Earlier this week, and with sights set firmly on retaking control of the floundering SLCC,- the Law Society of Scotland submitted a series of proposals for ‘reforming regulation’ to the ‘independent’ review of legal services regulation - set up by the Scottish Government last year.
The move by the Law Society of Scotland comes amid a string of court setbacks for the SLCC involving Law Society backed challenges to the single regulator’s authority to hold solicitors to account for dishonesty, poor standards of legal service, overcharging & asset stripping of clients on an industrial scale.
However, the Scottish Government backed legal review group now hearing the Law Society’s proposals – was actually created in consultation with the Law Society itself, and is comprised of pro-lawyer decision makers from the world of ‘public appointments’ along with lawyers & advocates from the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates & Crown Office.
The ‘independent' review panel – complete with an ‘independent’ chair are: Christine McLintock - immediate past president Law Society of Scotland, Alistair Morris - chief executive of the management board, Pagan Osborne (Law Society of Scotland), Laura Dunlop QC - Hastie Stables (Faculty of Advocates), Derek Ogg QC - MacKinnon Advocates (Faculty of Advocates), Neil Stevenson – chief executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Nicholas Whyte – chair of Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal, Ray Macfarlane – chair of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Jim Martin – outgoing Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, Dr Dame Denise Coia – chair of Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Prof Lorne Crerar - chairman, Harper Macleod LLP, Prof Russel Griggs - chair of the Scottish Government’s Independent Regulatory Review Group.
There is one sole ‘consumer representative’ on the review panel, listed as - Trisha McAuley OBE - independent consumer expert
Now, eager to wrestle power back from the SLCC on dealing with client complaints & consistent media coverage of woefully poor regulation of lawyers, the Law Society of Scotland has told the Scottish Government’s lawyer dominated review group that the current regulatory framework is "in drastic need of modernisation" and is "no longer fit for purpose".
One of the key proposals from the Law Society, calls for the creation of yet another ‘independent legal role’ which would have oversight of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
The SLCC was created by the Scotitsh Government in 2008, with this year marking it’s tenth year in the role of single regulator of the legal profession.
However, the single regulation model has cost the Scots public dear – with the legal regulator burning through £30 million in complaints levies from solicitors – which are recovered from huge hikes in legal fees to clients.
The newly proposed role of Ombudsman – harking back to the vile days of the “Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman” would in practice – have to be filled by a person who is approved by the Law Society of Scotland and other vested legal interests.
The comparison with the former SLSO – which lacked any real powers and frequently backed away from holding the Law Society to account for mistakes, would render the newly proposed Ombudsman position of little real use to consumers, and more of a rubber stamp to lawyers eager to look after their colleagues in the face of complaints investigations.
The Law Society is also calling for the term "lawyer" to be protected in law - in the same way the title "solicitor" is – where currently, it is a criminal offence for anybody to pretend to be a solicitor.
The move comes in the face of increased competition in business from companies & individuals who can call themselves a “lawyer” but are not qualified to the point of being a solicitor.
However, there are a number of cases were suspended or struck off solicitors have, or currently are still using the term “solicitor” to con unsuspecting members of the public out of tens of thousands of pounds of legal fees – including legal aid – yet the Law Society and SLCC have taken no action against these “solicitors” who still claim to be on the solicitors roll.
However, over the ten years since the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission came into being, at a cost of around £30 million pounds in complaints levies recouped from hikes in legal fees to clients, the SLCC, Law Society and the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal have all miserably failed to protect consumers from rogues in the legal profession who are the cause of over 1000 complaints every year to legal regulators.
The latest proposals from the Law Society – which in actuality seek to retake control of regulation - set out a series of recommendations in its submission to an independent review of legal services regulation which lawyers claim include expanding consumer protections to currently unregulated areas of legal services, regulating firms operating beyond Scotland and overhauling the legal complaints system, which it says is overly complex, expensive and lacks proper oversight.
The recommendations by the Law Society to the legal review panel whose members were approved by the Law Society, include:
- expanding consumer protections to currently unregulated areas of legal services
- better regulation of legal firms as entities in addition to the regulation of individual solicitors to better protect consumers
- new powers to suspend solicitors suspected of serious wrongdoing
- widening the Law Society’s membership to improve standards amongst other legal professionals
- protection of the term ‘lawyer’ to mean those who are legally trained and are regulated
Graham Matthews, President of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “The Scottish legal sector is highly successful. It provides for over 20,000 high quality jobs and generates over £1.2 billion for the Scottish economy annually. However we have long argued for the need for reform to the current patchwork of regulation that governs legal services in Scotland.
