Wednesday, April 23, 2014

THE MAD, THE BAD & THE SAD: Scots financially ruined by rogue lawyers are ridiculed at secret briefing with Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as solicitors demand their victims should be forced to pay for complaints

Secret discussions held at ‘independent’ regulator on reducing complaints & making victims of dodgy lawyers pay for a slap on the wrist. DOCUMENTS obtained under Freedom of Information legislation have revealed that pro lawyer lobby group the Legal Defence Union (LDU), and the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which is staffed mainly by lawyers who are supposed to investigate complaints against corrupt lawyers, held private briefings where fee paying clients of dodgy Scottish solicitors were targeted & verbally abused as “mad, bad and sad” in secret discussions containing a wide variety of proposals aimed at silencing members of the public who complain against their solicitor.

And, in an effort to dissuade financially clients ruined from making complaints against their lawyers to the multi million pound SLCC which is kept afloat by contributions recouped from clients fees to the tune of nearly £3million a year, it has been proposed, with the knowledge of the Law Society of Scotland that victims of dodgy lawyers who have already been ripped off, may be forced to pay large sums of money to the regulator itself, otherwise complaints against crooked lawyers WILL NOT be investigated.

So serious are the proposals to force victims to pay for an investigation into crooked lawyers, a legal insider close to the discussions has revealed that figures as high as ONE THOUSAND POUNDS per complaint have been secretly discussed by a number of pro-lawyer groups intent on defending their colleagues from being investigated for ripping off their clients.

The plan, to force victims of dodgy lawyers to cough up even more money for regulators to investigate complaints which usually only end up with a slap on the wrist anyway, also appears to have JUDICIAL BACKING after legal insiders involved in the discussions made it clear that senior members of Scotland’s judiciary have been consulted on, and have given unofficial support to the moves aimed at preventing members of the public from being able to have any complaints against lawyers properly investigated.

One member of the judiciary, who has previously heard civil claims against solicitors in the Court of Session, and who is known to have close links to the Law Society, has even suggested the move would help prevent clients from being able to take their lawyers to court in cases the judge described in a remark as “boring, time consuming and irrelevant”.

In a further account of activities at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission days after the briefing with the Legal Defence Union had taken place, apparently staff at the regulator broke into laughter and told rounds of jokes about clients who had approached them for help after being financially ruined by their solicitors. However, there are no records of any disciplinary action being taken at the SLCC over these incidents which allegedly continue to present day.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has not published or made any comment on why clients who approach the regulator for help in dealing with rogue solicitors continue to be treated in this way by its staff and organisations which influence the regulator’s day to day workings, including how complaints are investigated.

And it is still the case that many clients of Scottish solicitors who approach the SLCC for help are often treated to a months, if sometimes years long hell where often complex complaints alleging fraud committed by Scottish solicitors are curiously ditched after lawyers have their say.

You may be mad, bad or sad, but only after your lawyer took all your money – Secret Legal Defence Union briefing to regulator says spare the lawyer, fleece the client for a little more.

Guiding Principle

The LDU believe that it is an essential requirement of any complaints process that it is fair and impartial and seen to be fair and impartial both to the complainer and the complained against party. That is the starting point and guiding principle in considering any amendment of the 2007 Act.

Meeting on 21 March

I have reported back on the notes of the meeting on 21st March to my colleagues in the Legal Defence Union but there has not been opportunity for response for the meeting planned today.There is one point however upon which I would like to comment on immediately. That is in relation to point 4 - third party complaints.

Third Party Complaints

... are a source of a great concern not only to the LDU Board but also to practitioners in general who express horror and disbelief that such a "wide" definition is allowed.

I am greatly encouraged that the group have identified that these are in the main impractical and a cause for concern to practitioners and I agree that they mismanage expectations of complainers.

I am willing to be corrected but I do not think that this applies to other professions like Accountants, Architects or Surveyors. It is also a source of abuse towards practitioners.

"The Elephant in the room"

1. This touches upon the thing that nobody seems to want to talk about. Most complaint systems are bedevilled by complaints by the mad, the bad and the sad and which may have no basis. We believe the time has been reached for a sum of money to be lodged as a "good faith deposit" towards expenses in such cases.

2. There is no doubt that if a complainer had something to lose then his mind would become focused on whether he would wish to proceed with a complaint. In practice the idea would be that the good faith deposit would be returned if the complaint was upheld but otherwise would be forfeit.

3. Perhaps this goes too far for the present WG but I make no apology for bringing this issue up and I really would welcome a debate on this problem that no one wants to talk about, probably as Complaint bodies do not want to be the first to do so. It is a general point for all complaints processes. There is constant abuse of complaint processes and someone needs to tackle it.

Third party complaints against Solicitors are such an unusual concept and the subject of such abuse by complainers that we do think that a financial incentive or disincentive is required. Ideally this should be related to the cost in processing a complaint that is unsuccessful but as a first step any financial penalty would be of assistance in deterring unjustified complaints by third parties.

