitor was guilty of any form of dishonesty. One has to assess the extent to which anyone suffered in consequence of that dishonesty. You have to take into consideration the likelihood of re-offending and then take a decision. But you make it sound as if it’s commonplace. It isn’t. Normally dishonesty will result in striking-off.

Well well well what a load of double speak and carefully crafted responses.

The bottom line here is dishonesty in other words LYING is being set aside as we call all see with the kinds of cases in the press like O'Donnell etc

Yet another indication lawyers are looking after their own!

Anonymous said...

I dont think Mr Cockburn would win on the X Factor either.
That line about various shades of dishonesty does not sell well to people in the real world.

Anonymous said...

less likely more like not at all

ODonnell has done over how many clients now and still not struck off this is just a joke

also why are these ssdt hearings always held in top secret locations and not in public?

no wonder these lawyers get away with it all

Anonymous said...

Yes what a difference with the English experts attitude about dishonesty you can see we need a complete change in Scotland otherwise its best to stay away from lawyers completely.If people dont use them their supply of victims will eventually dry up.

Anonymous said...

You appear to have upset the Law Society today with your latest.They are not happy you are having ago at the SSDT and Cockburn and your mention of the Guarantee Fund aspect of dishonesty.

Anonymous said...

Impressive coverage of your case and the shenanigans surrounding Penman in those Scotsman stories.How the paper has changed - and its circulation!

Anonymous said...

Douglas Mill must have been worried about this part of the show to have been so insulting against the English lawyers

Look what he wrote

And as for paying three eminent Englishmen licence money to tut tut over a couple of cases – totally and utterly risable. Julian Webb is a very nice man and I am sure the contribution to this year’s holiday was gratefully accepted, but come on! The English system was so disreputable that it was legislated out of existence.

More of it on the Form magazine http://www.firmmagazine.com/license-fees-behaving-badly/

Anonymous said...

Eventually the truth is beginning to leak out?

Sam Poling fairly showed this guy up for what he is, very sweaty and under pressure?

What is it that body language and Judges can tell you about this tell tale body language sign?


But the net is closing in around these so-called big fishes and their evil empire and dominion over the Scottish People is being revealed for what it is - a nasty scam?

Was it not Cockburn as Chairman of the SSDT in his 2010 yearly Report who coined the new legal invention of 'Borrowing Without Consent' for Scottish lawyers?

Check for yourself at:

http://www.ssdt.org.uk/reports/resources/AnnualReport_Final%20Draft.pdf

It can be found by going to the SSDT website, click on Reports and then select 2010 report and you will find it on page 7?

Of course, this is only for the Plebian Scottish Public's concern because a lawyer in England would almost definitely be reported to the Police and jailed or at the very least prosecuted for theft and struck-off?

Oh how I wish we in Scotland had the English System where it is fair and above board?

If we did have the English System then I am sure the Police would be confiscating computers, documents and files from the SSDT as we speak in order to protect the Scottish Public?

Anonymous said...

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 28 February 2014 13:22

Because it is a very simple argument to present that dishonesty is almost never upheld at the Law Society of Scotland, SLCC or SSDT because to do so enables clients to seek compensation from the Guarantee Fund, if of course, the clients can obtain legal representation or the necessary assistance to do so and then go through all the Guarantee Fund's hoops, hurdles and anti client prejudice as already exhibited by various former board members of the SLCC and legal establishment ...

@ 28 February 2014 14:03

Douglas Mill is always worried when the legal profession is painted in a different light ... there is history of this in the newspapers ...

@ 28 February 2014 12:25

People should use what they have to enjoy life rather than hand it over to a member of the legal profession who will end up taking the lot for themselves anyway.

@27 February 2014 18:58

I think congrats are due t Sam Poling for overcoming a lot of hurdles to get the programme aired.

The interview with Mr Cockburn and the comparison with how English QCs want to deal with dishonesty ... on the strength of the evidence of the O'Donnell case and taking into account what we all know from previous experience is probably one of the best things to come out of Lawyers Behaving Badly.

Dishonesty in England & Wales is clearly recognised as an unacceptable risk of re-offending in the profession, a risk of damage to the reputation of the profession and therefore must be stopped with a striking off... however in Scotland, it's back to business with a slap on the wrist from the SSDT if it even gets that far.

It is not rocket science to work out a lot of solicitors start messing about with files, adding, withdrawing compromising evidence etc as soon as a complaint comes in about their service to a client.

Dishonesty ... by any definition.Even the regulators and solicitors who represent the Master Policy are never quite sure their accused colleagues have told the truth or not ...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I had a solicitor and qc represent me in a damages claim against my local nhs trust I asked them to tell me what evidence they put to the court because I was told by a nurse the statement she gave confirmed everything that happened my solicitor had already told me he had taken a statement from the nurse then no statement in our case and my own qc said not enough evidence both withdrew from acting and I was left as a party litigant you will be familiar with the ending as in I lost the case and have been under threat of them taking my house away if I do not pay their fees.The solicitor's wife is a member of the board of the nhs trust using her maiden name and now he is trying to cover all this up because his wife is the reason he dropped my case and lied about the evidence.I tried to tell all this to the judge but no use he is on the side of the lawyer so party litigant has no chance in Scotland.

25 February 2014 15:54
==================================
Royal Sun Alliance insure doctors, the National Health Sservice
the Law Society of Scotland and High Court Judges, Sheriffs medical experts who can lie in court because they are protected by Legal Privelidge. You are claiming against their insurers, bet your lawyer kept that quiet, like they all do. A cartel of crooks.

