FUNDED BY YOU: Rip off legal fees & fraud are real source of lawyers £3 million annual levy for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Paid for by you – legal regulator is no guarantee of justice for wronged clients. WHENEVER someone asks the question – who exactly pays for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) - the ‘independent’ regulator of solicitors in Scotland, from judges to Justice Secretary, from lawyers to advocates, and even the SLCC itself, the answer is always – the ‘independent’ regulator is funded by a levy paid by lawyers.

The levy – hovering between £2.5m to £3m a year is collected by the Law Society of Scotland, and handed over each year to the ‘independent’ SLCC – itself staffed by former staff members of the Law Society of Scotland, lawyers, relatives of lawyers, and friends of lawyers.

With fifteen members of staff who qualified as solicitors, five members of staff who held a previous position at the Law Society of Scotland, eight members of staff who held a previous position at a law firm, and five members of staff who have held previous positions at a law firm and Law Society of Scotland ..costs are high, to keep all those lawyers and former lawyers in a job of self regulation.

But, who really pays for the SLCC?

The SLCC – created in 2008 with over £2 million of public money, unashamedly state clearly on their website: “The SLCC is funded by a levy paid by legal professionals operating in Scotland.”

And just exactly how do lawyers get the £3 million a year to pay for the levy ? – a follow up question you might be forgiven for thinking should come easily to any inquisitive mind.

£3 million a year - It has to come from somewhere, right?

The answer is easy – from you, the client. Yes, you - in the form of ripped off clients, ripped off estates, mortgage frauds, embezzlement, and of course, fees for legal work charged to you by your lawyer. And, many times over.

Remember that ‘hard hitting, deserving of justice, easy to win case’ you took to some solicitor who looked you in the eye and said, no problem as the pound signs flashed by ?

That same case … now dragging on for months … months … months … turning into years … years … years … adjusted court dates, cancelled hearings, expert witnesses on the blink … counsels opinion costing up to £6K a time – and you almost never get to see … appearances before a judge who, unbeknown to you - is having dinner later on with the other side’s lawyers. As the delays mount up, so does your bill and it is easy to slip in a few extra pounds here and there…

After all, the annual SLCC levy is a mere £324 for solicitors … less than the cost of a decent flat screen television. How easy solicitors find it to add this amount many times to fee notes sent out to their private & corporate clients. It is so easy, you never notice. But it happens. You realise that now, don’t you.

And just because some former High Street solicitor posing as a Scottish Minister sits in front of a Parliamentary committee and says Scotland’s ‘independent’ regulator of lawyers the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is funded by a levy paid by lawyers – you now know - you – the client, pay for it.

So, next time someone tells you the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is paid for by lawyers, you know different. You pay.

FREQUENT SPENDERS : Cash rich Scottish Legal Complaints Commission gives £1million back to lawyers, avoids repaying £2 million owed to public purse

Cash rich law quango SLCC gives £1 million gift back to lawyers in latest budget. GREED IS GOOD if you happen to work in the Scottish legal profession as it was revealed today the anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which received a massive TWO MILLION POUNDS from taxpayers to fund its start up costs which included luxurious offices, financial perks & lavish expenses claims for board members, is yet again giving greedy lawyers a financial boost by releasing £1 million of its near £1.8 million cash stash back to the legal profession to reduce levies on crooked lawyers.

While the SLCC and its extravagantly expenses claiming & quangocrat filled board continue to refuse to repay even one penny of the £2 million of public funds it received in 2007- 2008, money which could prop up a wide range of public services or be put to much better use inside other parts of the justice system, today’s announcement on the SLCC’s 2011-2012 budget shows there appears to be no reluctance to hand millions of pounds back to the very same legal profession the scandal laden law complaints quango is supposedly tasked to regulate.