Other suggestions

1) In addition to exclusion of "vexatious" and "frivolous" "totally without merit" complaint there should also be excluded, (in relation to third party complaints only) complaints where the Solicitor is simply doing his job. The current test of whether the complainer has been affected by the Solicitor's actings is far too wide. If a Solicitors letter or cross-examination etc does not affect another person then the Solicitor is not doing his job!

The Solicitor's job is to represent his own client and that may involve telling another person truths that the other person will not like. Cross-examination by a Solicitor frequently is designed to challenge a witness's account or truthfulness and has to be robust. Therefore excluding complaints about the Solicitor doing his job would assist.

2) Also "totally without merit" is very difficult to demonstrate and a new wording could be say, "without substantial (and demonstrable?) merit". Do not forget that third parties can sue the solicitor if they can prove their case but the Complaints process main purpose is to ease complaints by the client not a third party and the two should not be equated.

Points raised by James McCann - Chairman of LDU

1. IPS awards and compliance by "set-off,.

The right of the Solicitor to exercise a right of "set-off" was generally accepted by the Law Society of Scotland (LSS) under the former complaints regime although it never needed to be determined by a Court judgement so far as we know. It is a general matter that applies not just to Solicitors but to anybody in a debtor and creditor relationship and is an invariable aspect of business dealings at common law and under a very old Compensation Act.

The basic idea of course is that if the Solicitor is owed money by the client then any IPS award should be set off so as to reduce the amount that the Solicitor has to pay or to reduce the amount which the complainer has to pay to the Solicitor.

This is at variance with SLCC policy document in paras 4.45 to 4.57. This appears to be ultra vires of SLCC. It is difficult to see why SLCC should want to remove or limit such a common sense and time honoured device as set off. Indeed in mediation cases the complaint issue and the claim for balance of fees are incorporated as natural parts of the same discussion and that is certainly so in the vast majority of conciliations that are reached so as to settle a complaint even before it comes to SLCC.

2. Anonymous committees.

There are still anonymous committees sitting on determination of service complaints. Under the former complaints regime LSS published the people who sit on various committees. The new SLCC procedures appears to have taken a step back.

An SLCC Case Investigator (who is indentified) will often produce a commendably detailed and careful analysis of the file and find no basis for criticising the Solicitor. It can be infuriating when (after the Solicitor through his advisor accepts that recommendation as a sensible and practical way of dealing with the case) you can suddenly receive from an anonymous committee an unexplained decision which reverses what the Case Investigator has done. Often when that new and adverse view appears in the form of a draft determination an advisor might try to change it but it is too late.

The LDU do not think there is any place for anonymous committees in a modern regulatory system. We frequently hear the term "transparent" policies and procedures and this has to be a cornerstone of any fair and impartial complaints service

3. Hybrid complaints.

The method of dealing with these is absurd.

The problem is that there is a complete lack of sift at the point in time when cases are going to LSS. The Act provides for an appeal but this has to be taken back at the beginning of the whole procedure when the matter comes through the single gateway at SLCC.

A client could put in a list of 10 to 15 headings of complaint of which two or three are deemed potentially "hybrid". It makes no sense at all to be appealing the admission of any conduct elements at that stage when they are only a "add on" to the whole list of service issues and where on any view the service issues are going to be admitted for consideration.

Once the service issues are resolved there is then the hybrid issue having to go all the way through the LSS system as they were seen at the original point of admission (perhaps a year or so before) as having some conduct element. It is expensive for LSS and indeed for the LDU to pay for a process which (assuming all the service headings have been dismissed in the first place) seems hardly likely to produce a conduct issue for LSS. Surely the construction of a conduct (sift) at the point in time when the supposed conduct issues are actually going to LSS could be devised and constructed.

4. Duty to liaise and consult

We have concerns that Section 5 of the 2007 Act imposing a duty on the SLCC and LSS to liaise and consult is not visible and not being maximised.

Section 5 can only be construed as intending a careful process at the point of admission of a conduct issue against the Solicitor and effectively a duty to sit out non complaints.

END OF PAPER

FRIENDS TOGETHER - LEGAL DEFENCE UNION & ‘INDEPENDENT’ REGULATOR:

The Legal Defence Union’s briefing to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is part of a history where the LDU and the SLCC have met to shape policy.

An earlier investigation by Diary of Injustice into dealings between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Legal Defence Union, -  linked to blocked criminal prosecutions of legal aid fraudster lawyers and the suicide of a married Oban family man in the SLCC’s 2009 report into the Master Policy, revealed a series of cosy meetings between the regulator & pro-lawyer lobby group at expensive Edinburgh hotels which the heads of both organisations agreed to keep off the record and away from public gaze. Read more here: Investigation reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's links, secret 'off the record' dealings with lawyers lobby group Legal Defence Union

Lawyer pocketed 600K Legal Aid in Two Years Sunday Mail March 27 2011

Legal Defence Union helped negotiate away Legal Aid complaints against soliictor accused of nearly £700K claims. The Legal Defence Union has also found itself in the media spotlight during an investigation into Niels S Lockhart, a Kilmarnock sole practising solicitor who scooped nearly £700K of legal aid funds in three years, and was only stopped after the Scottish Legal Aid Board filed complaints to the Law Society of Scotland. The Legal Defence Union ultimately brokered a secret deal between SLAB and the Law Society which allowed Lockhart to remove himself from the legal aid register.