Anonymous said...

As usual you are correct.The lack of a dishonesty finding is down to ensuring complainers cannot approach the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund.

I can see why the LSoS regard you as a threat to their solid grip on regulation.

Anonymous said...

this secret lawyer controlled tribunal should be scrapped and all these hearings against bent lawyers held in the open

Anonymous said...

Its a good thing the BBC did get the English lawyers to give their opinion rather than Scottish lawyers who would just sit there and cover their colleagues backs.

Anonymous said...

Insisting the discipline tribunal was ‘robust’ and had a duty to the public, Ha HA, utter bullshit no wise client believes this rubbish. It is so robust they call theft of clients assets "borrowing without consent".

Anonymous said...

Have been reading up on this ssdt and it is not much more than a cosy lawyers club looking after their own just like the Law Society

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

It is obvious dishonesty must be part of just about every complaint about lawyers out there so how can someone say it is not common when it obviously is

27 February 2014 18:23

I am struggling to think of how someone could complain about a lawyer without alleging dishonesty of some kind.Anyway lawyers are little more than trained liars so they are obviously going to resort to lying by default.If any lawyers have a problem with my comment then revisit your own industry representatives who are giving you all this image.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You can just tell it took some sleazy Scottish lawyers to come up with this "borrowing without consent" phrase to cover the fact one of their colleagues stole money from a client.

Just look how the English QCs react to this statement - yes exactly like normal people would react to it and they believe he should have been struck off instead of just sent back to work under the cover of another sleaze merchant Scottish lawyer.

You really hit the nail on the head with this one BBC and Peter Cherbi.


27 February 2014 18:58
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

And when you add in that the Law Society of Scotland's own lawyer brokered the deal to allow him to continue his campaign of crime against the Scottish Public?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You can just tell it took some sleazy Scottish lawyers to come up with this "borrowing without consent" phrase to cover the fact one of their colleagues stole money from a client.

Just look how the English QCs react to this statement - yes exactly like normal people would react to it and they believe he should have been struck off instead of just sent back to work under the cover of another sleaze merchant Scottish lawyer.

You really hit the nail on the head with this one BBC and Peter Cherbi.


27 February 2014 18:58
------------------------------------------

What this shows is that we the Scottish Public have been lied to and that it has taken for the BBC special investigations team to show English Regulators what has been going on and they were absolutely flabbergasted?

Crooked lawyers in Scotland are all Monopoly Millionaires by virtue of the Law Society of Scotland and their arm the SSDT because they all have got an unlimited number of Get Out Of Jail Free Cards and every time they say Go, they get £200?

Until the police go through the files of the Law Society of Scotland and the SSDT, then crooked Scottish lawyers will continue to be 'Borrowers Without Consenters' and will continue to be above the law?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Sam Poling: So there are levels of dishonesty which sit comfortably with you, satisfactorily with you?

Alistair Cockburn: No it’s not a question of saying sitting comfortably with me. I’ve told you…

Sam Poling: OK that you would accept?

Alistair Cockburn: No I’d be concerned on any occasion that a solicitor was guilty of any form of dishonesty. One has to assess the extent to which anyone suffered in consequence of that dishonesty. You have to take into consideration the likelihood of re-offending and then take a decision. But you make it sound as if it’s commonplace. It isn’t. Normally dishonesty will result in striking-off.

Well well well what a load of double speak and carefully crafted responses.

The bottom line here is dishonesty in other words LYING is being set aside as we call all see with the kinds of cases in the press like O'Donnell etc

Yet another indication lawyers are looking after their own!

27 February 2014 21:21
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Cockburn was the Chairman in my SSDT case and he was involved in collusion to let the crooked lawyer off Scot Free?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Methinks he doth protest too much.

28 February 2014 14:29
000000000000000

I thought he came across as quite threatening and insidious?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
less likely more like not at all

ODonnell has done over how many clients now and still not struck off this is just a joke

also why are these ssdt hearings always held in top secret locations and not in public?

no wonder these lawyers get away with it all

28 February 2014 11:32
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I notice too that since the DOI journalists have been shining their light of truth on the dishonest goings on at the SSDT that the SSDT have taken to putting cases up on their Diary page AFTER the Hearing has taken place, so that members of the Scottish Public and the Press cannot see what is going on behind closed doors?

Hardly the conduct of a bona fide organisation but consistent with the wicked Law Society of Scotland?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Yes what a difference with the English experts attitude about dishonesty you can see we need a complete change in Scotland otherwise its best to stay away from lawyers completely.If people dont use them their supply of victims will eventually dry up.

28 February 2014 12:25
1111111111111111111

What we have been subjected to for the longest time is Institutionalised Criminality by Scottish lawyers, whereby the creep of dishonesty has built up over a period of time, where the Crown Office have always had their back, which has created their own little world where they believe they can get away with anything and that they are allowed to act above the law?

The sad thing is that they are above the law?

Anonymous said...


I think congrats are due to Sam Poling for overcoming a lot of hurdles to get the programme aired.

The interview with Mr Cockburn and the comparison with how English QCs want to deal with dishonesty ... on the strength of the evidence of the O'Donnell case and taking into account what we all know from previous experience is probably one of the best things to come out of Lawyers Behaving Badly.

Dishonesty in England & Wales is clearly recognised as an unacceptable risk of re-offending in the profession, a risk of damage to the reputation of the profession and therefore must be stopped with a striking off... however in Scotland, it's back to business with a slap on the wrist from the SSDT if it even gets that far.