The figures announced in the SLCC’s budget for 2011-2012 laid before the Scottish Parliament today show a cut in the standard levy applied to all solicitors (and conveyancing and executry practitioners) of £26 to £209 for the year from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. Those in the first three years of practice will pay £105 (also the figure for advocates), and in-house lawyers and those practising outwith Scotland £69. The complaints levy remains unchanged, ranging from no charge where a complaint is resolved at mediation, up to £2,000 for a formal determination upholding a complaint on a third or subsequent occasion, although given the fact the SLCC has only upheld one single complaint since it began ‘regulating’ lawyers in 2008, little in the way of formal determinations have actually been made and certainly not published.

Fergus Ewing as Minister for Communities & Justice wrote letter praising the SLCC for paying back solicitors a few million, no thought of asking for the £2m to be returned. Given the poor state of public funds throughout the country, one might have thought Scottish Ministers would have pressed for some kind of repayment of taxpayers money from the SLCC yet no such moves were made, and stunningly, the now former Minister for Communities & Justice, Fergus Ewing, wrote a letter to the SLCC’s new Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew, praising the SLCC for “listening to representations from the Law Society” and handing back millions to the legal profession.

Fergus Ewing said in his letter of 2 March 2011 : “I am pleased that the SLCC has been able to take account of the representations from the legal profession and plans to keep a tight rein on running costs for 2011/2012, estimated at just under those for the current year. I note this has allowed the top-end annual levy to be reduced by a further 28 and I am sure this will be welcomed by the profession. I am aware that reducing the amount held in reserve, closer to the minimum of three months running costs recommended by your independent auditors, will put pressure on the levy rates for future years. To reduce this risk, I expect the SLCC to continue to look for further efficiency savings, and I am pleased to note that you are exploring options including the provision of shared services with other public bodies. Jill Clark and her sponsorship team in Legal System Division remain available to help in any way they can with this process. Officials hope to continue dialogue with you towards the end of the year when you are considering setting the rate for the levy 2012/2013.”

SLCC’s new Chief executive Rosemary Agnew replaced remarkably short tenured former CEO Eileen Masterman. Speaking for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Chief executive Rosemary Agnew announced a whopping one million pounds would be handed back to the legal profession although she avoided any mention or concern for the repayment of millions of pounds of public funds squandered on the SLCC. Ms Agnew said: “The general levy for 2011-12 has been set below the amount required to recover our full expenditure costs, which means £1m will be released from our reserves leaving sufficient funds to cover 3.5 months' running costs. This means the general levy will be cut by £26; however, I must emphasise that this level is unlikely to be sustainable in future years. Importantly, although expenditure is budgeted to remain the same, the SLCC aims to deliver a wider range of functions, particularly in relation to the development of our oversight role.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations said the SLCC would do better to meet its public expectation of cleaning up the legal profession instead of gifting back most of the money it has accrued to solicitors.

He said : “While I’m sure the Law Society will be very happy to hear the SLCC are reducing levies once again, the fact is that consumers of legal services in Scotland are in just as precarious a position with regard to the regulation of solicitors as they were before the SLCC was created. Perhaps instead of handing out annual gifts to solicitors, the SLCC and its board should concentrate more on its duties mandated in legislation, among them the monitoring of claims against the Master Policy.”

The Law Society of Scotland today said it was happy the SLCC had ‘listened’ to the society’s ‘representations’ over the levy charges, due to solicitors allegedly experiencing a “tough economic situation”.

Law Society of Scotland’s Philip Yelland, in charge of regulation of crooked Scottish lawyers for over 20 years. Commenting on the reduction in levy fee by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Philip Yelland, director of regulation at the Law Society of Scotland, said in a press release : "We are glad that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has listened to our representations about the level of fee solicitors will pay in the coming budgetary year. Many solicitors are still making difficult business decisions as there is still a careful balancing act for many solicitors during this ongoing tough economic situation. The £26 decrease in levy fee, which practicing solicitors pay to fund the Commission, is to be welcomed and the Society will continue to represent the profession's interests to the Commission as it carries out its functions."