Niels Lockhart was the subject of lengthy investigations by the Scottish Legal Aid Board which were uncovered by Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper, reported earlier here : One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case

The Legal Defence Union then intervened again when the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission received complaints against Niels Lockhart, featured in an article here: SCANDAL : Legal Defence Union intervene in SLCC investigation over £670K Legal Aid lawyer who made Pensioner HOMELESS, STARVED to pay legal bills

Diary of Injustice also published the Scottish Legal Aid Board’s S31 complaint report on Niels Lockhart to the Law Society of Scotland, also obtained after a Freedom of Information disclosure, here : SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD S31 COMPLAINT REPORT TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND : NIELS S LOCKHART

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

The mere existence of these kinds of comments at what is supposed to be an independent regulator is enough to call into question the SLCC's credibility and any impartiality it claims to have.

Taking the other articles into account I believe the SLCC should be scrapped and a fully independent body created to investigate and punish lawyers who fail their clients.

Anonymous said...

Well Mr Legal Defence Union your members usually rip people off for a lot of money anyway and not just a few pence so I think you have covered the complaints deposit on your own!
I always thought the workers at the SLCC have a good laugh about people who go to them for help because this is all about lawyers looking after their own and this just confirms it.

Anonymous said...

"So serious are the proposals to force victims to pay for an investigation into crooked lawyers, a legal insider close to the discussions has revealed that figures as high as ONE THOUSAND POUNDS per complaint have been secretly discussed by a number of pro-lawyer groups intent on defending their colleagues from being investigated for ripping off their clients."

and they can stuff that

The SLCC is already paid for by lawyers ripping off clients even more so no £1000 or anything else and anyway why pay any money to the SLCC when all they are doing to do is side with the lawyer anyway?

Rotten to the core all of it

Anonymous said...

I though the SLCC were going to turn over a new leaf under new boss Bill Brackenridge and board member Kevin Dunion?

Seems not.

Surely Mr Dunion must have something to say about what this bunch of creeps are up to while ruining all our lives so their lawyer mates only get a slap on the wrist or more like a wad of notes in a brown envelope.

Anonymous said...

Solicitors demand their victims should be forced to pay for complaints.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not at all surprised by this. So you have paid with your soul and the bastards still want more. If any statement highlighted people must stop using lawyers and their corrupt setup lawyers victims paying for complaints is it. But they know there is no complaints system anyway, stay away from these warped freaks. Like Ian Duncan Smith wants people to pay £260.00 to challenge medical assessment decisions by Atos, lawyers want clients ££££££££££ for complaining so that clients and the sick in each case cannot complain or challenge decisions. In other words the sick are pushed to the periphery of citizenship and lawyers clients likewise and that is a place where only those stripped of rights are pushed. To be human and be stripped of rights means people become things to be abused as their enemies see fit.

Anonymous said...

So stop going to lawyers everyone if you can really help it.Do you really need to throw thousands at a lawyer and get nothing back except a lot of grief and then scumbags like this in regulators who want more of your money for doing sod all?

If you dont feed the beast to start with it will get thin very quickly and go bankrupt.

PS thank god you took off that horrible captcha!

Anonymous said...

So serious are the proposals to force victims to pay for an investigation into crooked lawyers, a legal insider close to the discussions has revealed that figures as high as ONE THOUSAND POUNDS per complaint have been secretly discussed by a number of pro-lawyer groups intent on defending their colleagues from being investigated for ripping off their clients.
=====================================================
£1000.00 additional reasons you must stay away from lawyers, complain if you want but far better to avoid these warped power mad freaks than risk everything. Remember Gill wants secrecy, and as we see here a secret meeting has resulted in proposals to charge you to complain. They aim to take away your ability to act against them. So if someone pays £1000.00 to complain that will be an additional £1000.00 loss to what they have lost already, they are unintentionally warning the public to avoid them like the plague.

I am convinced many of the people in this profession have mental problems, I mean they are not reachable or as lawyers say there is no meeting of the minds. Clients there is no point using lawyers and the courts because they want to be allowed to rob you or as their twisted Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal state Scottish lawyers don't steal they "borrow without consent. " Someone who steals a lawyers car should use that as a defence in court, they would be thrown in the cells.

Anonymous said...

Didnt hear any of this mentioned on the beeb's show about lawyers behaving badly.Another of the conveniently forgotten things was it?

Is it true anyone who has a copy of the lawyers behaving badly show is to be charged and shot at dawn?

Anonymous said...

The plan, to force victims of dodgy lawyers to cough up even more money for regulators to investigate complaints which usually only end up with a slap on the wrist anyway, also appears to have JUDICIAL BACKING after legal insiders involved in the discussions made it clear that senior members of Scotland’s judiciary have been consulted on, and have given unofficial support to the moves aimed at preventing members of the public from being able to have any complaints against lawyers properly investigated.