It is not rocket science to work out a lot of solicitors start messing about with files, adding, withdrawing compromising evidence etc as soon as a complaint comes in about their service to a client.

Dishonesty ... by any definition.Even the regulators and solicitors who represent the Master Policy are never quite sure their accused colleagues have told the truth or not ...

28 February 2014 15:11
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Especially when you consider that the BBC journalists were descended upon, brow beaten and threatened by the Law Society of Scotland's lawyers who managed to get a lot of even more criminal activity curtailed?

The Law Society of Scotland's reasoning being that if the 'Lawyers Behaving Badly' programme was aired in it's original uncensored form it would potentially lead to a destabilisation of the Scottish Public where no one would trust any Scottish lawyers any more and they would lose so many clients that there would be a fire-sale at Scottish Lawyers Businesses across the land?

Helloooooooooooooow?

This is the consequence of creating a self-serving, back-slapping system which keeps a high speed conveyor belt of crooked Scottish lawyers saved from jail and instead are allowed to continue their pernicious attacks on the Scottish Public?

Wake up and smell the coffee - or do they even have coffee in prison?

Anonymous said...

My God!

Look what Scotland has become?

As the polar opposite of the Heineken advert.....


Scotland......

Possibly the most corrupt small country in the World?

Anonymous said...

Those English lawyers will now realise (if they didnt already know) the whole Scottish legal profession is not to be trusted and this ssdt tribunal is just a running joke to get crooks off the hook.

Anonymous said...

If anyone thinks these tribunal hearings are in any way honest they are mistaken.
I made a complaint against my solicitor several years ago to the Law Society who found against all heads of complaint except one of refusing to reply to correspondence they conveniently wanted to find in favour.The Law Society ignored all the evidence of fraud, money disappearing from my bank account taken by my solicitor and over £40,000 taken from a client account my solicitor placed money in for my house purchase. The case was sent to the SSDT and I was told I was going to be asked to give a statement to the Fiscal employed by the Law Society to prosecute my solicitor.There was no contact from this Fiscal so I asked the Law Society in a telephone call how to contact him and someone gave me the name of his law firm.I called him up and offered to give my statement.He told me on the telephone I was harassing him and he was immediately going to report me to the Police.His law firm is in Glasgow and it was Strathclyde Police at the time this happened.No Police came to see me and I reported what happened to the Law Society but they did not reply.I asked the Police and they said they knew nothing about this but the officer I spoke to at the station had some words to say about the solicitor.I asked the Law Society when the case was going to the SSDT and no reply.I contacted the SSDT after a lot of difficulty finding out where they are and no reply.I then got a letter from the Law Society giving me a date for the SSDT hearing and they said I could go.I went along to the hearing in Edinburgh and was stopped from going in by someone who claimed to be a solicitor but he showed me no identification.I had to wait outside on the street as this man watched me.I decided to walk off and wait along the street and I saw my ex solicitor the one I complained against coming out of the meeting with the solicitor who was supposed to be prosecuting him.They seemed very friendly shook hands and walked off in the opposite directions.I have not been told how the hearing went after 4 letters to the Law Society.This SSDT is a fit up and is all about protecting solicitors against complaints not giving justice to clients.I do not believe a word of what Mr Cockburn says in this video clip from my own experience and there are probably many other people who have been treated the same way.It is disgusting but at least thanks to you this is starting to become news and hope other people read what I write.I have not named anyone because of your comments rules but I hope you can publish this comment.Thank you.

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 1 March 2014 18:56

Email details of your case including identities of the law firms involved to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com and this could be considered for an investigation.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the debate.

Anonymous said...

bunch of crooks the lot of them and who believes all that crap about lay people doing their duty

Anonymous said...

The difference between the two in attitude is too great to put down to varying levels of dishonesty in Scotland's legal ranks.

Clearly the tribunal is nothing more than a window dressing exercise for the Law Society and since neither can be trusted the only solution to all of this is completely independent regulation for solicitors.

There also needs to be a change in education for those coming into the legal profession to help produce the same attitudes against dishonesty in Scotland as exist in England.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You appear to have upset the Law Society today with your latest.They are not happy you are having ago at the SSDT and Cockburn and your mention of the Guarantee Fund aspect of dishonesty.

28 February 2014 13:22
---------------------------

It is well known that the Law Society of Scotland defraud client victims out of compensation from their Guarantee Fund and in doing so let their crooked Scottish lawyer member off with numerous offences?

Anonymous said...

I think congrats are due t Sam Poling for overcoming a lot of hurdles to get the programme aired.

The interview with Mr Cockburn and the comparison with how English QCs want to deal with dishonesty ... on the strength of the evidence of the O'Donnell case and taking into account what we all know from previous experience is probably one of the best things to come out of Lawyers Behaving Badly.

Dishonesty in England & Wales is clearly recognised as an unacceptable risk of re-offending in the profession, a risk of damage to the reputation of the profession and therefore must be stopped with a striking off... however in Scotland, it's back to business with a slap on the wrist from the SSDT if it even gets that far.

It is not rocket science to work out a lot of solicitors start messing about with files, adding, withdrawing compromising evidence etc as soon as a complaint comes in about their service to a client.

Dishonesty ... by any definition.Even the regulators and solicitors who represent the Master Policy are never quite sure their accused colleagues have told the truth or not ...

