Scottish Government's protection for lawyers business monopoly wins, as 'bullied' Holyrood delays access to justice reforms until 2014

Kenny MacAskill vowed to protect lawyers. Greedy lawyers celebrated last night as the Scottish Parliament effectively barred the public until at least 2014 from the freedom to choose their legal representatives, as the latest petition to bring the free market to Scotland's monopolistic legal services market, failed after intervention from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and elements of the Scots legal establishment, worried their profits would tumble as people wised up to cheaper, better quality and independently regulated legal services.

Petition 1197, brought to Holyrood by Bill Alexander, who has fought a long battle to open Scotland's monopolistic legal services market, currently controlled by the Law Society of Scotland, was closed by the Holyrood Petitions Committee after a meek hearing, with only two members of the Petitions Committee even bothering to voice their views.

Petitions Committee thwarts efforts to bring wider public access to justice in Scotland.

One of those speaking, firstly to apologise to the Committee and everyone involved in the petition, was Nigel Don MSP, parliamentary assistant to Kenny MacAskill who recently came to fame for creating a series of property transactions to allow him to claim £688 a month from the public purse to pay his mortgage.

You can read more about Mr Don’s mortgage claims here : Influencing Justice reforms in Scotland worth ‘price of a mortgage allowance’ as MacAskill's ministerial aide gets £688 a month to fund capital flat

Nigel Don 'got the wrong end of the stick'. Mr Don, who was 'pulled up' for his comments by Justice Secretary MacAskill in his letter to the Petitions Committee demanding the petition be closed, firstly had to apologise for his lack of understanding of the issues involved, which generated his earlier, somewhat lengthy talk on the virtues of using a Law Society solicitor during the first hearing of the Petition late last year.

However, Mr Don in this week’s Petitions Committee hearing, simply could not resist overtly supporting the legal profession's demands to protect their business monopoly, and after making his initial apology, claimed that solicitors were right to defend their business monopoly, and that people who want to get into court should "get themselves qualified to do so".

Nigel Don said this week : "My reading of the large number of words we've got in front of us is that basically what the professionals are doing is defending their patch which is what you would expect them to do but having said that I think they might very well be right and that really if you want to represent people in court the message is get yourself qualified to do so".

Comparing Holyrood’s two hearings of the access to justice petition, one can see a general lack of will to bring access to justice to the Scots public …

Holyrood’s earlier hearing of access to justice Petition during November 2008

You can read about and watch the earlier hearing of Petition 1197 which took place last November, here : Scottish Parliament calls for 'access to justice' moves as solicitors struggle to maintain monopoly on legal business

As the current system stands, by way of rights of audience applications, which Mr Don knows full well along with the rest of us, it takes approval from the Justice Secretary, the Lord President, and seemingly a ‘back door’ approval from the Law Society of Scotland to get an application for rights of audience considered, let alone passed, for individuals or organisations to offer the public legal services in Scotland.

MacAskill’s letter to Swinney on access to justice - Ministerial misinformation ? Difficulties in pursuing access to justice applications have been well documented in previous articles I have written on the subject, even on one such occasion, leading the Justice Secretary to mislead & misinform John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, over the ease of how access to justice applications were being considered by his office.

You can read more about that leaked letter from the Justice Secretary here : Leaked letter from MacAskill to Swinney on legal services 'misleads' Cabinet Secretary Swinney & Parliament on legal services admissions

Lord Hamilton took the blame for delays. In one incident, involving the actual application of Petition 1197's author, Bill Alexander who was seeking rights of audience & representation in the Scottish courts, the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill took over a year to consider matters, then famously blamed the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, for holding up approval of the application, which ended up being granted swiftly after an earlier article I wrote on the matter HERE, along with the video of Mr MacAskill's pitiful blame game with the Lord President :

Kenny MacAskill plays the blame game with Lord Hamilton over access to justice applications :

Lord Hardie wanted Scotland’s 1990 ‘access to justice' laws repealed. Also let us not forget that revelations from a bitterly contested Freedom of Information request, made by the same petitioner, Bill Alexander seeking information on why Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 had been delayed for 17 years, exposed papers which implicated a former Lord Advocate, now High Court Judge, Lord Hardie, who had sought the repeal of Scotland’s very own 'monopoly busting’ legal services legislation which if enacted two decades ago would have given all Scots more freedom of choice in legal services, rather than the continued protection of ‘use a solicitor and pay the earth if you want something legal done in Scotland’ for all these years.

First Minister claimed arc of prosperity for Scotland, but no arc of justice for Scots ? While some in the Scottish Government continue to rant on about the 'arc of prosperity' of Scandinavian countries, which they promote that Scotland could have followed as a model of independence (although the credit crunch & global downturn has put paid to that), it seems the fabled 'arc of prosperity' which Scotland could have mirrored, does not include bringing any Scandinavian 'arc of justice' for the Scots public, given that those same Scandinavian countries have a much more open legal services market, which does not restrict public choice of legal representation.

The current Scottish Government consultation into legal services reform, dubbed “nothing more than a delaying tactic” by Scottish Government insiders, will not bring the envisaged opening up of legal services in Scotland, and delaying matters even further to the 8th program of ‘Law Reform” to be held by the ponderously slow Scottish Law Commission from 2010 to 2014 means there is, in reality, little prospect of ordinary consumers benefiting from an opened legal services market in Scotland for many years to come.

Why must Scots suffer the lack of freedom to choose their own legal representatives and competitively priced legal services when many other countries allow such a freedom of choice ?

It seems to be simply all down to the ‘greed is good’ logic of some in Government & politics, who are no doubt financially & politically benefiting from the protection of undeservingly long held business monopolies by the likes of the Law Society of Scotland who control the closed markets of access to justice and the regulation of legal services.

Scottish Parliament calls for 'access to justice' moves as solicitors struggle to maintain monopoly on legal business

The growing public lack of access to legal services and choice of legal representatives has come into sharp focus at the Scottish Parliament this week, as the Petitions Committee considered Petition PE1197 from Mr William Alexander of the Association of Commercial Attorneys, asking the Scottish Parliament "to urge the Scottish Government to reform the legal system to adopt the Scandinavian system of allowing unrestricted access to legal representation before the court for example by allowing non-lawyers to appear in court on behalf of other parties."