No surprise there - Judges are just jumped up lawyers in robes and wigs anyway and always want to protect their brethren lower down the line - you see it in court every day and dont bother denying it please.

One member of the judiciary, who has previously heard civil claims against solicitors in the Court of Session, and who is known to have close links to the Law Society, has even suggested the move would help prevent clients from being able to take their lawyers to court in cases the judge described in a remark as “boring, time consuming and irrelevant”.

Again no surprise.The judge probably has shares in the lawyer's law firm or the insurance company so its just a time wasting exercise although the judge will make the client pay for bringing it to court wont he!

£50,000 and your house repossessed by your own law firm for trying to sue your former lawyer.The judge probably gets a bung at the end of it or even your house on the cheap.We all know how it goes dont bother to deny!

Anonymous said...

The Law Society is like a snake dangerous and venomous so they put it in a new package called The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Clients do not expect fair treatment from lawyers, this is what people need to realize they are utterly corrupt because they know their buddies receiving the complaint letters will sit on them. That is why they designed the system this way.

I expect to be ruined because I have been there before and never will again. There is not one lawyer in Scotland I would trust, they are all the same, robbing rats because there is no checks on their corruption. You pay, they laugh all the way to the bank.

Anonymous said...

If it were not something to do with lawyers covering up for each other those documents would be front page news because what they are doing is harassing and intimidating people who are already victims into keeping silent about what happened to them

Anonymous said...

"The Mad the Bad and the Sad"

Sounds like this fits the judges better than anyone else if you look at the bench and see their seething red faces all scrunched up and teeth visible just waiting for someone to say something bad about a lawyer or one of their pals.

Anyway not the kind of thing we were told to expect from this slcc is it so better scrap it MacAskill and give complaints over to real people who have nothing to do with lawyers.

Anonymous said...

"You may be mad, bad or sad, but only after your lawyer took all your money"

Got it in one and after they take your money and you realise you have been ripped off they want to charge you for investigating it and giving out a slap on the wrist!

Incredible!

Anonymous said...

I am not surprised judges have been consulted on such a radical move to force people to pay for complaints against their own solicitors.

Needless to say I hope these revelations make people thing twice about even bothering to use a lawyer when it is now so clear they hold us all in such contempt.

Anonymous said...

Victims of dodgy lawyers who have already been ripped off, may be forced to pay large sums of money to the regulator itself, otherwise complaints against crooked lawyers WILL NOT be investigated...............

Complaints are never investigated we know what we are up against this lawyer scum. A professional poison chalice, only the insane or naive trust lawyers. I would not go into a law firms office never mind trust them. Go use a lawyer and when they shaft you the complaints system will shaft you again. The best way to beat them is to avoid them.

Anonymous said...

The comments and the idea to charge would not even have been made in the first place if it did not have the backing of the Law Society or some at the SLCC itself.

You as well as I know exactly who is behind the LDU so there is little doubt they mean business.

Anonymous said...

Former paralegal here and I can tell you this is mild compared with what I have heard partners call clients behind their backs.If the public bother to read your blog on what actually happens to their funds and their cases people could save themselves a fortune and a lot of angst.

The rest is slightly off topic but please hear me out as you will find it interesting.

As for me well my life has turned around completely since I got out of the industry.The solicitor I worked for was cautioned for the attempted rape of an intern who was only two days into the job.Imagine anyone receiving a caution for attempted rape.Only a solicitor with a friend in the Crown Office.When his wife found out he blamed the victim.I doubt the Lord Advocate will ever go before the Justice Committee and tell them how his staff handled that one.

Carry on!

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely astonishing in its bare faced cheek and brassed neck?

It is amazing that this character is able to leave his house each morning, as by the sounds of it he would argue with himself in the mirror for half an hour as he was straightening his tie?

Talk about Mad, Bad and Sad, this guy manages all three all by himself?

What a complete irrelevance this Client hater is?

Diary of Injustice said...

@ 23 April 2014 16:08

Yes ... and it seems they were able to co-opt some judicial support with incredible ease ...

@ 23 April 2014 17:29

On the off topic details, if you want to contact the blog and identify the solicitor involved in the caution and who at the Crown Office was involved in the case, email via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

@ 23 April 2014 19:08

The remarks contained in the LDU briefing are part a long history of anti-client behaviour at the 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which sadly extends from Board Members to staff ...

Anonymous said...

I am surprised you are able to publish with such honesty!
Clearly you have the right sources and a lot of influence to be able to come up with this kind of detail and the hard evidence to match.Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
So serious are the proposals to force victims to pay for an investigation into crooked lawyers, a legal insider close to the discussions has revealed that figures as high as ONE THOUSAND POUNDS per complaint have been secretly discussed by a number of pro-lawyer groups intent on defending their colleagues from being investigated for ripping off their clients.
=====================================================
£1000.00 additional reasons you must stay away from lawyers, complain if you want but far better to avoid these warped power mad freaks than risk everything. Remember Gill wants secrecy, and as we see here a secret meeting has resulted in proposals to charge you to complain. They aim to take away your ability to act against them. So if someone pays £1000.00 to complain that will be an additional £1000.00 loss to what they have lost already, they are unintentionally warning the public to avoid them like the plague.