28 February 2014 15:11
*******************************************

It has been said many times that the Law Society of Scotland and their annexe at the SSDT have taken to letting known crooked Scottish lawyers off with criminal offences and that the Office Holders involved in taking these decisions are capable of being proven to have defeated the ends of justice but until now the authorities have allowed these crooks to act above the law and over a period of time this has had a deleterious affect on the standards of Scottish lawyers and to the general downward sliding of standards in Scottish Society?

If there was an award for sleaze, corruption and nepotism then the Law Society of Scotland and the partners in crime at the SSDT would surely win an Oscar?

Anonymous said...

Good to see the Beeb at last reporting on albeit only a very small proportion of the facts Diary of Injustice has been uncovering for years.

I will not be holding my breath for the next TV programme, no doubt the BBC has been told where its best lie by the Law Society of Scotland.

In fact it is something of a miracle this programme was ever made let alone broadcast.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
If anyone thinks these tribunal hearings are in any way honest they are mistaken.
I made a complaint against my solicitor several years ago to the Law Society who found against all heads of complaint except one of refusing to reply to correspondence they conveniently wanted to find in favour.The Law Society ignored all the evidence of fraud, money disappearing from my bank account taken by my solicitor and over £40,000 taken from a client account my solicitor placed money in for my house purchase. The case was sent to the SSDT and I was told I was going to be asked to give a statement to the Fiscal employed by the Law Society to prosecute my solicitor.There was no contact from this Fiscal so I asked the Law Society in a telephone call how to contact him and someone gave me the name of his law firm.I called him up and offered to give my statement.He told me on the telephone I was harassing him and he was immediately going to report me to the Police.His law firm is in Glasgow and it was Strathclyde Police at the time this happened.No Police came to see me and I reported what happened to the Law Society but they did not reply.I asked the Police and they said they knew nothing about this but the officer I spoke to at the station had some words to say about the solicitor.I asked the Law Society when the case was going to the SSDT and no reply.I contacted the SSDT after a lot of difficulty finding out where they are and no reply.I then got a letter from the Law Society giving me a date for the SSDT hearing and they said I could go.I went along to the hearing in Edinburgh and was stopped from going in by someone who claimed to be a solicitor but he showed me no identification.I had to wait outside on the street as this man watched me.I decided to walk off and wait along the street and I saw my ex solicitor the one I complained against coming out of the meeting with the solicitor who was supposed to be prosecuting him.They seemed very friendly shook hands and walked off in the opposite directions.I have not been told how the hearing went after 4 letters to the Law Society.This SSDT is a fit up and is all about protecting solicitors against complaints not giving justice to clients.I do not believe a word of what Mr Cockburn says in this video clip from my own experience and there are probably many other people who have been treated the same way.It is disgusting but at least thanks to you this is starting to become news and hope other people read what I write.I have not named anyone because of your comments rules but I hope you can publish this comment.Thank you.

1 March 2014 18:56
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][][][][]

My SSDT case was similar.

It was held in the Carlton Hotel in Edinburgh.

Myself and a couple of friends went along unannounced with the hope of viewing proceedings from the Public Gallery.

We sat in the adjacent coffee lounge in high backed chairs and waited for the time of the meeting to come round.

Whilst waiting outside the lift, low-and-behold the Law Society's Prosecuting Fiscal came out of the lift deep in conversation with what turned out to be a lay-member of the SSDT panel, where the Prosecuting Fiscal was discussing my case with this SSDT panel member before the hearing even started!

This is not consistent with the Rule of Law and just goes to show how much of an anti-public these Scottish lawyers are about protecting their own.

The SSDT have a cheek in calling themselves a Tribunal because this implies that it is an equitable process!

Anonymous said...

The attitude of Cockburn says it all really.

I remain unconvinced if Cockburn would repeat what he said to the BBC under oath, such is the crookedness of the SSDT?

You just have to read the cases on the SSDT website for yourself to see that Scottish Lawyers are given an easy ride and excuses are continually made to try to get them out of responsibility for their conduct, which equates to pathetic regulation and an insult to the hundreds of client victims?

Anonymous said...

Concerned on any occasion but not concerned enough to strike off.

What good is this to other people out there who will end up unknowingly using a lawyer already accused of dishonesty and just like the English expert says is likely to reoffend.

Anonymous said...

The name Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal sounds iffy - just a tea party for lawyers and that earlier comment from a client who was prevented from going in to hear their own complaint sums up the motives of the SSDT.

Anonymous said...

"One is always concerned when there is deception but you can have a situation where solicitors simply lose their place. They make false representations in order to improve their client’s position, not necessarily their own. "

So a lawyer losing their place allows them to lie ruin and ground clients into the dirt?

This just shows us what they really think of the public and their clients!

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know the name of this prosecutor the Law Society used in the comment made by the person who was kept out of the hearing.I had a similar experience with the solicitor calling himself a Law Society Fiscal who also refused to take my statement and refused to tell me when the SSDT were going to consider my complaint.

Anonymous said...

Further evidence if it were needed that self regulation of the legal profession does not, and never has worked in the interests of justice.

It is long past the time when th Scottish Parliament should have enacted legislation requiring the names of solicitors, their firms and the nature of the complaints against them being released into the public domain and allowing customers to decide for themselves which, if any Scottish solicitor they will engage.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I think congrats are due to Sam Poling for overcoming a lot of hurdles to get the programme aired.