Clearly the Law Society representations and the bias of Scottish Ministers won the day to keep the legal profession happy, although the £1 million would have been better returned to public funds, where the money is really needed.

BACKGROUND of Law Society’s Regulation Chief.

Philip Yelland ordered solicitors not to take their clients instructions in cases in Scotland’s Court of Session against crooked & negligent lawyers. Mr Philip Yelland was formerly the head of the Law Society’s “Client Relations Office”, holding the position since 1990 and has been involved or in charge of regulation of “crooked lawyers” in Scotland for over twenty years in a period which coincidentally saw huge numbers of complaints against the legal profession which in one year alone topped 5000 complaints against Scottish solicitors. Mr Yelland was also identified in private correspondence sent to solicitors demanding they refuse to represent or take instructions from clients involved in Court of Session cases against some of Scotland’s worst rogue lawyers, among them the well known crooked lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling solicitors, Kelso, in the Scottish Borders.

Law Society of Scotland blacklisted clients from legal representation & legal aid. Unsurprisingly, many solicitors who face complaints handed by Mr Yelland’s office ended up receiving little more than a slap on the wrist while ruined clients were barred from court, blacklisted from obtaining legal representation, were privately investigated and were subject to “information gathering exercises” by senior Law Society officials revealed in 2006 at Holyrood’s Justice 2 Committee’s investigation of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Bill. It was also revealed most clients who ended up victims of the legal profession had received little or no compensation for millions of pounds of plundered client assets.

Mr Yelland’s name was also allegedly linked to the suicide of an Oban client in a report on the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt Master Policy Insurance scheme compiled by Professor Frank Stephen & Dr Angela Melville of the Manchester University of Law School in 2009. Papers studied by the University team yet not released to the public alleged a man from Oban had been sent to a Glasgow law firm to represent him in a court case against a crooked law firm yet the Glasgow law firm did nothing for a period of three years and after it was revealed the same firm also represented the Legal Defence Union, the shady organisation which represents crooked lawyers against complaints, the Oban client committed suicide.

The final report from the University of Manchester Law School on the Master Policy can be viewed or downloaded here : Report on the Master Policy by University of Manchester Law School, Dr Angela Melville & Professor Frank Stephen.

My coverage of the report’s release & conclusions is here : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers & here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

The Law Society of Scotland & others linked to the Oban case have never commented on their role in events which some allege drove the unnamed client to suicide and readers may recall from recent news the Legal Defence Union played a significant part in negotiating a secret deal with the Scottish Legal Aid Board to secure no action against solicitor Niels S Lockhart for alleged legal aid irregularities.

All this trouble, expense, political interference from Scottish Ministers, clients intimidated & suicides just so lawyers can sleep soundly at night, as the report on the Master Policy from Dr Melville & Professor Stephen so accurately stated.

Emails reveal Law Society Chief Executive ‘called the shots’ over Fergus Ewing’s Ministerial threat to Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Communities Minister Fergus Ewing was lobbied by Law Society Chief to deliver reduction in lawyers complaints levy. REASONS why the Scottish Government’s Communities Minister Fergus Ewing threatened the ‘independence’ of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission earlier this year over an apparent ‘bust up’ with the Law Society of Scotland regarding the annual complaints levy charged to all solicitors to fund the SLCC’s investigation of complaints have now been answered by a second disclosure of key parts of emails between the Law Society & the Scottish Government in response to a request for a review under Freedom of Information legislation.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Chair’s Jane Irvine was told to expect ‘a review’ by Minister if levies for solicitors were not reduced. As many observers to the bitter squabble between the two law complaints regulators & the Scottish Government suspected, simply, the Minister did exactly as the Law Society’s senior officials suggested, making it plain to the SLCC’s Chair Jane Irvine there would be problems for the SLCC if there was no reduction in the annual complaints levy for Scottish solicitors, citing the SLCC’s huge £1.5m cash surplus as a reason to reduce complaints charges. The Minister’s letter was subsequently published by the SLCC on its own website and widely reported in the media.