Holyrood calls for submissions on Access to Justice

I have reported on Petition PE1197 in an earlier article here : Parliament to consider competition in legal services market as Scottish Government fails on access to justice reforms

The Petitions Committee agreed to seek responses on the issues raised in the petition from the Scottish Government, Faculty of Advocates, Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Law Commission and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

However, members of the Committee did not feel moved to ask the public for their own submissions on how difficult it has been to secure access to legal services and the Scottish Courts system, for fear it seems of receiving detailed and harrowing accounts of how members of the public themselves have been prevented from securing access to justice in Scotland.

If however, you feel you have been denied or hindered from obtaining access to legal services, legal representation, or access to Scottish Courts, you can write a submission to the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee on your experiences or problems with access to justice in Scotland and email it to : petitions@scottish.parliament.uk

Contact details of the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee :

Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee,
Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh EH99 1SP

Clerk to the Committee: Fergus D Cochrane
Assistant Clerk: Franck David
Assistant Clerk: Zoé Tough
Administrative Support to the Committee: Eileen Martin
Contact: 0131 348 5982
RNID Typetalk service: 18001 0131 34 85982
Fax: 0131 348 5088

During the short four minute presentation of Petition PE1197, Bill Butler MSP (Labour) suggested there were specific points that responses should be sought on whether a precedent on widening rights of audience had been set after the the Scottish Government had granted rights of audience (albeit restricted rights of audience) to the Association of Commercial Attorneys giving a right to conduct litigation and secondly whether there are plans to expand those rights of audience to other groups and whether such changes are desirable ... and what impact there would be on the legal system in the light of such changes.

I reported earlier on the Association of Commercial Attorneys being given limited practising rights here : Non-lawyer rights of audience approved ‘with restrictions’ as Scottish Government continues to waver on access to justice reforms

However, spectators to the debate were troubled by Nigel Don MSP who seemed to drift off in an interpretation of Petition PE1197 as being that of a request to allow anyone to represent themselves in the Courts, which of course, is not what is being asked via the petition.

One spectator to the debate said "Mr Don seems to have got the wrong end of the stick which is worrying as he is a member of the Justice Committee, and I would have thought his experience in legal issues and the fact he is the Parliamentary Liaison Officer to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill would have ensured he picked up on exactly what the petition was about which is widening rights of access to audience & representation for non lawyer professionals to represent members of the public, rather than what Mr Don claimed which was people being able to represent themselves in court"

A source close to the Petitions Committee claimed “the Law Society may try to undermine the petition at a later stage because they (the Law Society) wouldn’t be happy others were attempting to encroach on solicitors business”.

We must expect a degree of obstruction from the legal profession to the public’s wishes of wider access to justice as solicitors and the legal establishment have been far too used to holding a monopoly over legal services in Scotland for hundreds of years, a monopoly which has brought billions of pounds of profits to Scotland’s legal firms that many solicitors wish to keep for themselves in what is currently a very anti competitive, protectionist Scottish legal services market.

Opening up access to justice in Scotland, by granting rights of audience to non lawyer qualified professionals who are independently and effectively regulated would go a significant way to addressing the problems of many across the country who have been denied access to justice by a legal system which currently allows the legal profession to effectively chose the clients and cases it wishes to represent, and at costs to clients, which the legal profession currently determine itself.

Clearly there is a genuine public interest in the progress of Petition PE1197, where many individuals in Scotland, and indeed, whole groups of people have found their access to justice hindered or prevented by the likes of the Law Society of Scotland and other industry groups & regulators who don’t wish to see certain kinds of cases or individuals gain access to legal representation or Scotland’s Courts.

I therefore urge anyone who feels their access to justice or access to legal services have been restricted or denied, to make a submission to the Scottish Parliament on their experiences.

Non-lawyer rights of audience approved ‘with restrictions’ as Scottish Government continues to waver on access to justice reforms

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will announce in the next week or so that Bill Alexander, Chairman of the Association of Commercial Attorneys, has finally been given rights of audience & representation in Scotland’s courts, the first time ever in Scotland, a non-lawyer (someone who is not a member of the Law Society of Scotland) has been able to break into solicitors monopoly over legal services.

This change in heart comes after the Justice Secretary sensationally blamed the Lord President for delays in processing rights of audience applications, a story which I previously reported here, along with video footage : Justice Secretary MacAskill blames Lord President for delays in ‘access to justice’ applications row

However, the expectations of a significant improvement of diversity in the public's ability to choose their legal representatives have been tempered by apparent protests and intervention from the legal establishment who are concerned about losing their long held monopoly over Scotland's multi billion pound legal services market.

Mr Alexander, who has fought a long campaign over some twelve years to gain rights of audience and widen the public's choice of legal representation will face severe restrictions on what areas of law he will be able to practice, and today, an unnamed source at the Scottish Government claimed that Mr Alexander's practicing certificate such as it is currently being worded, will only allow him to practice Construction Law - a very limiting field of representation which wont do much to widen access to justice in Scotland.

I have previously reported on Mr Alexander’s campaign to gain rights of audience & representation, which includes a Petition to the Scottish Parliament on the matter : Parliament to consider competition in legal services market as Scottish Government fails on access to justice reforms

Secretary Kenny MacAskill said today : "Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 came into force in March 2007. Since then there have been two applications, one by the Association of Commercial Attorneys and one by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland."

Mr MacAskill refused to comment immediately on questions put to him as to why it had taken several successive Scottish administrations a total of some seventeen years to implement the groundbreaking Sections 25-29 and particularly why a serving Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie in June 1997 intervened in the issue and apparently urged the repeal of the access to justice legislation which had originally formed part of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

You can read my earlier report on Lord Hardie’s intervention in the access to justice issue, and read a copy of his own letter on the matter urging the repeal of Sections 25-29 here : Former Lord Advocate Andrew Hardie revealed as major obstacle in removing lawyer-advocate monopoly on legal representation

Hardly a confidence building exercise on the part of the beleaguered Justice Secretary, who would do well to start taking the initiative in Scotland's ailing legal system, rather than the back seat driving method he seems to prefer, aloof from responsibility on all sorts of dire stories, from leaks of juror names, to unjustly withheld FAIs to even playing no part and having no thoughts on the Lockerbie bomber’s appeal ...

Mr MacAskill admitted there were severe restrictions being placed on the Commercial Attorney's application in a take it or leave it deal : "The Lord President and the Scottish Ministers considered that the draft scheme submitted by the Association of Commercial Attorneys met the requirements of the Act and the guidance subject to a few conditions. The Association has accepted those conditions and discussions are taking place to finalise the draft scheme."