The interview with Mr Cockburn and the comparison with how English QCs want to deal with dishonesty ... on the strength of the evidence of the O'Donnell case and taking into account what we all know from previous experience is probably one of the best things to come out of Lawyers Behaving Badly.

Dishonesty in England & Wales is clearly recognised as an unacceptable risk of re-offending in the profession, a risk of damage to the reputation of the profession and therefore must be stopped with a striking off... however in Scotland, it's back to business with a slap on the wrist from the SSDT if it even gets that far.

It is not rocket science to work out a lot of solicitors start messing about with files, adding, withdrawing compromising evidence etc as soon as a complaint comes in about their service to a client.

Dishonesty ... by any definition.Even the regulators and solicitors who represent the Master Policy are never quite sure their accused colleagues have told the truth or not ...

28 February 2014 15:11
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Especially when you consider that the BBC journalists were descended upon, brow beaten and threatened by the Law Society of Scotland's lawyers who managed to get a lot of even more criminal activity curtailed?

The Law Society of Scotland's reasoning being that if the 'Lawyers Behaving Badly' programme was aired in it's original uncensored form it would potentially lead to a destabilisation of the Scottish Public where no one would trust any Scottish lawyers any more and they would lose so many clients that there would be a fire-sale at Scottish Lawyers Businesses across the land?

Helloooooooooooooow?

This is the consequence of creating a self-serving, back-slapping system which keeps a high speed conveyor belt of crooked Scottish lawyers saved from jail and instead are allowed to continue their pernicious attacks on the Scottish Public?

Wake up and smell the coffee - or do they even have coffee in prison?

28 February 2014 20:46
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

It is like the Scots People are a second class race within the UK.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The name Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal sounds iffy - just a tea party for lawyers and that earlier comment from a client who was prevented from going in to hear their own complaint sums up the motives of the SSDT.

2 March 2014 17:03
0000000000000000000

This is what happens when there is no transparency and no one who the Public can trust to keep a check of these crooks?

If they provide a Statutory Function, which they do, then their entire business should be open and transparent and they should be fully accountable for their actions?

It seems like the SSDT are there to do the Law Society's bidding and to further humiliate and harass the poor client?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I'd like to know the name of this prosecutor the Law Society used in the comment made by the person who was kept out of the hearing.I had a similar experience with the solicitor calling himself a Law Society Fiscal who also refused to take my statement and refused to tell me when the SSDT were going to consider my complaint.

2 March 2014 20:36
------------------------------

The problem with this criminal set-up is that the Prosecuting Fiscal is never and I mean NEVER on the side of the Client?

They will lie and make out they are deliberately obtuse in order to give the Scottish lawyer a get out of jail free card because they are following the Instruction from the Law Society of Scotland?

The person appointing these Fiscal's for the Law Society has got an incentive and opportunity thereby to massage the figures of regulated Scottish lawyers to make themselves look good, so that they can present a fiction to the public that they are properly regulating lawyers?

The trouble is, this fraud has resulted in a higher and higher percentage of crooked Scottish lawyers being allowed to continue taking advantage of the public?

Anonymous said...

Good article.That SSDT is just part of the rest of the rotten set up to cover lawyers backs which politicians over the years have been touting as safeguarding the consumer.You can just see how hollow all those claims are now in these short video clips.

People should be naturally suspicious of anyone now claiming this self regulation gang are protecting consumers because they are only about protecting themselves and see clients and everyone else as the enemy.

Anonymous said...

Nice of Mr Cockburn to admit on the beeb what you have been saying for years.

Easy to conclude any lawyers making false reps can excuse themselves with this losing the plot excuse and get away with it.

He wont be repeating that mistake twice.


Anonymous said...

An ex-colleague of mine on a local newspaper went along to one of these SSDT hearings with the family who complained about their solicitor.
Although the family asked he be allowed in he was not and 4 months down the line after my editor took ear bashing from some shit at the Law Society who goes around calling himself a media lawyer my colleague was sacked from the paper for doing nothing other than asking a question about the result - it was a fine after family revealed the tribunal was told by solicitor's rep they may land in court if anything else.

Was going to take the group to an unfair dismissal hearing - he could not get legal rep then someone who knows you stepped in offering possibility of a headline and there was a payoff to keep it all quiet.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The difference between the two in attitude is too great to put down to varying levels of dishonesty in Scotland's legal ranks.

Clearly the tribunal is nothing more than a window dressing exercise for the Law Society and since neither can be trusted the only solution to all of this is completely independent regulation for solicitors.

There also needs to be a change in education for those coming into the legal profession to help produce the same attitudes against dishonesty in Scotland as exist in England.

2 March 2014 12:20
////////////////////////////////////////////

Notice that there is no test in law used to define what constitutes what dishonesty is?

Instead the SSDT deal with Scottish lawyers on a purely subjective basis with no Precedent used to make sure that their decisions are standardised and consistent?

This is deliberate because by doing so, they can take such action as they see fit, which allows the Law Society of Scotland to get rid of Scottish lawyers who they have taken a dislike of (probably because they have refused to cooperate with the corrupt Law Society of Scotland) and for other Scottish lawyers that they help by stripping away most of the Heads of Cmplaints against them and then letting them off with the remainder of the Heads of Complaint?

This is the Criminal System in operation?


If you check the SSDT website and read the cases, you will see that a Scottish lawyer was struck-off for simply failing to timeously reply to the Law Society's correspondence?

Yet in many other cases, lawyers who steal and deceive large amounts of money from their clients to their extreme damage and loss are described as simply 'BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENTERS' and let off when they should in many people's eyes have been jailed?