“There has been enormous change within the sector in recent years and the current system – some of which is almost 40 years old - is struggling to meet the demands of today’s fast-changing legal market. That’s why we have called for completely new, flexible legislation which will allow much needed reforms and ensure we have a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose, addresses the challenges of modern legal practice – from cross-border working to technological advances enabling AI legal advice - and which puts protecting consumers at its core over the long term.
“We believe the scale of the changes needed justifies a new, single piece of enabling and permissible legislation that can adapt to changes within the sector over the next four decades and beyond. Any new prescriptive legislation, or simply making further amendments to existing legislation will quickly be outdated.”
The Law Society is seeking the ability to regulate law firms operating beyond Scotland and to strengthen its regulation of firms as entities, as well as its individual solicitor members.
Mr Matthews said: “There is a strong economic case for the Law Society being able to seek to become a regulator of legal services beyond Scotland, as having a single regulatory model for cross-border firms could make Scotland a more attractive jurisdiction for a firm to base its operations. Additionally, as firms must meet robust financial compliance and new anti-money laundering requirements are due to come into effect in June, it makes sense to extend the regulatory regime on a firm-wide basis to help improve consumer protection.”
Mr Matthews added that new legislation should encompass the unregulated legal advice sector.
He said: “No one knows the full scale of the unregulated legal sector, but many consumers who believe that they have obtained advice from a qualified, regulated legal professional only find out they have no recourse to redress when things go wrong. As we look to the future, there is no doubt that technological advances will mean increasing use of artificial intelligence in delivering legal services around the globe and it’s our view that any new regulatory framework must be flexible enough to make provision for this."
In its submission, the Law Society has criticised the current legal complaints system as being complex and confusing and has called for the creation of an independent legal ombuds which would have oversight of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). Unlike the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates, the professional bodies for Scottish solicitors and advocates, which are overseen by the SLCC, there is nothing in law to stipulate oversight of the SLCC itself.
Mr Matthews said: “We want to streamline the complaints system, which for many is slow and overly bureaucratic, and have recommended that while the SLCC would continue to handle service complaints and the Law Society would continue to deal with all matters of professional discipline of Scottish solicitors, a key difference would be to allow either organisation to receive complaints and pass on those relevant to the other body to create a simpler, speedier and more cost effective process.
“Another critical improvement would be to introduce proper oversight of the SLCC. While the SLCC must submit its draft budget to the Scottish Parliament each year and ministers can make recommendations, they do not actually have the power to interfere with its budget or operation. This has led to significant, above-inflation hikes in the annual levy on Scottish solicitors for the past two years. Having an independent ombudsman would also simplify the appeals process and make it much less costly than the current process of taking appeals to the Court of Session.”
- The repeal of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and those parts of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 which relate to the regulation of legal services and for the introduction of new enabling and permissible legislation for the regulation of legal services in Scotland and the Scottish solicitor profession, with the flexibility to move with the times and which allows for proactive regulation to ensure consumer protections remain robust.
- Amending those sections of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 which relate to the regulation of legal services and the Scottish solicitor profession to address the difficulties in interpretation and application.
- A new regulatory framework allowing for the flexibility for the Society to seek approval from the Legal Services Board to be an authorised regulator for those multi-national practices operating in Scotland.
- That any new regulatory framework makes provision for the regulation of legal services provided remotely by artificial intelligence.
- Retaining an independent professional body for the regulation and professional support of the Scottish solicitor profession.
- Retaining a separate and independent discipline tribunal for decisions in serious cases of professional misconduct.
- That all legal service providers providing services direct to the consumer be regulated, strengthening consumer protections and enhancing consumer confidence in the Scottish legal sector.
- That the term ‘lawyer’ be a protected term, in the same way as solicitor, and only those able to demonstrate recognised legal qualifications, and who are regulated, are permitted to use the term.
- That primary legislation provides the permissible powers for the Law Society of Scotland to extend entity regulation to those firms wholly owned by solicitors.
- That a new system for dealing with complaints about legal services and solicitors is introduced, recognising the paramount aim to protect consumers whilst allowing the Society to continue to deal with the professional discipline of its members, and adopting relevant processes to make the system speedy, effective and efficient whilst recognising the differences between consumer redress and professional discipline.