John Swinney may have been misled by Mr MacAskill over terms of rights of audience applications. This 'take it or leave it' approach by Mr MacAskill and the Lord President to access to justice applications under Sections 25-29 is a marked contrast to Mr MacAskill's discussions during the summer of 2008 with his Cabinet colleague, the Cabinet Secretary John Swinney, where Mr MacAskill failed to disclose any such limits & conditions on areas of law to be set upon individuals or organisations applying to enter the Scottish Legal Services market :

Kenny MacAskill to John Swinney : "You will be interested to know that the commencement of Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 came in to effect on 19 March 2007. The Sections provide for rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation in the Supreme Courts to be granted to members of professional or other bodies, subject to approval in each case of a draft scheme embodying certain safeguards such as training programmes, and indemnity insurance. The legislation does not provide for applications from individuals. Guidance has been prepared that covers in some detail the provisions to be contained in draft schemes and the consideration of applications. I hope this reassures you that action has now been taken to increase consumer choice in the supply of legal service providers."

I have previously reported on that leaked letter from the Justice Secretary to the Cabinet Secretary in an article which you can also read the entire Parliamentary debate on the matter here : Leaked letter shows conflicting view of Justice Secretary over legal services market reform

Final questions were put to the Justice Secretary on whether the Scottish Government will now make up to individuals for the lost opportunities of access to justice, which have in the words of some severely affected the lives of those who have tried to find legal representation outside membership of the Law Society of Scotland during the time that Sections 25-29 were held off the legislative books, however an eerie silence descended on the normally frank Justice Secretary as I suppose Mr MacAskill does not wish to admit culpability where culpability does seem to exist, given it was the Government which clearly held the legislation from public use.

Taking the honest route and admitting responsibility, and making the attempt to put things right for a lot of people, would surely be the ‘right thing to do’ in this case, Mr MacAskill ? I have suggested something along these lines before such as this : The polluter pays - Why cleaning up lawyers sins of the past would be good for the public & legal profession alike

In relation to the second application, coming from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, a Scottish Government spokesman would only say : "The application by the Institute of Chartered Accountants is still under consideration." - however, if you wish to read what accountants can do to clients affairs, particularly a deceased client's estate, read this.

I for one, would warn against approving the ICAS application under Sections 26-29 as ICAS’ style of self regulation against crooked accountants is generally as bad as, or possibly worse than the Law Society of Scotland.

So we are left with an impression yet again, the Scottish Government is taking one step forward and four steps backwards in the policy area of promising to widening the public’s access to justice, by on one hand, allowing rights of audience applications to be made by individuals or organisations, then heavily restricting which areas of law can actually be practised in a ‘gun to the head’ style response, thus largely maintaining the present solicitors monopoly over legal services & access to justice in Scotland.

It seems quite apparent that once again, the legal establishment, who are solely interested in maintaining their long held monopoly over legal services in Scotland, are the driving force on what will happen next, rather what should be the case of the public interest, wider access to justice, and unrivalled consumer protection being placed above those usual interests of the legal profession’s annual profits.

It is also worth noting the two individuals who must pass any access to justice applications under Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, are themselves, members of the Law Society of Scotland … surely an issue which itself should give rise to a new independent method of considering and approving such applications to enter Scotland’s legal services market …

Parliament to consider competition in legal services market as Scottish Government fails on access to justice reforms

The Scottish Government's promised access to justice reforms, long stalled by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and members of the Judiciary such as the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, have been brought into question by new moves to get the Scottish Parliament to consider the issue of opening up the lawyers monopoly over the Scots legal services market.

Petition PE 1197, raised by Bill Alexander, a member of the Association of Commercial Attorneys, comes on the back of a series of gaffes, excuses, and outright prejudice by the Justice Minister against applications from individuals outside the powerful but corrupt lobby of the Law Society of Scotland to apply for rights of audience & representation which would allow the public to choose their legal representatives, bringing more badly needed competition into Scotland's woefully poor quality legal services market.

Petition PE1197 - Allowing non-lawyers to enter the legal services market : A Petition by Bill Alexander calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the legal system to adopt the Scandinavian system of allowing unrestricted access to legal representation before the court for example by allowing non-lawyers to appear in court on behalf of other parties.

Mr Alexander, who has been campaigning since 1995 for reform of legal services in Scotland goes onto describe his efforts to open the Scottish legal services market, efforts which have been obstructed by several political administrations, and always by the legal profession.

Mr Alexander : “I have been actively involved in the application by the Association of Commercial Attorneys under Sections 25 to 29 of the Law reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 and it is now clear that in the unlikely event of the application being approved, the restrictions on the areas of practice are such that there will still be a fundamental lack of choice for parties who cannot afford a solicitor or who may not want to instruct a solicitor in matters pertaining to Contract and Delict.

The Access to Justice Department and the Lord President’s office have interpretated the Law Reform Act in such a manner that they do not consider that access to justice should be a determining factor in considering any application.”

In a recent story on this issue, I reported on the exposure of Mr MacAskill's duplicity in stalling moves to open competition in the legal services market. You can read more about that story here :

Justice Secretary MacAskill blames Lord President for delays in ‘access to justice’ applications row

You can also watch Mr MacAskills very weak parliamentary performance on the issue, blaming everyone else including the Lord President, Lord Hamilton for the delays to legal services reform :

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill blames Chief Judge Lord Hamilton on delays over legal services market reform

Mr Alexander’s petition to seek the opening of the legal services market, which is supported by David Whitton MSP, has been raised because to-date, all access to justice applications made under Scotland’s existing legislation contained in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 have been refused by the Scottish Government, after taps on the shoulder from the legal establishment, who view legal services as their fiefdom, to the exclusion of all others.

Mr Alexander goes on in his parliamentary petition to explain a bit more on how unfair the Scottish closed shop lawyer monopolised legal services market is to the Scots public, obstructing access to justice at almost every level, where in effect, it is the legal profession currently, who determine the public’s access to justice, rather than a person’s own choice.

“At the moment the cost restrictions on access to justice means that there are people in Scotland who are being denied access to their Article 6 Human Right to a fair hearing in an impartial tribunal with a reasonable time. With the decision to only consider new complaints from the 1st October 2008 by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) the prospects for the many people who responded to the consultation on legal services who felt that they had a complaint are also effectively being denied access to justice.”

While Scotland seems to be left out of legal services reform, which was recommended by the OFT at Westminster, Scandinavian countries enjoy a more open view of their legal services markets.