Any Regulatory System with such wide disparity of Decisions, which seem to be counter intuitive serves as an example to show that this has long since failed to be a lawful Regulation System and instead it is a corrupt protectionist racket to keep known crooked lawyers earning fat wads of cash from an unsuspecting innocent Scottish Public?

Whosoever is responsible for such a corrupt system within the Law Society of Scotland should be arrested forthwith and incarcerated for crimes against the Scottish People?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"One is always concerned when there is deception but you can have a situation where solicitors simply lose their place. They make false representations in order to improve their client’s position, not necessarily their own. "

So a lawyer losing their place allows them to lie ruin and ground clients into the dirt?

This just shows us what they really think of the public and their clients!

2 March 2014 17:57
***********************

The twisted logic and double standards by these Borrowers Without Consenters shows just how corrupt they have become when they seek to justify Scottish lawyers acting in a dishonest manner?

No wonder the Law Society of Scotland's SSDT is an unlawful joke amongst Scottish lawyers who laugh at how they continually seem to let Scottish lawyers off Scot free?

What about when they let a crooked Scottish lawyer off with this dishonesty in favour of their Client which then leads to the Client's opponent suing the Client?

For the Client's opponent who has been deceived by the Client's crooked Scottish lawyer, will not pursue the Scottish crooked lawyer but instead will pursue the Client?

Ergo, the reasoning by the Chairman of Borrowing Without Consenters is absurd, is false and is nothing other than pig-, which was shamefully blurted out under the excellent questioning by the State Broadcaster the BBC?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Concerned on any occasion but not concerned enough to strike off.

What good is this to other people out there who will end up unknowingly using a lawyer already accused of dishonesty and just like the English expert says is likely to reoffend.


2 March 2014 15:58
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I cannot believe what I was hearing on the BBC's exposure of wide scale corruption by the SSDT and the Law Society of Scotland?

It says it all when the very Chairman of the SSDT is actually seeming to argue that dishonesty by a Scottish crooked lawyer may actually be a good thing because it could favour the Client?

I am sorry this is unlawful?

If your crooked Scottish lawyer is guilty of deception in any way whatsoever, they should be permanently banned from being a lawyer. End of?

This attitude seems to show that the so-called Regulatory Process in Scotland is unconcerned with dishonesty in their profession and seems to seek to justify dishonesty wherever they find it?

What about the next Client of this crooked Scottish lawyer?

The Regulatory System in Scotland is Contributorily Negligent for allowing a crooked Scottish lawyer with no scruples and who is happy to be dishonest when they are hired by an unsuspecting new Client?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"One is always concerned when there is deception but you can have a situation where solicitors simply lose their place. They make false representations in order to improve their client’s position, not necessarily their own. "

So a lawyer losing their place allows them to lie ruin and ground clients into the dirt?

This just shows us what they really think of the public and their clients!

2 March 2014 17:57
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(),)()()()()()()(

The SSDT Chairman caught out 100%, defending the indefensible?

If you are not part of the solution and are evidently part of the problem, then this goes to show why we are in such a mess?

Yes, I know you are a criminal but that is A OK by me?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Nice of Mr Cockburn to admit on the beeb what you have been saying for years.

Easy to conclude any lawyers making false reps can excuse themselves with this losing the plot excuse and get away with it.

He wont be repeating that mistake twice.



3 March 2014 14:38
#################%

All of a sudden part of the jigsaw falls into place through the courageous questioning of the BBC, where we can see why Scottish crooked lawyers have been getting let off Scot-Free?

All we need now is for MacAskill to take off his army issue protective helmet and order a Judicial Revue of the SSDT and the Law Society of Scotland and for the last 10 years SSDT Decisions to be passed to the BBC's English Panel to find out how many cases are not lawful?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
An ex-colleague of mine on a local newspaper went along to one of these SSDT hearings with the family who complained about their solicitor.
Although the family asked he be allowed in he was not and 4 months down the line after my editor took ear bashing from some shit at the Law Society who goes around calling himself a media lawyer my colleague was sacked from the paper for doing nothing other than asking a question about the result - it was a fine after family revealed the tribunal was told by solicitor's rep they may land in court if anything else.

Was going to take the group to an unfair dismissal hearing - he could not get legal rep then someone who knows you stepped in offering possibility of a headline and there was a payoff to keep it all quiet.

3 March 2014 16:26
8888888888888888

More confirmation if confirmation was needed of criminal conduct in the unlawful protection of Scottish lawyers?

Anonymous said...

Another one here with a complaint against the way the ssdt handled what was left of my complaint after the Law Society purposely messed it up will contact you with the details

Anonymous said...

Most complaints never made it to the ssdt anyway if you look at the numbers of complaints - over a thousand a year and just a trickle of tribunal hearings.

We all know where this is going - straight to crooked land and the ol slap on the wrist for one's precious colleagues to keep them in their jobs.

It is a good thing these clips because their own boss and his comments on dishonesty confirm this tribunal set up has no credibility whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Dishonesty is the word that most accurately describes the Law Society and their pals at the SSDT.

Anonymous said...

After listening to the Chairman of the SSDT, Mr Cockburn on the BBC's programme about criminality in Scotland's Regulation framework, you can see the reason that so many dodgy lawyers have been let off?

This is not rocket science but would it not be better to have a lawyer to actually chair this committee rather than an amateurish lay person otherwise justice will not be done?

Anonymous said...