- That primary legislation provides for the permissible power for the Law Society of Scotland to open up membership to non-solicitors.
In the Law Society of Scotland’s Public Relations strategy to retake control of complaints - Leading Legal Excellence, the legal profession sets out their ambition to secure what they call a modern, flexible and enabling legislative framework.
The Law Society Press Release also states: “Most of the legislation covering the operation and regulation of the legal market is over 35 years old. It's increasingly out of date and unfit for purpose. Whilst some reforms were brought in 2007 and 2010, the whole framework can be confusing and, in some cases, contradictory.
“That is why we believe new legislation is needed to better protect consumers and allow the Scottish legal services market to thrive.”
REGULATION REVIEW:
An independent review of the regulation of legal services was announced by the Minister of Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Annabelle Ewing on 25 April 2017.
The purpose of the review will be to make independent recommendations to reform and modernise the framework for the regulation of legal services and complaints handling. The review is intended to ensure a proportionate approach to regulation that supports growth in the legal services sector. It should also place consumer interests firmly at the heart of any system of regulation, including the competitive provision of legal services. The review will focus on the current regulatory framework, the complaints and redress process for providers of legal services including solicitors and advocates, and ongoing market issues such as investigating the benefits of regulating firms as well as individual solicitors.
A full report on the Scottish Government’s review of legal services – unmasked as a lawyer dominated pro-self regulation panel - can be found here: REGULATED REVIEW: Scottish Government panel to look at self regulation of lawyers - Former Cabinet Minister calls for review to include judiciary, and panel membership to strike ‘better balance between lawyers & non-lawyers’
The panel members who make up the so-called ‘independent’ review of legal services include:
*Two former Presidents of the Law Society of Scotland;
* The current Chief Executive of the pro-lawyer Scottish Legal Complaints Commission;
* An outgoing Scottish Public Services Ombudsman widely criticised for ineptitude;
* The current chair of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) – who struck off only six solicitors last year;
* The chair of a law firm whose partners have regularly appeared before the SSDT;
* A QC from an advocates stable where colleagues have been linked to a cash payments scandal;
* A former Crown Office Prosecutor & QC linked to events in the David Goodwillie rape case – where the victim was forced to sue her assailant through the civil courts after the Lord Advocate refused to prosecute the footballer.
More recently, MSPs who sit on the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee were subject to calls to delay their investigation of petitions calling for fully independent regulation of the legal profession in Scotland.
Proposals before the Scottish Parliament calling for views on scrapping self regulation of the legal profession in Scotland received representations from Scottish Ministers , the Chair of a pro-lawyer review panel and a Law Society-backed legal regulator – calling for MSPs to back off from investigating regulation of legal services.
Unsigned letters from the Scottish Government, the Chair of an 'independent' review group dominated by lawyers, and the pro-lawyer Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) - call on members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee to wait until the end of a two year review – conducted by lawyers - before MSPs conduct any independent investigation of lawyers investigating themselves.
However, when the Scottish Government created the ‘independent’ review last April, 2017, former Cabinet Minister Alex Neil MSP (SNP Airdrie and Shotts) said the ‘independent’ review created by the Scottish Government, should include judges - and the membership of the review team should be expanded to balance up the panel’s current top heavy legal interests membership.
And, in a case related to significant failures of legal regulation, Alex Neil branded the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) “a toothless waste of time” – after the legal services regulator failed to act in a high profile case involving a senior QC – John Campbell – who is caught up in a cash payments scandal - which has since led to information provided to journalists on other Advocates & QCs who have demanded & pocketed substantial and apparently undeclared cash sums from clients.
Video footage of the Petitions Committee’s deliberations on proposals submitted by the public to reform regulation of legal services in Scotland, can be viewed here:
Regulation of legal profession reform - Public Petitions Committee 21 September 2017
A full report on recent submissions to the Public Petitions Committee can be found here: LOOKING OUT FOR LAWYERS: Scottish Ministers unite with lawyer dominated review panel & pro-lawyer legal regulator – to urge Holyrood MSPs delay probe on proposals for independent regulation of legal services
18 comments:
More like Law Society tell their own stooges on the review they want to rip more people off and get away with it
How can anyone expect justice from lawyers looking after themselves?