Law Society of Scotland’s Chief Executive Lorna Jack ‘suggested’ Minister write to Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ‘by Friday’. Lorna Jack’s now published email to the Scottish Government stated : “It was good to have the brief conversation that we did today. As promised some more info re how the SLCC might resolve their reserves/bank deposits issue. First 9 months as you know saw them end with £1.6m of reserves and £3.8m of cash [REDACTED] They tell us that they will make a deficit in year 2 of some £400k and then plan another £100k in the budget under discussion but even then if they further reduced the levy for this year alone by £50 they should still have over £0.5m in reserve .and a very healthy bank balance of over a £1m. We have left them with a proposition to do this and await their response.” However, a previously redacted part of this email, today released by the Scottish Government reveals the Law Society Chief Executive states [REDACTED]. “If Government are also minded that they are sitting on unnecessary reserves then you will need to make your views known to them by Friday when I think they plan to make any additional changes.”.

Law Society’s Chief Executive Lorna Jack wrote email to Scottish Government suggesting they pile on the pressure to the SLCC. This new information which partially lifts the veil on secret communications between the Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Government, goes a significant way to explaining why the Communities Minister Fergus Ewing sent a letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission dated 22 February 2010, five working days after Lorna Jack asked the Minister to make the Law Society’s ‘his’ views known over the Law Society’s demands the SLCC should use their huge £1.5m cash surplus to, in effect, give a cash back payment to solicitors by reducing the annual complaints levy.

My initial report on Fergus Ewing’s apparent Ministerial threat to the SLCC on behalf of the Law Society can be read here : ‘Ministerial Interference’ as Fergus Ewing demands SLCC’s £1.5m reserves be handed to lawyers after Law Society lobbied Scottish Government, also reported in the Scotsman newspaper HERE, with my later report on the continuing investigation into how the Minister’s actions actually came about, where papers released in July under Freedom of information legislation portrayed the Scottish Government as siding with the Law Society, can be read here : Undue Influence : Freedom of Information reveals how Law Society used Scottish Government Ministers to reduce complaints levy for crooked lawyers.

A senior official from one of Scotland’s Consumer organisations commenting on the Scottish Government’s latest release of information said : “The Law Society’s Chief Executive writes an email to the Scottish Government suggesting it contacts the SLCC to share its remarkably similar view to the Law Society regarding a reduction in the annual complaints levy. A Minister surprisingly other than the Justice Secretary then writes to the SLCC a few days later threatening a review of the SLCC's independence if the complaints levy is not reduced. What more evidence could anyone want the Law Society effectively controls the SLCC and is still in charge of regulation of complaints ?”

Law Society’s Director of Regulation Philip Yelland ‘calculated SLCC’s complaints levy’ over a weekend. A further document in the form of an attachment released by the Scottish Government under Freedom of Information legislation stunningly depicts Philip Yelland, the Law Society of Scotland’s ‘Director of Regulation’ making his own calculations as to how much the supposedly independent SLCC should reduce the complaints levy by. Director of Regulation Philip Yelland’s ‘suggestions’ to the Scottish Government of the complaints levy charges the Law Society would like to see :

1: Reduction in the top rate levy by £ 50 to £ 225 If you apply this across the Board and the appropriate waivers per their budget the sum to be taken from reserves to meet this would be £ 413,078 on top of the figure of £ 370,000 which they are already planning to use to keep the levy at the same level as this year. The net effect would appear to be to reduce their reserves by just over 2 months running costs (on the basis that it costs approximately £ 200,000 per month to run.