I am convinced many of the people in this profession have mental problems, I mean they are not reachable or as lawyers say there is no meeting of the minds. Clients there is no point using lawyers and the courts because they want to be allowed to rob you or as their twisted Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal state Scottish lawyers don't steal they "borrow without consent. " Someone who steals a lawyers car should use that as a defence in court, they would be thrown in the cells.

23 April 2014 14:38
//////////////////////////////////

Great advice. Absolute truth.

Unfortunately, this LDU clown is one of the more less severe Scottish lawyers?

This just goes to show just how much they detest their clients?

They simply cannot stand their clients and will do everything unlawfully to make sure they become a victim of their hate?

It is incredible that these people are allowed to get away with terrible crimes against their clients and at the same time they are convinced it is their right to rob you of your money?

Scottish lawyers believe that they are entitled to all of your money because there are no rules to stop them?

This propaganda that is being spouted is barmy and bears no relation to the reality?

This is the result of the Law Society being above the law and now ALL of the 'investigating' staff at the SLCC are lawyers or related to lawyers?

This plan to rob another £1000 from victimised clients is just sick and to think that they are giggling about it and cracking jokes at the expense of people they have cheated shows how malevolent these Scottish lawyers are?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The plan, to force victims of dodgy lawyers to cough up even more money for regulators to investigate complaints which usually only end up with a slap on the wrist anyway, also appears to have JUDICIAL BACKING after legal insiders involved in the discussions made it clear that senior members of Scotland’s judiciary have been consulted on, and have given unofficial support to the moves aimed at preventing members of the public from being able to have any complaints against lawyers properly investigated.

No surprise there - Judges are just jumped up lawyers in robes and wigs anyway and always want to protect their brethren lower down the line - you see it in court every day and dont bother denying it please.

One member of the judiciary, who has previously heard civil claims against solicitors in the Court of Session, and who is known to have close links to the Law Society, has even suggested the move would help prevent clients from being able to take their lawyers to court in cases the judge described in a remark as “boring, time consuming and irrelevant”.

Again no surprise.The judge probably has shares in the lawyer's law firm or the insurance company so its just a time wasting exercise although the judge will make the client pay for bringing it to court wont he!

£50,000 and your house repossessed by your own law firm for trying to sue your former lawyer.The judge probably gets a bung at the end of it or even your house on the cheap.We all know how it goes dont bother to deny!

23 April 2014 14:47
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

The Judge who uttered these offensive and callous words should be sacked on the spot?

This is how far into the gutter Scotland has fallen, when Scottish lawyers are allowed to run amok, leaving broken lives and suicide in their wake, especially on the day that the comical Joker MacRaskill decided to keep the Pedophile's Charter just the way it is?

Interesting how he meekly did what he was told by Scottish Judges?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Former paralegal here and I can tell you this is mild compared with what I have heard partners call clients behind their backs.If the public bother to read your blog on what actually happens to their funds and their cases people could save themselves a fortune and a lot of angst.

The rest is slightly off topic but please hear me out as you will find it interesting.

As for me well my life has turned around completely since I got out of the industry.The solicitor I worked for was cautioned for the attempted rape of an intern who was only two days into the job.Imagine anyone receiving a caution for attempted rape.Only a solicitor with a friend in the Crown Office.When his wife found out he blamed the victim.I doubt the Lord Advocate will ever go before the Justice Committee and tell them how his staff handled that one.

Carry on!

23 April 2014 17:29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

You have to name names, otherwise these Scottish lawyers will continue to be above the law and continue to break the law with impunity and tear lives apart?

Maybe this case was the reason the dead-cert of abolishing Corroboration has been conveniently shelved without even the slightest whimper?

An 180 degree about turn!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The Law Society is like a snake dangerous and venomous so they put it in a new package called The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Clients do not expect fair treatment from lawyers, this is what people need to realize they are utterly corrupt because they know their buddies receiving the complaint letters will sit on them. That is why they designed the system this way.

I expect to be ruined because I have been there before and never will again. There is not one lawyer in Scotland I would trust, they are all the same, robbing rats because there is no checks on their corruption. You pay, they laugh all the way to the bank.

23 April 2014 14:58
****+********++*******

You are 100% correct.

In the rancour prior to sneaking through the LPLA Act 2007, which brought the SLCC into existence, an MSP gave testimony to a Holyrood Committee, '...this Legislation is not about stopping the Law Society of Scotland from controlling client complaints, it is about changing the perception of the Public to make them think that the Law Society have been told to relinquish their control....'

Corruption followed by criminal conduct?

Anonymous said...

This is what is commonly referred to as a phoney bone of contention?