You can read more about the OFT recommendations to open the legal services market, and how the Scottish Government have stalled legal services reform for over a year since the OFT acted, here :OFT recommends lifting of lawyers monopoly on access to justice & legal services in Scotland

… and you can read more of my previous reports on access to legal services reforms, and the legal profession’s struggle to hold them back here : Access to Justice reforms in Scotland delayed by legal interests

Mr Alexander details in his petition, the more opened legal services markets in other countries, which work well, presumably because their legal profession’s don’t have such a grip on power and politics …

Mr Alexander continues : “In the Scandinavian countries they have a very liberal legal system where non-lawyers are allowed to appear in court on behalf of other parties.

It is my belief that the people of Scotland, if a system similar to Sweden and Finland was adopted, were to be given a degree of encouragement and support, that they would acquire a greater knowledge and respect for the law of Scotland which would be a benefit to society as a whole, with the potential further benefits of greater access to justice, a reduction in legal costs to individuals and the public purse, a potential reduction in violence if people are encouraged to reach for a law book as opposed to a weapon to resolve a dispute, more self confidence and self belief and an end to a monopoly which has caused actual physical harm to people over the decades.

I am confident, having been involved in this subject matter for many years, that there are, in fact, no justifiable reasons why there should be an automatic presumption that the people of Scotland would not willingly embrace and be proud of this new legal system. It would also ensure that no-one in Scotland had to face the prospect of having to appear in court without representation unless they wished to.”

Opening the legal services market up to competition is a must, but as we can see, there seems little appetite from the Scottish Government on this issue, where even the Justice Secretary himself appears unable to slip the Law Society’s puppet strings controlling policy moves to block wider public choice of legal representation and increased consumer safeguards against rogue lawyers.

Perhaps it will take more than the Scottish Government to make the moves and open up Scots lawyers private monopoly over legal services, and if the Parliament itself fails, the OFT might have to step in north of the border to protect the public’s right of access to justice where the Scottish Government itself is failing to protect.

Scottish Executive drops FOI disclosure battle over restrictive access to Courts while thousands go without representation

The Scottish Executive have decided not to take the Bill Alexander FOI disclosure battle to the House of Lords, so, unless a few documents are going to go missing (which many suspect) .. we should get some good indications soon as to the strength of the legal profession's lobbying and all those political maneuvers which kept those parts of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990 inactive, which would have opened the highly restrictive markets of legal & courtroom representation to the public - and perhaps avoided many of the problems our Scottish legal system faces today.

You can read more on my coverage of the Alexander FOI disclosure battle here :
Scottish Executive fails to block FOI disclosure on records of restricted access to Courts

Scottish Executive thought to be blameworthy for allowing restrictive practices in legal services

Many of the current problems of lack of legal representation in Scotland may not have actually existed, if access to the courts had been opened up years ago, as were intended in the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990 - but for the fact of course, the legal profession saw the writing on the wall for their way of life - where certainly much of their work & income at the time came from legal aid.

Currently, if you want to get into Court, you have to use a lawyer or an advocate, and if you want to use an advocate, you have to use a lawyer - despite claims to the contrary where the Faculty protests that advocates will work direct for clients.

This was to have been broken with sections in the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990, which, if implemented as they should have been at the time - the public would have had a wider choice as to whom they could choose to represent their affairs.

Sadly, this never happened, due to powerful lobbying from the legal profession which kept these much needed reforms off the books - all because of money - just in the same way the legal profession have lobbied to keep the small claims amount at a few hundred pounds in Scotland - so that for anything else, you will of course, need the services of a lawyer. Good for them, but not good for us.

Anyway, watch this space, and watch the newspapers soon for the revelations which may or may not come out in the Freedom of Information disclosure on the Bill Alexander request .. .which will depend on how honest some people at the Scottish Executive are feeling in terms of which documents are actually released ...

Not to be outdone by the imminent release of such documents which may or may not portray the legal profession & the Law Society of Scotland as a bunch of political manipulators, the traditional way out of the media spotlight on such issues, is to come up with a few distractions - and we have had a few of those this week ...

One of these now long running distractions, is the battle over legal aid payments between the so-called 'family law' lawyers, and the Scottish Executive over who gets paid what & how much from the Legal Aid budget.

While the issue is publicly portrayed by the Scottish legal profession as being a dispute solely between those 'family law' lawyers who make their bread & butter from legal aid, and the Executive - in reality, the strings of the major players in this battle are being pulled by those at the Law Society of Scotland's HQ in Drumsheugh Gardens.

Helen Hughes, the Chair of the Family Law Association, is the latest of many from the legal profession to join the fray over who gets what from the legal aid budget - blaming the Executive for the alleged failure of the 'Block Fees" system of legal aid payments and taking the easy way out .... but the reality of the situation is that it's the lawyers who are causing what are now called 'legal aid deserts', as the Herald newspaper reports quoting Helen Hughes :

"Hughes, a partner in Paisley-based law firm McAuley McCarthy & Co, said: "It is, today, impossible for private individuals to find a lawyer prepared to take on interdicts on a Legal Aid basis in the Highlands and Islands, Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders, Edinburgh, Glasgow and East Kilbride. My firm is getting numerous calls each day from would-be clients in these regions pleading for representation."

Yes .. well, of course, the problem with all this is that the legal profession has been used to getting it's way for so long, it got used to charging what it wanted for work, getting the money from the legal aid budget and hence we have this situation today where long overdue limits on the milking of taxpayers money have been turned against the public by the legal profession, in the form of denying legal representation to those who most need it - in order to get more money. Some, would call that blackmail.

I'm sure the legal profession think their tactics are doing them a lot of good in their fight to get more money - after all, everyone at some time or another, needs legal representation - but this battle over legal aid, with all the dirty tricks, sleazy meetings with political allies & spin from the legal profession itself, just makes the argument greater for fully independent regulation of all legal professionals, and the immediate implementation of sections of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990, to open up access to the courts in terms of who can represent clients - currently restricted to lawyers & advocates due to some 17 years worth of lobbying from the legal profession to keep it that way.

Maybe the family lawyers should choose a new representative in their quest to gain more legal aid. How about Donald Findlay QC ? After all, he is Scotland's top legal aid earner - and who better for the Law Society of Scotland to head such a campaign to get even more money out of the taxpayer for lawyers pockets ...

Some may speculate, the apparent problems of the Law Society and the publicity drive to portray lawyers as overworked and poor .. may well be linked in the battle over legal aid ....