2: Reduction in top rate levy by £ 25 to £ 250 If you apply this across the Board to would cost the Commission £ 206,539 or just over one month’s running costs. It may also be worth making the point that to date evidence suggests that the number of solicitors in the pot to pay at 30th June will be higher than the number we give them in November/December. PY 14th February 2010”

A legal insider studying the full FOI releases from the Scottish Government commented : “If a member of the public writes to the Scottish Government regarding problems with the Law Society or the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, I doubt they will receive such attentive service, accompanied by a Ministerial threat of review if difficulties were not addressed ….”

He continued : “Clearly the Law Society still pull the strings at the SLCC and it appears, the Scottish Government.”

Communities Minister Fergus Ewing’s letter in full to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission threatening the SLCC’s independence over reductions in the complaints levy, apparently on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland :

Community Safety Fergus Ewing writes to Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, demands reduction of complaints levy for lawyers. The letter from Mr Ewing to the SLCC, recently released, states : “I note that you have used some of your reserves to offset any increase in the general levy and that is commendable, but I am strongly of the view that this does not go far enough. I understand that this financial year you have generated income of around £2.3m and that your predicted costs of £2.9m are now forecast to be £2.6m. The shortfall between income and expenditure will be met by your contingency fund should that remain untouched and in effect your budget will balance this year. However the surplus finds generated during your first 9 months of operation recorded as £1.5m are likely to remain untouched.”

Mr Ewing continued : “Whilst I recognise that during your initial year of operation the workload and consequently expenditure was difficult to predict, having built up an significant reserve fund in this financial year, it is essential that the Commission takes full account of this reserve in determining the amount of annual general levy and the complaints levy that is reasonably sufficient to meet its expenditure for the next financial year. When the Commission has existing reserves, it must ensure that, taking one financial year with another, the amount of the proposed general levy and complaints levy is reasonably sufficient to meet its expenditure, in particular, any estimated shortfall including for contingencies.”

Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing threatens a review of Ministerial powers over the SLCC if it refuses to lower the complaints levy. Fergus Ewing continued in his letter to the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine : “I do not think it is sufficient to use these reserves to merely off-set an assumed increase in the proposed amount of the annual general levy for next year. I therefore invite the Commission to give early and serious consideration to reducing the proposed amount of the annual general levy and the complaints levy to ensure that these do not, taking one financial year with another, exceed what is reasonably sufficient to meet its expenditure.“I appreciate that this is important for the SLCC to manage their financial risks and hold some contingency funding and I know that officials here would be happy to discuss how this could be achieved in ways which do no to rely on large reserves. I appreciate also that, as the legislation stands, the levy is a matter for the SLCC to determine, and that Ministers have no powers to order the SLCC to take any particular action in respect of the levy. It is for the SLCC itself to ensure that the level of charge is justifiable, in the light of the demands on it. I trust that you will exercise that discretion appropriately, having regard to the views expressed by consultees.”

Fergus Ewing ended his letter with an apparent threat : “I would wish to give fair notice that Ministers will review the situation following the setting of this year’s levies to see whether any change in the respective powers of Ministers and the Commission is desirable.”

The end result was .. the SLCC dropped the complaints levy charges as the Law Society wished, setting the figures at : Solicitors with 3 plus years experience £235, Conveyancing & Executry Practitioners with 3 plus years experience £235, Solicitors within first 3 years experience £118, Conveyancing & Executry Practitioner within first 3 years of practice £118, Practising outwith Scotland £78, In-house Conveyancing & Executry Practitioners £78, In-house Lawyers £78, Advocates £118, Association of Commercial Attorneys £78.

There is real difficulty in describing the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as an independent regulator of complaints against the legal profession after this, and many more incidents … however, given no prosecutions or even a striking off of a solicitor have yet taken place after two years of complaints handling by the SLCC .. one may very well legitimately question why the SLCC even exists ?