When some constipated Luddite is wheeled out to bitch and moan about the SLCC, how they are all 100% anti lawyer, as a deliberate mind-game to make you believe that there must be some truth to what is being peddled?

The truth is that the SLCC is the Law Society of Scotland?

They collude with the Law Society of Scotland and break the law to get rid of the most serious cases, especially where the Law Society of Scotland themselves are guilty of breaking the law, which happens all the time?

They can get away with breaking the law because they are ABOVE THE LAW?

These criminals have been BORROWING WITHOUT CONSENT and getting off with it for so long that it is now all out open warfare on all client victims of crooked Scottish lawyers?

There is no stopping them and don't they know it?

Anonymous said...

"There is no doubt that if a complainer had something to lose then his mind would become
focused on whether he would wish to proceed with a complaint. In practice the idea would
be that the good faith deposit would be returned if the complaint was upheld but otherwise
would be forfeit"

This sounds more like blackmail than an attempt at good faith.In any case the SLCC and these sleazy lawyers cannot be trusted with anyone's money just as much as a crooked lawyer likes to steal from their clients.

It is ridiculous this is happening at what is supposed to be an independent regulator.

Anonymous said...

As the first comment says there is no place for remarks like these at a regulator no matter how close to the legal profession it is.
Obviously people who are trapped in a situation of their lawyers making are not getting a fair hearing of complaints and with staff having this kind of an attitude it is unlikely any rogue lawyer is going to be dealt with appropriately.

Anonymous said...

It is utter madness to trust these lawyer freaks, they are nutters because they ruin their clients and get angry when the client wants justice. Utter freaks drunk on their own self regulatory power.

Go into one of their offices and ask them to sue another lawyer then they are like the characters in the series Grim where the monster behind the mask manifests itself, the warm atmosphere instantly turns frosty. I know this because I have tried it and I will never enter into another law firm's premises in my life. They taught me there is no protection for clients because the whole Scottish legal profession are a team. Utter scum I worship the ground that is coming to them.

Anonymous said...

Some clients say I am going to see my lawyer. Well clients do not have lawyers, they have enemies, because the aforementioned lawyers knows they can steal all the client has and there is no comeback, only protection for the lawyer to target another unsuspecting member of the public.

Peter is right the only solution is not to proceed in civil cases, they courts are not there to get you justice. They are the lawyers, sheriffs and judges money making racket.

Litigation means millions for lawyers and £0.00 compensation for you. If you doubt me try it. Many have and all have failed. And notice another thing about this blog, lawyers never refute the allegations made on it because they know ex clients and the DOI team are telling the truth. Stay the hell away from lawyers or you risk being destitute and ruined.

Anonymous said...

Ouch!
This one is going to hurt the SLCC!

Anonymous said...

You did well to publish this document because I checked this morning and the Law Society have been lobbying behind the scenes for a required £500 payment when a complaint is filed with the SLCC.
I am sure this will shock people who end up having to make a complaint about their solicitor after their legal affairs are left in a mess.However now you have taken it on and put this document in the public domain I doubt the legal profession will have their way - particularly after the terms used by the Legal Defence Union to describe clients of solicitors.
Well done!

Anonymous said...

This shows you the type of people the SLCC are doing deals with behind the Scottish Public's back?

Kevin Dunion, all of your good work as Scotland's Information Commissioner has now been flushed down the pan and you are now lumped together with all the rest of the crooks at the Law Society's SLCC for deceiving and colluding against the Scottish Public.

As the joke goes, as Luigi the Boatbuilder infamously said.....and it was just one sheep......!

Anonymous said...

This LDU nutter should be outed and made to try to substantiate his verbal tripe in Public, not bitching behind the bikeshed with the other girls?

Anonymous said...

Can you see what is being proposed in 3) of the fix?

That the legislation is wrong and that the best way to deal with complaints is not to have them decided upon by the SLCC for Bad Service - long list of Bad Service Heads of Complaint?

He argues it would make far better sense (to him) that the Law Society & the LDU (note how he mentions them together in the same breath!) should get the chance to Sift the Conduct Complaints?

Presumably he is referring to the word Sift as the unlawful ruse that was called the Law Society of Scotland's Sifting Panel (did this even exist in reality)?

This Sifting Panel (made up of a secret duo) was a thinly disguised Scam to get rid of serious legitimate Heads of Complaint which caught the crooked Scottish lawyer and often the Law Society themselves out committing criminal conduct, therefore they Had to get rid of the complaint using this Scam?

So he wants the Law Society of Scotland and the LDU to have a chance to wipe-out the Conduct Complaint Heads of Complaint against the crooked Scottish lawyer, thereby extinguishing all of the Bad Service Heads of Complaint in the process?

This is obviously highly unlawful, no surprise there I hear you say but you see the reason for this huffy and shrieking objection is that the DOI Journalists have forced the SLCC's hand into fining these crooked lawyers (even though the fines are pitifully low and inadequate) and it is now hitting these crooked Scottish lawyers in the pocket?