LOOK AFTER THE LAWYERS: Law Society proposals to pro-lawyer legal review seek to reclaim control of regulation & complaints, appoint ‘window dressing’ ombudsman & criminalise ‘misuse’ of the term “lawyer”.....................Totalitarian bastards they are a faceless bureaucracy a tyranny without a tyrant as one political theorist wrote. The term lawyer means legalized theft of people's life savings, cover ups, domination, withdrawing representation as they see fit, with all their bent judges and MSP's who are all basically the same as the Law Society. Only the mad, the naive, or the utterly desperate would trust one of these ruthless evil bastards. And they want it to become a crime to criticize them, when they are the criminals who are a law unto themselves.
You want to know something Peter?
Every other lazy * who wrote about this forgot to mention all the Law Society actors they stuffed onto this review.
Except you included all of it AND the video of MSPs who should be looking to do something about it.
Well done as always and thanks for keeping an eye on the criminal classes who call themselves the Law Society!
See what I mean about the biased bull sh*t coverage?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-42860598
Law Society of Scotland calls for regulatory reform
The professional body for Scotland's solicitors has called for wide-ranging reforms to the way legal services are regulated.
The Law Society of Scotland claims the current regulatory framework is "in drastic need of modernisation" and is "no longer fit for purpose".
It has put forward 11 recommendations for change to an independent review of legal services regulation.
They include overhauling the legal complaints system.
The organisation argues the current system is "complex and confusing".
It has called for the creation of an independent legal role which would have oversight of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).
'Protect lawyer term'
Other recommendations include new powers to suspend solicitors suspected of serious wrongdoing and expanding consumer protections to areas of legal services that are currently unregulated.
The society is also calling for the term "lawyer" to be protected, in the same way the word "solicitor" is. It is a criminal offence for anybody to pretend to be a solicitor but there are currently no such restrictions around the use of the term "lawyer".
It also recommends that any new regulatory system "makes provision for the regulation of legal services provided remotely by artificial intelligence (AI)".
Graham Matthews, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said the society had identified 50 sections of the 1980 Solicitors (Scotland) Act which were "problematic and not fit for purpose".
He added: "There has been enormous change within the sector in recent years and the current system - some of which is almost 40 years old - is struggling to meet the demands of today's fast-changing legal market.
"That's why we have called for completely new, flexible legislation which will allow much needed reforms and ensure we have a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose, addresses the challenges of modern legal practice - from cross-border working to technological advances enabling AI legal advice - and which puts protecting consumers at its core over the long term."
'Consider recommendations'
An independent review of the regulation of legal services was announced by Legal Affairs Minister Annabelle Ewing last April.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The independent review of legal services will consider what changes may be needed to the regulation of legal services to protect consumer interests and promote a flourishing legal sector.
"We are grateful to the Law Society for their contribution ahead of the review being completed later this year. Ministers look forward to receiving the report and will consider its recommendations in due course."
The Law Society Press Release also states: “Most of the legislation covering the operation and regulation of the legal market is over 35 years old. It's increasingly out of date and unfit for purpose. Whilst some reforms were brought in 2007 and 2010, the whole framework can be confusing and, in some cases, contradictory.
“That is why we believe new legislation is needed to better protect consumers and allow the Scottish legal services market to thrive.”
==========================================================================================
All you lawyers clients out there. Try complaining to lawyers about lawyers and you will find out how they protect consumers. The Law Society are a criminal organisation who will let you die before they will help you. I really mean what I just typed. Their lawyer membership are treated like gods who must have their careers protected no matter how foul their crimes. Do not ever believe the Law Society liars, self regulation is and always was set up to protect lawyers not consumers of legal services. Send and many e mails or letters and phone calls to the Law Society, they will make sure you are left ruined and your lawyer is cleared for his crimes against you.
The Law Society want legislation to better protect consumers, when they never have been protected. Don't believe the Law Society creeps propaganda. If they told you how they really operate lawyers offices would empty.
Here is how the complaints system against lawyers works. Everywhere you go they don't want to know. I mean everywhere lawyers control everything except A Diary of Injustice.
The recommendations by the Law Society to the legal review panel whose members were approved by the Law Society, include:
expanding consumer protections to currently unregulated areas of legal services. THERE IS NO CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND NEVER WILL BE AS LONG AS LAWYERS SELF REGULATE.
better regulation of legal firms as entities in addition to the regulation of individual solicitors to better protect consumers. WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO FOOL?
new powers to suspend solicitors suspected of serious wrongdoing, NEVER HAPPENS, OH CORRECTION IT DOES IF A LAWYER STEALS FROM A LAW FIRM.
widening the Law Society’s membership to improve standards amongst other legal professionals, INCREASING THE SCOPE OF THE PROTECTION RACKET.
protection of the term ‘lawyer’ to mean those who are legally trained and are regulated, NO LAWYER IS REGULATED, TAKE REGUALTED TO MEAN PROTECTED.