Undue Influence : Freedom of Information reveals how Law Society used Scottish Government Ministers to reduce complaints levy for crooked lawyers

Communities Safety Minister Fergus Ewing demanded ‘independent’ law complaints quango give solicitors a break on complaints charges. DOCUMENTS REVEALED under Freedom of Information legislation of a meeting chaired by the Scottish Government’s Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Law Society of Scotland over arguments relating to ongoing court cases between the two regulators and the costs of the contentious Penman Levy ‘complaints levy’, will leave no one in any doubt about the close relationship between the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Government on issues the legal profession demand are raised in its favour.

I reported on Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing’s intervention on behalf of the Law Society to reduce the complaints levy in an earlier article during April, here : ‘Ministerial Interference’ as Fergus Ewing demands SLCC’s £1.5m reserves be handed to lawyers after Law Society lobbied Scottish Government, however the recent release of the actual minutes of the meeting now reveal the extent of Mr Ewing’s involvement which resonates throughout the two pages as being clearly biased in favour of the Law Society’s stance over complaints levies and court challenges against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission over complaints appeals.

Documents reveal meeting demanded by the Law Society secured Ministerial interference to reduce complaints levy. Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing, himself a former solicitor & member of the Law Society of Scotland opened the meeting, held on 22 April at the Scottish Parliament, allegedly claiming its purpose was not to interfere with the duties of the SLCC or the Law Society, despite the Law Society having itself called for the meeting, which was attended by the Society’s current Chief Executive, Lorna Jack & Director of Regulation Philip Yelland. However, insiders today revealed the only issue the Law Society wanted to discuss (appearing as item 8 in the minutes) was the complaints levy and the massive £1.5 million surplus held by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which the Law Society had asked the Scottish Government to consider while seeking a reduction in complaints levy charges for solicitors.

Item 8 of the released minutes read : “The Law Society confirmed that the points they had made previously about ‘over provision’ of reserves stood. The Scottish Government was concerned that the SLCC were being over cautious on risk, particularly given that most of the risk will be substantially mitigated in the course of the year.”

Scottish Government had received ‘numerous representations from the Law Society on the complaints levy. A Scottish Government insider today confirmed the Law Society had made numerous representations, both written & ‘in person’ to the Scottish Government over the society’s desire to further reduce the complaints levy, and on issues relating to the society’s court of session challenges against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. However he said “there was about as much chance of getting hold of these documents in an FOI request as the Edinburgh Trams project finishing on time”

A legal insider, studying the terms of the minutes, disputed the Community Safety Minister’s version of why the meeting had taken place and his attempt to distance himself from appearing to intervene on the part of one regulator against another.

He went on to point out Mr Ewing’s claim of not wishing to interfere in the running of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was very misleading, to the point of being dishonest, considering Mr Ewing had already sent a letter to the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine, threatening there would be Ministerial intervention if the SLCC did not accede to the Minister’s wishes on the complaints levy & reserves, wishes which coincided with those of the Law Society of Scotland.

Tale of a Ministerial Threat : Community Safety Fergus Ewing demanded reduction of complaints levy as Law Society had requested. The letter from Mr Ewing to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where insiders recently branded the letter ‘Ministerial intervention on behalf of the Law Society’, stated : “I note that you have used some of your reserves to offset any increase in the general levy and that is commendable, but I am strongly of the view that this does not go far enough. … I therefore invite the Commission to give early and serious consideration to reducing the proposed amount of the annual general levy …. I would wish to give fair notice that Ministers will review the situation following the setting of this year’s levies to see whether any change in the respective powers of Ministers and the Commission is desirable.”

There have been successive reductions in the SLCC’s complaints levy since the ‘independent’, scandal-hit law complaints quango was created in 2007 as a result of the passage of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 – legislation which was passed after a collective campaign by many individuals, consumer organisations & campaign groups to reform widespread corruption in regulation of Scotland's legal profession.

The complaints levy initially stood at £409 in 2008, a levy charged to each solicitor to fund the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s work investigating complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’. However, after a year of bickering between the SLCC & Law Society, the SLCC’s complaints levy was reduced dramatically in 2009 from £409 to £275, and the £200 charge for mediation between solicitors (who were involved in complaints) & their clients, dropped.