More inclined to believe the panel rather than the rant of Douglas Mill.

Dishonesty is prevalent in the profession,everyone knows it and this is one of the main reasons that business has gone out the window along with reputations.

Anonymous said...

How many other false representations have these solicitors been making?

I see a pile of them on the Scottish Government/Scottish Parliament website to do with changes in the law.Coincidentally all the representations say access to justice is the priority for solicitors (obviously a lie) because any reform or cut in legal aid that comes along is condemned and ends up in lawyers waving bits of cardboard in front of the High Court/Holyrood.

What part of improving their clients position are all these false representations Mr Cockburn?

Anonymous said...

Is it not a bit weird to conclude that there are different kinds of dishonesty, the good kind and the bad kind, or is it just me?

Anonymous said...

I have a relative who waited years to get to the ssdt and when it came to the day the Law Society called it off and that was the end of it despite all the promises of a prosecution and a certainty of striking off.The solicitor is still working and not a scratch.

Anonymous said...

Those Scotsman stories in relation to Penman and the report you obtained from the Law Society - clearly he should have gone to the SSDT and if the English experts are to be believed faced a striking off.However after hearing this Mr Cockburn and reading more of your reports on the SSDT I do not believe the tribunal is fit for purpose or has any measure of honesty.

As you say Penman is not a blip and has probably happened thousands of times hence the BBC finally got their act together and looked into the issue of how lawyers are regulating themselves for their own protection.

It would be good for the BBC to come back and do a story on how clients of rogue lawyers get their lives back together after the Law Society has done their level best to protect their colleagues.

Anonymous said...

What now for the SSDT?
Along with its chairman the tribunal has no credibility left with the admissions in these video clips and your excellent work.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
An ex-colleague of mine on a local newspaper went along to one of these SSDT hearings with the family who complained about their solicitor.
Although the family asked he be allowed in he was not and 4 months down the line after my editor took ear bashing from some shit at the Law Society who goes around calling himself a media lawyer my colleague was sacked from the paper for doing nothing other than asking a question about the result - it was a fine after family revealed the tribunal was told by solicitor's rep they may land in court if anything else.

Was going to take the group to an unfair dismissal hearing - he could not get legal rep then someone who knows you stepped in offering possibility of a headline and there was a payoff to keep it all quiet.

3 March 2014 16:26
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

These crooks should be named and shamed.

This is how they keep getting their crooked membership off, by coercion, blackmail and pay offs.

Anonymous said...

2 March 2014 15:58
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I cannot believe what I was hearing on the BBC's exposure of wide scale corruption by the SSDT and the Law Society of Scotland?

It says it all when the very Chairman of the SSDT is actually seeming to argue that dishonesty by a Scottish crooked lawyer may actually be a good thing because it could favour the Client?

I am sorry this is unlawful?

If your crooked Scottish lawyer is guilty of deception in any way whatsoever, they should be permanently banned from being a lawyer. End of?

This attitude seems to show that the so-called Regulatory Process in Scotland is unconcerned with dishonesty in their profession and seems to seek to justify dishonesty wherever they find it?

What about the next Client of this crooked Scottish lawyer?

The Regulatory System in Scotland is Contributorily Negligent for allowing a crooked Scottish lawyer with no scruples and who is happy to be dishonest when they are hired by an unsuspecting new Client?

4 March 2014 12:09
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Of course, the real cause of all this is that Scottish lawyers are above the law and cannot be sued?

Similarly, it is not possible to sue the Law Society of Scotland & the SSDT or members of them because they too are above the law?

If they do not fear any consequences of their decisions then they just take advantage and take the pure pish out of the Client victim all over again?

Consequently, these people are organised and colluding with each other to commit wholesale heinous crime against the Scottish People?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Concerned on any occasion but not concerned enough to strike off.

What good is this to other people out there who will end up unknowingly using a lawyer already accused of dishonesty and just like the English expert says is likely to reoffend.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The main consequence of the corrupt Scottish Regulatory system is that the same Scottish lawyers keep returning to the SSDT over and over again? (And this is even after the Law Society of Scotland have unlawfully interfered, obfuscated and lessened your complaint?)

This is proof that Scottish crooked lawyers are not disciplined but rather congratulated for causing havoc and heartache?

If your crooked Scottish lawyer is reported for offences that they have already been before the SSDT with and let off with a light Sanction then the payout to the victim should be enormous?

Cash is the only thing that is important to these crooks and they should cough up or the SSDT panel members should be held to account?

Who do you complain to about the Law Society of Scotland's SSDT?

No One?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"One is always concerned when there is deception but you can have a situation where solicitors simply lose their place. They make false representations in order to improve their client’s position, not necessarily their own. "

So a lawyer losing their place allows them to lie ruin and ground clients into the dirt?

This just shows us what they really think of the public and their clients!

2 March 2014 17:57
fffffffffffffffffffff

Thinly disguised contempt!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Dishonesty is the word that most accurately describes the Law Society and their pals at the SSDT.

5 March 2014 21:46
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvw

They would probably congratulate themselves and wear it as a badge of honour!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
More inclined to believe the panel rather than the rant of Douglas Mill.

Dishonesty is prevalent in the profession,everyone knows it and this is one of the main reasons that business has gone out the window along with reputations.

6 March 2014 17:26
-------------------

They are all Douglas Mill?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 7 March 2014 09:49

With regards to what you said regarding "It would be good for the BBC to come back and do a story on how clients of rogue lawyers get their lives back together after the Law Society has done their level best to protect their colleagues."