THE LAW SOCIETY IS EVERY CLIENTS ENEMY. THIS BUREAUCRACY WILL COVER UP ALL LAWYERS CRIMES.
Err, is this the same lot which allows this to happen;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15917473.Scots_shell_firms_play_key_role_in_global_web_of_bribery/
If I recall correctly DOI's earlier reports confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that the SLCC was a child of the Law Society - which made sure to fill its ranks with its own personnel.
This is just another attempt to be seen to be doing something when in reality the system has always been dominated by the whims of the legal profession. It will remain so as long as there is not a truly independent regulator with no connection whatsoever to the legal profession, and with the necessary powers granted them by the travesty called the scottish parliament.
@ 3 February 2018 at 10:50
Given the Law Society of Scotland was consulted on the creation of this review, membership and remit, one would have thought the make up of the review panel and it's background would be a must mention to ensure the public are properly informed.
@ 4 February 2018 at 17:03
Indeed yes, however there appears to be a problem with that subject in that one of those involved in this issue is also involved with shell companies and questionable offshore transfers which are subject to a multi million pound claim in the Court of Session.
@ 4 February 2018 at 17:17
Quite so.The SLCC are little more than an arms length rubber stamp for the Law Society of Scotland.
In relation to several unpublished comments could the authors contact the blog regarding the cases referred to and the identities of the law firms. Thanks.
This is just another emire building excercise by Scoland's legal profession - remember the transfer of the main hall of the Court of Session ownership to the Faculty of Advocates?
It seems that Which Magazine - the so-called consumer protection organization - has become deaf, dumb and blind!
Further to the comment of 4 February 2018 at 17:03 I suggest anyone interested in the link below accesses and copies it now before it 'disappears' from the Herald website;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15917473.Scots_shell_firms_play_key_role_in_global_web_of_bribery/
Anonymous Anonymous said...
It seems that Which Magazine - the so-called consumer protection organization - has become deaf, dumb and blind!
5 February 2018 at 19:25
===================================================================================
I'm afraid its the old vested interests thats made them deaf dumb & blind you know the get out of jail free card along with the main one of course where they collect £200 pounds every time they pass GO.
Well, well well, I am tempted to respond to the legal review consultation just for fun and laughs. I would be happy to write to the petitions committee to encourage them to press on with the combined petitions about legal services, irrespective of the review outcome as they will soon learn for themselves that the review panel is indeed stuffed full of vested interests and as one of the MSP's noted, 'turkeys voting for Christmas' generally doesn't happen. My, how I laughed at the current Law Society president's press release quotes about wanting to protect the consumer. I can assure readers that there was no such concern shown when one of the partners at his legal firm let down clients so badly that he was eventually struck off by the SSDT - and we know how rarely that happens. Here is a link to a newspaper article about Mr Matthew's former legal firm partner being struck off https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-press-and-journal-aberdeen-and-aberdeenshire/20130729/281479274035125
If it smells of corruption look no further in the UK than Edinburgh - the home of the Scottish legal profession. For example;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15903142.Scots_law_giant_link_to_hundreds_of_secretive_shell_firms/?ref=ar
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/15982739.Global_scandal_as_secretive_Scots_firm_pays__US_Republican_lobbyists_close_to_Trump/
You wont be singing the praises of John Swinney v the Law Society now he has been caught out fiddling freedom of information replies https://www.scotsman.com/news/foi-row-prompts-calls-for-john-swinney-to-be-probed-over-emails-1-4686227
Opposition politicians today called for John Swinney to be probed over emails revealing he wanted to withhold material requested from the Scottish Government under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.
The chain of emails, published today, also appeared to show FOI requests being screened by the government’s special advisers.
The involvement of special advisers, who have a political role in government, led to claims at Holyrood that the government was holding back information in case it proved politically embarrassing.
The row erupted when the lecturer and journalist James McEnaney released official correspondence he obtained after a seven month battle with the Government.
The emails included one dated 23 June 2017, which suggests that documents scheduled for release were removed following the intervention of Colin McAllister, a special adviser.
An email sent on June 30 last year from Mr Swinney’s department indicated that the Deputy First Minister was against releasing information about Prince Charles and his interest in the Teach First education charity.
Post a Comment