The moral of the story is, if you entrust the policing of crooked Scottish lawyers by professional liars and crooks, then do not be surprised if you end up with what we have at the moment, the diminution of professional standards into the gutter and create an underclass of lawyer who values personal enrichment over everything else and has been handed a limitless supply of Get Out Of Jail Free Cards?

Anonymous said...

"4. Duty to liaise and consult

We have concerns that Section 5 of the 2007 Act imposing a duty on the SLCC and LSS to liaise and consult is not visible and not being maximised."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

......I am sorry, my ribs are sore I have been laughing so much at the above....

Everyone knows already that the Law Society of Scotland and the SLCC collude with each other to defeat the ends of justice to get-rid-of serious valid complaints against crooked Scottish lawyers and to get-rid-of serious valid complaints that expose the Law Society of Scotland, hook, line and sinker of criminal conduct in keeping known crooked Scottish lawyers out of jail?

All a matter of documented fact and that the Law Society of Scotland and the SLCC are desperately trying to keep from the police and the Press?

Anonymous said...

In the rancour prior to sneaking through the LPLA Act 2007, which brought the SLCC into existence, an MSP gave testimony to a Holyrood Committee, '...this Legislation is not about stopping the Law Society of Scotland from controlling client complaints, it is about changing the perception of the Public to make them think that the Law Society have been told to relinquish their control....'

Corruption followed by criminal conduct?
========================================================
Yes as I said before and as Peter found out there is no complaints system. The SLCC is a polished expensive front with the Law Society infestation and I believe these people have no empathy at all for their victims. On the contrary I believe they relish robbing clients and covering it up. The Scottish Legal Establishment are obsessed with secrecy and self protection to the extent clients are convinced like I am there is no complaints system. I mean take the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal phraseology 'borrowing without consent' is a perversion of the reality, little wonder punishment if it happens is a slap on the wrist. They have created a system which protects them all, a system the client has no power against other than to repudiate lawyers. And they call the shots in Parliament too so do we have a democracy when voting will not protect the public?

Anonymous said...

And this site like the Law Society of Scotland has its own agenda, it censors anything it does not like, refuses to allow anything to be published unless it is what the blog operator wants to here, it is no better than the corrupt Criminal Law Society of Scotland. A massive propaganda machine.

Anonymous said...

"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
========================================================
Yes and although Frantz Fanon the Psychiatrist was writing during the Algerian dissent against French colonization his argument holds true of the legal profession today. They will be the last to see clients have separated the myth of client protection through self regulation. Lawyers cannot accept they are corrupt, it reviles them I am convinced this is the case. Self regulation was devised not because lawyers and geniuses but on the contrary as a method of hiding organized crime. The armed bank robber is conspicuous, he can hide behind a mask. But self regulation is not conspicuous and is legalized crime because in the lawyers world there are no crimes because there is no law enforcement. To the lawyer clients are not people, they are stock to be used for their greedy purposes and pushed aside and persecuted for daring to complain about the crook who robbed them.

Anonymous said...

Oh well no doubt about it now the lawyers are running the supposedly independent SLCC
Dont bother expecting a fair hearing from that client lynching mob now you have read the truth of what they think of you all in their own words

Anonymous said...

This just goes to show how much naked contempt these wrist-slappers have for the victims of crooked Scottish lawyers?

Anonymous said...

Scots financially ruined by rogue lawyers are ridiculed at secret briefing with Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as solicitors demand their victims should be forced to pay for complaints.
==================================================
Many lawyers consider their clients to be idiots but I think they hate their clients too, especially ones who complain about them. But lawyers know they have nothing to worry about because the fact is there is no complaints system, therefore no protection for clients. If a complaints system protected clients lawyers would reject DOI's reports but they never do. People need to learn the courts are not there to provide justice, the complaints structures are there to protect lawyers so stay away from law firms and shut them down. A system that steals all you have and then locks you out of the courts is thoroughly corrupt. Lawyers specialize in removing your rights to protect the careers of people who really belong in prison. A lawyer is simply a legalized thief.

Anonymous said...

Alex Salmond insisted he had "enormous confidence" in his justice secretary, as opposition parties attacked Kenny MacAskill over his handling of the proposal to abolish the general rule for corroboration, on 24 April 2014.

The controversial plans to end the need for evidence in Scottish criminal trials to come from two sources have been put on hold for at least a year by Mr MacAskill.

Detailed scrutiny of plans to ditch the general requirement for corroboration will not go forward until after a review is completed in April 2015.

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont asked if the first minister still had full confidence in the justice secretary, after what she termed as Mr MacAskill's "disgraceful performance" in the chamber six weeks ago and after his "embarrassing climb down" in agreeing to opposition demands to delay the legislation.
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
I have no confidence in any of our MSP's all Law Society stooges, especially MacAskill and Sturgeon. The Law Society and the Judiciary are the hidden Scottish Government, they call the shots. Gill does not want an end to Corroboration in Criminal trials but demands secrecy for himself and his faction. Some legal system, it reeks of corruption and the Sheep cannot see it.