Lorna Jack, Chief Executive of the Law Society. The Law Society welcomed Fergus Ewing’s intervention to reduce the complaints levy, issuing a press release a few days after the meeting took place, apparently rubbing in their ‘Ministerial assisted’ victory over the SLCC. Lorna Jack, Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, announced : “We are delighted the representations made by the Society have resulted in a reduction in the levy on our solicitors. The Society did make strong representations to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on behalf of the profession.”

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were branded ‘liars’ by Law Society over Court actions. Ms Jack went on to chastise the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission over what she viewed as ‘necessary’ court challenges against complaints decisions : “Whilst we are pleased that they have listened to some of our points, we are extremely disappointed that the SLCC has used the excuse of the unknown outcome of appeals currently at the Court of Session as a reason for keeping their budget and reserves so high. These appeals were necessary and indeed the only course of action open to the Law Society to clarify a difference of understanding of the law which the Society and SLCC have over whether certain complaints are conduct complaints that the Society can investigate.”

Law Society ended Press Release with ‘veiled threat’. Ms Jack ended her press release with a veiled threat against the independent SLCC, inferring the Law Society would be back in the fight to get its way further on complaints levies : “We will continue to talk to the SLCC about how they can work within the legislation and improve their structures and systems to avoid this type of issue arising in future at an unfair cost to the profession. The Society has a right to challenge the SLCC’s budget, as one of the professional bodies representing the legal profession which pays for its running costs, and we think the SLCC have failed to take a proportionate approach to the risk involved.”

A senior official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations said today the terms of the meeting, taken in context with the earlier letter from the Community Safety Minister to Jane Irvine, the SLCC’s Chair, made for a venue of intimidation likely to produce “a favourable result for the Law Society of Scotland, which is in fact, what has occurred”.

He said : “I think consumers would rightly view it is entirely inappropriate for the Scottish Government, acting on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland to intervene with the independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where there is without doubt a clear bias in favour of the Law Society who had approached the Minister for help in seeking a reduction in the complaints levy & the amount held by the SLCC in its reserves.”

He continued : “The Scottish Government, let alone a Government Minister would never even consider offering to chair meetings between consumers who are having problems with either the SLCC or the Law Society where either or both regulators have failed to properly investigate complaints made against Scottish solicitors.”

“Mr Ewing’s interference has effectively killed the SLCC’s public credibility and put the Law Society on notice it can call in Scottish Ministers at any time to get its own way. A poor example for Mr Ewing to set considering the long history of problems with regulation of the legal profession.”

A Justice Department insider, asked today if the FOI released minutes truly reflected the tone of the meeting & what had all been discussed, replied with a wry smile, saying : "What do you think ?”

Well, I know what I think … and coincidentally of course, the SLCC did agree to freeze the complaints levy, as well as draw down on their reserves, just as the Law Society of Scotland had demanded the willing Scottish Government Minister ensure took place;

So, as easily as a gamekeeper may call his Jack Russell Terrier to heel before ordering it down a rabbit hole, details of meetings demanded by the Law Society over financial benefits for its member solicitors indisputably show Scottish Government Ministers will apparently follow the society’s wishes to the letter, in this case, where the Law Society had demanded further reductions in the annual complaints levy charged to all solicitors which funds the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

What chance is there of independent, transparent regulation of the legal profession in Scotland, when the Law Society can call in Scottish Ministers to bully any regulator into speedy subjugation ? No chance at all … and consumer protection against inadequate legal services ? in Scotland .. such an idea is a myth under the current administration.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to repay £1.7million public funds as board member revealed to sit on Govt. Accounts scrutiny quango

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuses to repay millions in public funds. IT HAS EMERGED through investigations that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who are angrily refusing calls from consumers & politicians to repay the huge sums of public funds, over £1.7million so far put in by the Scottish Government to create the hapless complaints quango, have a currently serving board member who also holds a paid position on another Scottish Government quango, the Accounts Commission for Scotland which inspects public finances in Scotland’s local government sector, claiming to help achieve ‘best value’ in public services.