Doubtful, although this is an issue Diary of Injustice has covered in the past and will do so again.

Clients of rogue lawyers are rarely if ever allowed to get their lives back together after being through the mill of soliictors self regulation and the Law Society of Scotland.

The expression "marked for life" would be a good description of how clients fare after dealing with the Law Society and now the SLCC on a complaints basis.

It should be no surprise to anyone that a profession which regulates itself will then take it upon itself to get its own back on those who are forced to complain about solicitors when things go wrong.

Diary of Injustice has encoutered a number of cases over the years where solicitors who faced complaints from clients and then escaped any regulatory punishment for their actions, went on to quite vindicitvely interdict the personal lives of their former clients to the point abuse.

In one case, the wife of a solicitor who embezzled over £100K of client's cash on a property transaction used her connections with a local authority to have her husband's former client's children temporarily taken into care.

This happened after the same bank which the solicitor had taken the former client's cash from, repossessed the former client's house a year after the Law Society dismissed the complaint against their colleague.

The list goes on ... solicitors once the subject of complaints often use their professional positions and links with others to undermine former clients from obtaining finance, positions on housing registers, receipt of benefits, blocked property transactions, and a lack of any access to further legal representation.

In many cases family members of solicitors once the subject of complaints have also joined in. The profession does not like to acknowledge this but it is a fact.

Just think of it in terms of what happens in a bad neighbour dispute ... when things get that ugly, it often involves whole families and years of acrimony which could have been fixed with one swoop of a striking off.

Cases like these are well known to those in the media who report on these kinds of issues ... but as you see, the law is slow to change, and when attempts are made to bring in independent regulation of the legal profession, any legislation is effectively hijacked by the very same people it is meant to clean up as in the ongoing train wreck of the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007

Anonymous said...

I am sure the Law Society of Scotland were responsible for springing over 100 amendments to the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 the night before the Scottish Parliament were to vote on it, giving the Parliament no time to consider these changes, so they just voted it in regardless?

This act could well be treason, as this Act of Parliament does the opposite of what it was supposed to do, which was to stop the Law Society from being above the law and just making the Rules up as they saw fit?

It is quite literally a travesty of justice and now the victims of Scottish crooked lawyers are being hounded and humiliated at an even faster rate than before?

Anonymous said...

Sounds as if the best thing to do is not to use any lawyer (especially Scottish lawyers) if that is what they get up to when complaints come in.

Anonymous said...

Clearly the SSDT do not bother in any way shape of form about assessing the risk of Scottish crooked lawyers reoffending?

So much so that there is a now a new legal definition for Scottish crooked lawyers who habitually reoffend?

They are called Scottish crooked BOOMERANG lawyers?

When you think you have got rid of them they seem to come straight back to haunt you again?

Anonymous said...

In the clip the SSDT say that they make a judgement as to whether anyone has been harmed?

Why on Earth would they look to excuses like this, when the conduct is of a very serious nature regardless if anyone got harmed, if they are not fishing for excuses to find a way?

Surely it is the Principle that is what should be protected?

This description implies that if they decide that in their opinion no one is harmed then despite the dodgy lawyer breaking the law and being deceptive, they let them off?

This must be the dumb logic they used to come up with the 'Borrowing Without Consent' robbers?

This could be twisted to mean that if the dodgy Scottish lawyer enriches themselves of their Client's hard earned cash, they didn't actually 'harm' anyone, they just nicked there money, so let's just let them off?

Also, if Scottish dodgy lawyers show a propensity to be cheats and deceivers but are still let off, then what standards have the SSDT followed to arrive at these decisions?

Because it is a sham?

It is a mickey-taking of the Scottish Public?

Just read the case reports on their website to see for yourself?

Anonymous said...

Who do the SSDT report to?

Anonymous said...

If the SSDT are an honest and upstanding independent Regulatory body, then why do they hand out fines and costs against crooked Scottish lawyers but then have no involvement whatsoever in collecting these monies, or even checking to see if they are ever paid?

Instead, the SSDT hand this responsibility entirely to the Law Society of Scotland, who are supposed to collect these monies from their members but they all too often can't be bothered to collect these fines?

Therefore, the SSDT are not Regulators at all because the fines & costs process is being undermined by the Law Society of Scotland, where effectively the Law Society of Scotland are then allowed to 'cherry-pick' which lawyers have to pay up and which lawyers are allowed to get off Scot Free?

Of course, this is fraud and attempting to defeat the course of justice and just emboldens their member crooked Scottish lawyers to continue their campaigns of crime against the Scottish Public because they are continually let off Scot Free?

All happily done before breakfast in the World of the Law Society of Scotland?

Anonymous said...

Are the Law Society's SSDT in contravention of Article 6 of the ECHR which states that there must be equality of arms and that a defendant must receive a fair hearing?

The Law Society's SSDT is a closed-shop outfit, held in secret behind closed doors. It is not consistent in it's decisions, is highly subjective and has conflicts about what dishonesty and deception are and takes no interest in previous cases coming before it. They also seem to cherry-pick which pieces of evidence they call fact, whilst diminishing the rights of the client victim and finally, it is the poacher who is doing the prosecuting of their own member, where the crooked Scottish lawyer is favoured over the rights of the client victim, resulting in known crooked Scottish lawyers being let off Scot Free?


All in all, it is an unlawful group, run by an unlawful organisation and has no right to continue to operate against the Scottish public?