Anonymous said...

"fair and impartial"

What a liar!

Anonymous said...

Imagine any business for example the supermarkets or car dealer stating you cannot complain about a member of staff without paying a fee. How many customers would they have?

Lawyers are telling the public stay away from us because we are crooked bastards. Pure control freaks, they want to control everything even the clients mind if they could. Crazy bastards.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
And this site like the Law Society of Scotland has its own agenda, it censors anything it does not like, refuses to allow anything to be published unless it is what the blog operator wants to here, it is no better than the corrupt Criminal Law Society of Scotland. A massive propaganda machine.

25 April 2014 03:49
nobnobnobnobnobnobno

Truth hurts!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Scots financially ruined by rogue lawyers are ridiculed at secret briefing with Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as solicitors demand their victims should be forced to pay for complaints.
==================================================
Many lawyers consider their clients to be idiots but I think they hate their clients too, especially ones who complain about them. But lawyers know they have nothing to worry about because the fact is there is no complaints system, therefore no protection for clients. If a complaints system protected clients lawyers would reject DOI's reports but they never do. People need to learn the courts are not there to provide justice, the complaints structures are there to protect lawyers so stay away from law firms and shut them down. A system that steals all you have and then locks you out of the courts is thoroughly corrupt. Lawyers specialize in removing your rights to protect the careers of people who really belong in prison. A lawyer is simply a legalized thief.

26 April 2014 11:24
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Did you realise that every time the SSDT has found a lawyer guilty and passed a Sanction on them or fined them, that they play zero part in ensuring that their Decisions are being complied with?

Wait for it......they apparently Trust the Word of the Law Society of Scotland that these crooked Scottish lawyers have been dealt with but they do not bother to check?

This means that the SSDT's Decisions for years have not been worth the paper they are written on?

If this unlawful situation has been going on for years at the SSDT, then why on earth would we think that the Law Society's SLCC are not doing exactly the same?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Alex Salmond insisted he had "enormous confidence" in his justice secretary, as opposition parties attacked Kenny MacAskill over his handling of the proposal to abolish the general rule for corroboration, on 24 April 2014.

The controversial plans to end the need for evidence in Scottish criminal trials to come from two sources have been put on hold for at least a year by Mr MacAskill.

Detailed scrutiny of plans to ditch the general requirement for corroboration will not go forward until after a review is completed in April 2015.

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont asked if the first minister still had full confidence in the justice secretary, after what she termed as Mr MacAskill's "disgraceful performance" in the chamber six weeks ago and after his "embarrassing climb down" in agreeing to opposition demands to delay the legislation.
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
I have no confidence in any of our MSP's all Law Society stooges, especially MacAskill and Sturgeon. The Law Society and the Judiciary are the hidden Scottish Government, they call the shots. Gill does not want an end to Corroboration in Criminal trials but demands secrecy for himself and his faction. Some legal system, it reeks of corruption and the Sheep cannot see it.

26 April 2014 11:36
///////////////////////////////////////

This latest disgrace proves one thing, that he is always happy to be someone's bitch?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Imagine any business for example the supermarkets or car dealer stating you cannot complain about a member of staff without paying a fee. How many customers would they have?

Lawyers are telling the public stay away from us because we are crooked bastards. Pure control freaks, they want to control everything even the clients mind if they could. Crazy bastards.

26 April 2014 22:18
############################

I overheard a couple of lawyers at lunch on Friday talking disparagingly about some of their clients, boasting that they double and even triple-billed them to screw even more money out of them and were laughing and toasting each other with expensive red wine in the process?

Is it not about time, if you are unfortunate enough to have to go to a Scottish lawyer to take in a stop-watch and record exactly how long it is that they actually give their legal advice?

So, if you explain your situation and ask them to advise you accordingly, this is what you should pay for, not a massively ramped-up fat-fee to cover boozy lunches whereby they laugh at your expense afterwards?

If this legal advice takes 6 minutes, then guess what you owe them (one tenth of £100) = £10

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Imagine any business for example the supermarkets or car dealer stating you cannot complain about a member of staff without paying a fee. How many customers would they have?

Lawyers are telling the public stay away from us because we are crooked bastards. Pure control freaks, they want to control everything even the clients mind if they could. Crazy bastards.

26 April 2014 22:18
############################

I overheard a couple of lawyers at lunch on Friday talking disparagingly about some of their clients, boasting that they double and even triple-billed them to screw even more money out of them and were laughing and toasting each other with expensive red wine in the process?

Is it not about time, if you are unfortunate enough to have to go to a Scottish lawyer to take in a stop-watch and record exactly how long it is that they actually give their legal advice?

So, if you explain your situation and ask them to advise you accordingly, this is what you should pay for, not a massively ramped-up fat-fee to cover boozy lunches whereby they laugh at your expense afterwards?

If this legal advice takes 6 minutes, then guess what you owe them (one tenth of £100) = £10

28 April 2014 23:11
+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

£10 seems to me to be a bit on the high side...