Here is the article from the Herald, and a couple of others I failed to mention recently - one amazingly reporting that the Law Society of Scotland is virtually broke - probably an indication of the price of keeping all those crooked lawyers away from clients they ruined - and perhaps even the rather costly battle over the LPLA Bill .. with all those favours & bungs flowing like a river I hear ...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/law/display.var.1284691.0.0.php

Jamieson urged to turn clock back and abolish ‘block fees’
IAN FRASER March 25 2007

Family law in Scotland is under threat, says Helen Hughes, chair of the Family Law Association.

She lays the cause of the crisis firmly at the door of the Scottish Executive's "block fee" payment system for civil legal aid work.

Since the itemised fee system was scrapped in 2003, solicitors have been earning less for civil legal aid work than they did before 1992, and families at the lower end of the social scale are finding it nearly impossible to find legal representation across a range of major family issues from child custody to divorce settlements.

Hughes has written a highly- critical letter to Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson urging her to turn the clock back and scrap the "block fee" regime.

In her letter, Hughes said: "Many ordinary Scottish people are finding that they are unable to instruct a solicitor to deal with their separation/ divorce or child care issue on a legal aid basis.

"To enable the people of Scotland to access the rights available to them by law we need a Legal Aid system which provides sufficient remuneration for solicitors. The block fee system does not provide such remuneration."

According to Hughes, the block payment system, introduced in October 2003, has made law firms increasingly reluctant to take on civil family law cases and interdicts on a Legal Aid basis. As a result, victims of domestic violence are finding it virtually impossible to persuade a solicitor to represent them. And in recent months large tracts of Scotland have become virtual legal deserts.

Hughes, a partner in Paisley-based law firm McAuley McCarthy & Co, said: "It is, today, impossible for private individuals to find a lawyer prepared to take on interdicts on a Legal Aid basis in the Highlands and Islands, Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders, Edinburgh, Glasgow and East Kilbride. My firm is getting numerous calls each day from would-be clients in these regions pleading for representation.

The situation has become so acute that SLAB - the Scottish Legal Aid Board - is to finance its own directly employed network of solicitors in Legal Aid offices in the worst-hit areas. The first of these is expected to open in Inverness this autumn. A SLAB spokesman said it is being introduced as a "safety net."

According to Hughes, "block fees" take no account of the fact that many family law cases are what she describes as "high maintenance". She said: "Most such cases are complicated factually and often involve complex legal argument. In addition, we're often dealing with people who are highly stressed, who require not only legal advice but additional guidance when their marriage or relationship ends. When such cases also involve domestic abuse and child-related issues, the time spent on a particular file rises immensely. The issue is one of access to justice."

Hughes said, if the current regime is allowed to persist, "not only will the people of Scotland find it increasingly difficult to obtain a solicitor on a legal aid basis but those that do will increasingly find that their cases are dealt with by less experienced solicitors, which will undoubtedly have an impact in the way cases are presented to the court and in the long term adversely effect the development of family law in Scotland. Not to mention the impact on the lives of clients.

"The Executive deserves to be congratulated on their efforts in developing family law through legislation such as the Protection from Abuse act and the Family Law act.

"But if the people of Scotland are unable to find a solicitor to undertake their case on a legal aid basis one has to ask the question, "What was the point of introducing such legislation?"

A motion was unanimously carried at the Law Society of Scotland's annual meeting in early March urging the Executive to review the rates of Legal Aid.

A spokesman for the Executive said: "We have been aware of concerns expressed by the Family Law Association in respect of fees for civil legal aid Following a recent report into civil cases by SLAB, ministers have announced that civil legal aid fees and eligibility levels will be reviewed."

"The Executive needs to ensure public funds are used to their full potential and although it can encourage, it cannot compel private sector firms to provide legally aided services.

"A number of steps are being taken to ensure that there is a nationwide supply of legal aid services to provide access to justice for individuals."

.. and now, the rather embarrasing story that the Law Society of Scotland is short of money ... or, is it ?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/news/display.var.1256624.0.0.php

Wage bill pushes Law Society into the red
PAUL ROGERSON, City Editor March 13 2007

The Law Society of Scotland slipped more than £500,000 into the red last year and has revised its budgetary plans in a bid to restore depleted cash reserves.

A steep hike in the Edinburgh-based body's wage bill was largely to blame for the loss.

In its annual report, the governing body for Scotland's 10,000 solicitors reported a deficit of £537,000 for the year to October 31. Income climbed £365,000 to just over £6m, mainly as a consequence of increased subscriptions. However, spending soared by £762,000 to £6.6m, after salary costs rose by £495,000 to more than £3.7m.
advertisement

This increase came despite a slight fall in total full-time equivalents from 121 to 116. It includes some £88,000 in severance payments. Accounting rule changes also triggered a sharp rise in the costs of servicing staff pension plans.

Society treasurer Jamie Millar stressed in the report that although the balance sheet shows a cash surplus of £581,000, this is only because higher subs relating to the next financial year were banked early. He added: "If the advance income had been received (after the year end) there would have been a cash deficit of £851,000 at October 31. This deficit is hidden in the accounts due to timing...as the cash deficit worsens the bank overdraft is being utilised earlier and for longer each year."

Millar told The Herald: "The Society has stringent budgetary policies and procedures in place to manage our overheads and expenditures and is presently reviewing our strategic direction. We are planning further changes to improve our effectiveness."

Scottish Executive fails to block FOI disclosure on records of restricted access to Courts

Despite giving us the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which brings independent regulation to Scotland's entirely corrupt legal profession, the Scottish Executive put up a fight against an FOI request made by Mr Bill Alexander for the release of correspondence & material surrounding the failure to enact parts of legislation sitting on the statute books which would have opened up the courts to those other than solicitors & clients.

The Executive duly thought the release of such information, was an appalling idea .. appalling, since the material in question, being correspondence between Ministers, elements of the legal profession, and the governing body of Scottish lawyers - the Law Society of Scotland, could give the impression to everyone, that there was a collusion going on for years between the Executive & the lawyers to keep everyone else out of court and maintain a monopoly on legal services - which is in fact, what happened.

If it had been a member of the public trying to get legal representation to break loose a disclosure of papers relating to the restriction of legal markets, they wouldn't even have been able to secure legal representation - so Mr Alexander, the Herald newspaper, and the rest of us are lucky Mr Dunion was there to do it for us.

No such difficulty for the Scottish Executive though - the legal profession provided their best to defeat the FOI disclosure request (at top fees too no doubt), but m'luds felt a bit honest yesterday and found in favour, again, of FOI.

I wonder how much Richard Keen & his team cost the Executive for this ?

I covered the start of Bill Alexander's case here : Scottish Executive thought to be blameworthy for allowing restrictive practices in legal service

Bill Alexander also has a related petition into the Scottish Parliament, which can be viewed at this link : Petition PE1021

Petition by Bill Alexander calling for the Scottish Parliament to investigate (i) the availability of solicitors prepared to act against other solicitors in cases of negligence or inadequate service; (ii) the role of the Law Society in such cases; and (iii) the impact, both physical and financial, of such cases on the complainer.

Rumours seem to indicate today, the legal profession demanded the Scottish Executive fight the case, as the lads at Drumsheugh Gardens, and those over at the Faculty of Advocates, definitely did not want any evidence revealed which may indicate a legal profession stitch up over legal services & restriction of business markets.

A well placed source who contacted me earlier this morning, informed me the Law Society had also tried to insist any correspondence from itself to the Executive should be exempt from the FOI request, as the Law Society of Scotland has an exemption from FOI !

I doubt Kevin Dunion, the FOI Commissioner will be having anything of that one though .. but only time will tell on what is published ... and if there is anything missing in the trail of correspondence, ministerial meetings with the bosses & leading [crooks] lights of the legal profession .. I'm sure it will be down to some politicians & leading crooks of the legal profession getting together to protect their own fiddles of the law.

There seems to be no doubt then, the present Scottish Executive, and it's previous incarnation, the Scottish Office, colluded with the legal profession to form an unofficial policy of restricting access to the courts & maintaining the monopoly of rights to legal representation by forcing the public to use members of the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates.

More importantly though, as can be seen by Mr Alexander's petition to the Scottish Parliament, there is also little doubt among critics & campaigners against the decades of injustice practiced by the Law Society against members of the public, that the Executive has assisted the Law Society's clearly prejudicial policy of obstructing & denying legal representation to any client trying to raise a claim of negligence against a Scottish solicitor.

Maybe we should be asking which politicians got cheap deals on house & land purchases & other legal services, for keeping these laws from being enacted ... I'm sure there are a few trees to be shaken on that one .. all things being corrupt, that is.

Just a quick word on my recent articles.

My take on the exposure of the legal aid strike by lawyers as being fake got me in a wee bit of bother. I'm talking about this article : Lawyers protests over low legal aid fees revealed to be fake as Law Society's own research points to increase

Apparently, the Law Society are "looking for me to give me a good seeing to" .. Well, I've heard nothing yet, but if any threatening letter comes in, of course, I will publish it .. and if there's any polonium in my sushi, I will be calling the Met !

Similarly, Marsh & the Royal & Sun Alliance PLC are a wee bit upset over my comments on the Master Insurance Policy of the Law Society, and my exposure of their vast web of insurance relationships with the professions, which I wrote about here : Corrupt Insurers of the Scottish legal profession linked to Scottish Executive

Again, if the threatening letter arrives, I will publish of course .. but I can't see how there can be any denials .. after all, what I wrote is all true .. and there's quite a bit more scandal to go with it !

Anyway, read on for today's Herald report on Mr Alexander's FOI case - and remember to support Petition PE1021 at the Scottish Parliament.

I have my own petition also going in over some related matters .. which I will report to you in due course.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1142179.0.0.php

Court ruling triumph for FOI
PAUL ROGERSON, City Editor January 24 2007

The Scottish Executive has failed with a landmark bid to block the release of highly sensitive documents explaining why Scotland's "closed shop" for legal services has never been opened up to competition.

A Court of Session ruling yesterday should force the disclosure of correspondence on the subject between senior politicians, lawyers and officials.

They include the late First Minister Donald Dewar, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

In a 26-page ruling, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, together with Lord Nimmo Smith and Sir David Edward, dismissed the executive's arguments that certain documents were exempted from disclosure under the freedom of information legislation.

They made the same ruling in a second case in which the executive refused to disclose documents, requested by The Herald, concerning plans to dump waste in a protected Scottish quarry.

Both cases are a triumph for the Scottish information commissioner Kevin Dunion, who had ordered ministers to publish the documents.

Mr Dunion welcomed the decision, saying: "This is an important judgment in my favour. The court has agreed it was wrong of the executive to conclude that it would be harmful to release information which it characterised as belonging to a class or type - for example, advice to ministers - without regard to the content of that information. I have consistently maintained this is not what parliament intended."

The decision is also a victory for Bill Alexander, a longstanding campaigner for wider consumer access to legal services. Last year, Mr Alexander used freedom of information legislation to seek disclosure of ministerial correspondence and memoranda from the past decade concerning the enduring ban on people other than solicitors and advocates being paid to represent clients in the Scottish courts.

"I am pleased the law has been clarified. Hopefully, everyone can now move forward in getting greater access to justice for the people of Scotland," he said.

Here's the shorter Scotsman version .. with a little debate going ...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=121772007

Court defeats for ministers

SCOTTISH ministers yesterday failed in the country's highest court to prevent the release of documents which had been sought under the Freedom of Information Act.

In two cases heard in the Court of Session, rulings against ministers by Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner, were upheld.

The cases involved information on why legislation passed in 1990, designed to promote competition in the provision of legal services, had not been brought into effect, and why ministers had decided in 2004 not to "call in" a planning application for a waste disposal and ecological conservation area at Treane Quarry, north Ayrshire.

... and here is the Press Release from the Scottish FOI Commissioner,

http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/resources/media/pressreleases/pressrelease25.htm

News Release: 24 January 2007

Commissioner welcomes Court ruling in landmark freedom of information case

The Scottish Information Commissioner today (24 January 2007) welcomed a landmark Court of Session ruling which upheld his decisions in relation to two appeals brought by the Scottish Executive under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

The ruling concerned two separate decisions issued by the Commissioner, in which he found that the Executive had acted incorrectly in withholding specific information from release. One case involved documents concerning legislation passed over 15 years ago, part of which the Executive had still not carried into effect in Scotland. Sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, if implemented, would allow professionals, other than advocates and solicitors, rights to conduct litigation on behalf of members of the public, as well as rights of audience in the courts.

In bringing its appeals to the Court, the Executive argued that the Commissioner had wrongly interpreted FOISA when considering the content of withheld documents on an individual basis. The Executive argued that certain types, or “classes”, of documents should automatically fall within the scope of particular FOISA exemptions.

Following its consideration of the case, the Court rejected the arguments put forward by the Executive. In reaching this conclusion, the Court described the “class” arguments put forward by the Executive as “ill-founded”, and concluded that the Commissioner’s methodology of considering the specific content of individual documents, and the potential impact of release, was correct and appropriate. A number of other criticisms made by the Executive were also rejected by the court. As a result, the Court refused both of the Executive’s appeals.

Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner, said:

“This is an important judgement in my favour. The Court has agreed that it was wrong of the Executive to conclude that it would be harmful to release information which it characterised as belonging to a class or type, e.g. advice to Ministers, without regard to the content of that information. I have consistently maintained this is not what Parliament intended and is not what the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act allows. In my view, the effect of the release of such information can only be gauged by considering the content. I am pleased that the judgement clearly supports my position.”

The Commissioner added:

“At the heart of these cases is whether the public is given access to information which allows them to understand why decisions have been arrived at. With regard to the Law Reform Act, I took the view that a democratic society is entitled to expect that legislation passed by its elected representatives in Parliament will be brought into force unless there are good reasons for not doing so, and citizens are entitled to know those reasons unless there is a greater public interest in keeping them secret.”

Ends

For further information contact Claire Sigsworth or Paul Mutch on 01334 464610, out of hours, 07976 511752

Notes to Editors:

Court of Session Opinion

• The Court of Session heard the appeals in December 2006.
  
• The Opinion of the Court was issued on 23 January 2007 .
  
• The Opinion of the Court of Session on this case is available to view online here: www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007CSIH08.html

Commissioner's Decisions

The Commissioner's Decisions to which the Court of Session's Opinion relates are:

Decision 057/2005 – Mr William Alexander and the Scottish Executive

• Mr Alexander requested information relating to the commencement of sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) ( Scotland ) Act 1990. Sections 25 to 29 of this Act, which have yet to be implemented, set out arrangements which would ensure greater competition in the provision of legal services in Scotland .

• The Scottish Executive refused the request, arguing that most of the information either related to the formulation of policy or would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, and was therefore exempt from release under FOISA.

• The Commissioner found, following consideration of the content of each document, that, while much of the information did indeed fall within the scope of an exemption, other information did not, and should therefore be released. The Commissioner also found that some information, while falling within the scope of an exemption, should be released in the public interest.

• The full text of Decision 057/2005 can be viewed online here: www.itspublicknowledge.info/appealsdecisions/decisions/Documents/decision057.htm

Decision 060/2005 – Mr David Elstone / Mr Martin Williams of the Sunday Herald and the Scottish Executive

• Mr Elstone and Mr Williams separately made similar requests for documentation relating to a decision taken by the Scottish Ministers not to “call in” a planning application for Trearne Quarry, North Ayrshire. If “called in”, North Ayrshire Council would have been required to refer the application to the Scottish Ministers for decision.

• The Scottish Executive refused both of these requests, arguing that release would prejudice the effective conduction of public affairs.

• Given the similarity of the cases, the Commissioner issued a single Decision which addressed both requests. The Commissioner found, following the consideration of individual documents, that while some had been withheld correctly, others did not fall within the scope of any exemption and were appropriate for release.

• The full text of Decision 060/2005 can be found online here:

http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/appealsdecisions/decisions/Documents/decision060.htm

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

• The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) provides a statutory right of access to all information held by Scottish public authorities. This right came into effect on 1 January 2005.
• Around 10,000 public authorities in Scotland are covered by FOISA. They include the Scottish Parliament and Executive, police forces, the NHS, local authorities, education institutions, and publicly owned companies.
• Information can only be withheld by a public authority if it falls under one of the exemptions listed in FOISA. If an individual believes an authority is wrong to withhold information, they ultimately have a right of appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner, who can require release.
• The parties to any case have the right to appeal against the Commissioner’s decision to the Court of Session on a point of law only.

The Scottish Information Commissioner

• Kevin Dunion the Scottish Information Commissioner is a fully independent public official, appointed by the Queen on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament.
• His duties and powers are to ensure that people get the information from Scottish public authorities to which they are entitled.
• His role actively promotes and enforces compliance with FOISA.

Scottish Executive thought to be blameworthy for allowing restrictive practices in legal services

Harboured any criminals lately ? If you did, you are liable to be arrested as an accessory after the fact' ... involving whatever nefarious venture your criminal friend did.

Even worse, if you learn of a crime and give some form of assistance to it, you could be arrested as an accomplice, or "accessory before the fact" .... because of course, you are part of the criminal venture .. even more so than just standing back and keeping silent.

Interesting case then, when, the Government Department responsible for running Scotland - from (at least during the time of my own case) the Scottish Office , to the present Scottish Executive , has known all along, of problems with the regulation of the legal profession - while doing nothing.

Well, of course, it wasn't the case they did nothing, as we shall see ....

It has usually been the case, certainly with myself, and everyone else I know who has had difficulties with the Law Society of Scotland & crooked lawyers) that people have written to their constituency politicians seeking help because of slow progress or bare faced corruption on the part of the Law Society of Scotland during investigations of client complaints against lawyers.

After a person wrote to their constituency MP, or MSP (after the formation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, legal affairs were devolved to Scotland), typically their request would go through a well worn process where their politician would write to the Law Society of Scotland, and also the Scottish Office (pre 1999) or the Scottish Executive (post 1999), to the relevant Minister responsible for Justice.

Just as in everyone else's case, the same happened in mine. Archy Kirkwood wrote to Henry McLeish , when he was a Minister in the Scottish Executive during 1999. The usual response was - "we can't do anything, the Law Society is mandated by the law to represent the interests of the client & the profession, and if you aren't happy with the outcome of the Law Society's investigation, you can approach the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman to look at the way the Law Society handled your complaint' ... everyone was told the same - and all the politicians who wrote all these representations for all their constituents who asked for assistance - knew what the response would be.

A neat way of making work then perhaps ? Almost ... a merry go round, one could say ?.

Yes - that would be an almost perfect description of the whole thing from start to finish. Passing the buck - even though the Scottish Executive knew full well, there were significant problems with prejudice, bias, even, corruption in the way the Law Society of Scotland self-regulated their army of 10,000 solicitors.

But .. how does that fit in with telling thousands of people to do the same ?

Is it acceptable to know of crime, criminality, corruption, bias, prejudice, racism, sectarianism, abuse, embezzlement .. and tell thousands of people who report such matters, to go through a process which, knowingly, has no chance of success in preventing or halting the crime, criminality, corruption, bias, prejudice, racism, sectarianism, abuse, embezzlement ? Doesn't that sound a little bit .. crooked ?

So, we are back to who knew what, when, and why nothing was done about it.

Well, it turns out the Scottish Executive were & have been getting over 1000 representations per year from members of the public & their elected politicians .. on .. complaints about the way the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates handle investigations of complaints against their members. This is, of course, one of the reasons the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, has come into being - because media attention to scandals on crooked lawyers, and campaigns such as mine, and those of others, have brought out this issue into the public domain, to the point something had to be done about it.

Sounds a bit like the McKie case, doesn't it ? Scottish Executive knew something was wrong at the SCRO, but it looks like both sides - the McKie's and those officers at the SCRO were played royally against each other in a political battle to keep the lid on a creaking legal system, full of corruption & political favours in exchange for the legal profession 'leaving alone' certain parts of Scottish Law which are highly prejudicial to receiving fair trials or fair hearings .. one of those instances of course, being .. complaints against so-called 'professionals' such as .. lawyers.

In a case which may shed some light on why the Scottish Office & Scottish Executive sat on the fence, knowingly, while all was crooked & corrupt in arena of self-regulation of the legal profession, Bill Alexander, another campaigner on this subject, has the assistance of the Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, in a case which opens today at the Court of Session, seeking disclosure of ministerial correspondence and memoranda from the last decade concerning the enduring ban on people other than solicitors and advocates being paid to represent clients in the Scottish courts.

Put simply, Bill Alexander wants to know why, when sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 should have abolished the ban on non-lawyers applying for rights of audience.

These sections of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 are still sitting on the books - inactive ... because it is thought, they have been the subject of a political deal between the legal profession & the Scottish Executive, to keep a status quo and protect the monopoly which solicitors & advocates enjoy in the legal services market for who represents clients in Court.

There is no 'official' explanation why the sections were never enacted, but the Scottish Executive has refused to adhere to an order from the Information Commissioner to release the material requested by Bill Alexander .. and, as the Herald Newspaper reports, has employed Richard Keen QC to defend their position and prevent or at least prevaricate for as long as possible the release of such information - which may well go to prove the government stood by, knowingly, while the markets for legal business and opportunities for the client were stage managed by the legal profession in a monopoly which was allowed to continue - by the inaction of the Government.

You can read the decision of the Information Commissioner here : Decision 057/2005 Mr William Alexander and the Scottish Executive

Mr Alexander wouldn't find anything out on this from the Law Society of Scotland using FOI - that's because the Law Society of Scotland are exempt from FOI.

Imagine that - the Law Society of Scotland - a self regulatory body which has stage managed the legal services sector for decades in Scotland, was allowed an exemption from the Freedom of Information act, despite everyone, including the politicians & Government knowing full well it suffered from charges of corruption, bias, prejudice, restriction of who actually gets legal representation ...

Let's hope the Court of Session find in favour of Mr Alexander's request for the relevant information on the stitch up of legal services & delay of legislation, just as the Court of Session found in favour of the Information Commissioner on December 1st, ruling that the Common Services Agency of the NHS (National Services Scotland) should provide information on the incidence of childhood leukaemia in Dumfries and Galloway.

It certainly seems the Scottish Executive are determined on spending vast amounts of public money to defend against disclosure of material which should really be in the public domain ... all this information seemingly indicating a variety of scandals which have been covered up.

I say the Scottish Executive is guilty of allowing the suffering of clients to go unremedied for all these years while the likes of the Law Society of Scotland routinely fiddled client complaints against it's member solicitors & stage managed legal services in Scotland to maintain it's monopoly on rights of audience. The Executive, and the Scottish Office, were clearly aware of this.

It's time the Executive did something about their sitting on the fence for all these years, and make financial amends to all those victims of crooked lawyers,who, over the years, have had to face the knowingly corrupt & prejudicial practices of the Law Society of Scotland in regulating the legal profession.

Read on for the Herald article on this case, link to follow.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/76926.html

Freedom of information, the law and the public purse
PAUL ROGERSON December 18 2006

The Scottish Executive has appointed one of the nation's most eminent advocates to try and block the release of sensitive documents that could explain why Scotland's legal services market has never been opened up to greater competition.

Richard Keen QC's fees, which are understood to be as high as £6000 a day, will be met by the taxpayer.

However, ministers are still refusing to say why they are spending so much public money to thwart the release of information on a subject which is no longer a political hot potato.

The landmark case – the bill for which could run into six figures – begins in the Court of Session tomorrow.

Last year Bill Alexander, a longstanding campaigner for wider consumer access to
legal services, used freedom of information legislation to seek disclosure of ministerial correspondence and memoranda from the last decade concerning the enduring ban on people other than solicitors and advocates being paid to represent clients in the Scottish courts.

Sixteen years have passed since sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 should have abolished the ban on non-lawyers applying for rights of audience. Somewhat mysteriously,the sections were never commenced.

At the time, commencement of the sections was deferred indefinitely, amid bitter controversy.

Ministers gave an undertaking that the sections would not be implemented until other reforms in the 1990 act – in particular, the introduction of solicitor-advocates – had been given time to bed down.

However, the fact that the measures remain on the statute book but are still not active has provided ammunition for critics of the lawyers' "closed shop". It has also attracted the attention of both the Office of Fair Trading and the House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee.

Holyrood ministers are refusing to comply with an order by Scottish information commissioner Kevin Dunion to publish the documents sought by Alexander, which include letters from the late First Minister Donald Dewar to both Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and Lord Irvine of Lairg, the former Lord Chancellor.

As The Herald reported earlier this year, the case constitutes the first occasion since freedom of information legislation took effect that the Executive has elected to fight its case before the courts.

Industry observers are puzzled why ministers are going out on a limb on the issue, especially since commencement of sections 25-29 is part of the legal profession bill currently at committee stage 3 at Holyrood. Suspicions have inevitably arisen that the documents sought by Alexander could prove embarrassing to members of the New Labour hierarchy and senior Scottish lawyers past and present.
Keen, whose recent cases have included acting for Tommy Sheridan in the News of the World libel case, will be supported by junior counsel Kenneth McBrearty.

The information commissioner will be represented by another eminent brief, Paul Cullen QC.

The Herald asked the Executive why it continues to block publication of the documents sought by Alexander, when it supports, and indeed is legislating for, commencement of sections 25-29. A spokesman said:

"The appeal process has an important part to play, for example in ensuring proper interpretation and application of FOI legislation. For the Executive, the commissioner has issued decisions in around 56 cases – in three of these we have considered that it's appropriate to appeal. This is one of those cases.

"Those cases are currently sub judice, however, so it is inappropriate for us to make any further comment at this point."