Dr Linda Pollock, paid for SLCC & Accounts Commission quango appearances. Documents now reveal that Dr Linda Pollock, a board member personally appointed to the hugely expensive, scandal clad Scottish Legal Complaints Commission by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, receiving over £209 per day for putting in appearances to the limited number of SLCC board meetings currently published, also receives a staggering £6,216 a year for only 24 days work as an appointee to the Accounts Commission, whose main role is to secure the audit of local authorities in Scotland and to help those bodies to achieve Best Value in their activities. The Accounts Commission website also reveals Dr Pollock holds another quango position within the Nursing and Midwifery Council for which she receives £260 per day remuneration

From the release of the SLCC’s board members expenses claims by the Scottish Government, it can be revealed today that Dr Pollock claimed a staggering £15,635.39 in expenses during the first nine months of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s work during the time it received nearly £2 million from the Scottish Government, and before the law complaints quango even did any work on consumer complaints against members of the legal profession. The figures also show that collectively, the SLCC’s board members claimed a staggering £130K in expenses for the first nine months of 2008 on everything from travel, hotel rooms, to lunches and even car parking.

Best Value ? : SLCC Board members Expenses – What the public paid for.

Interestingly, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission fought against the release of the above information, claiming its board members would suffer ‘mental health’ problems if the public & legal profession were told just how much was being claimed in expenses. I covered this in an earlier article, here : Expenses secrecy scandal as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seeks ban on information requests to protect lawyers 'mental health & safety'

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine. Jane Irvine of the SLCC was asked for comment on whether the SLCC intended to repay the public purse from the vast surplus funds currently held by the Legal Complaints Commission, who insiders now confirm are studying ways of possibly using the millions held by the quango to appease calls from the Law Society of Scotland to reduce the ‘complaints levy’ which pays for the SLCC’s operational costs of considering complaints made by the public against solicitors & law firms in Scotland. However, the SLCC refused to comment, and are rumoured to be very angry the issue of repaying the near £2 million taxpayer funded start up costs has resurfaced in the public arena.

You can read my earlier coverage of the SLCC’s first annual report, announcing the gigantic surplus of £1.5 million here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveals it passed most complaints about lawyers back to Law Society, has failed to act on Master Policy report and the Law Society of Scotland’s call to use the surplus to pay back solicitors, instead of many financially stricken public services in Scotland, who could do with the money more than lawyers back pockets, here : Consumer protection ‘a low priority’ as Law Society demand Legal Complaints Commission’s ‘crooked lawyer’ complaints levy be reduced

Politicians and consumer organisations have now joined the call for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to repay the vast amount of public funds which helped to start up the quango.

David Whitton, Labour MSP for Strathkelvin and Bearsden David Whitton, MSP for Strathkelvin & Bearsden commented on calls for the law complaints body’s 1.5million surplus to be used to reduce the levy instead of repaying public sector input of nearly 2 million said : “I most. Certainly do not believe the surplus should be used to reduce the levy. If there is a surplus of that size it could be used to greater effect elsewhere in the justice system say in funding more drug and alcohol rehab facilities or running more stringent community sentence orders.”

Mr Whitton went on to call for intervention from the Justice Secretary in the row over the huge amounts of money held by the SLCC, saying “The Justice secretary should be getting involved to ask why the money is not being put to the use it was intended for.”

A senior official with one of Scotland’s main consumer organisations said today he believed the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission should repay taxpayers the full amounts pumped in by the Scottish Government to start the hapless law complaints body.

He said : “Clearly the SLCC are being selfish in refusing to repay money which could be better spent on public services such as education, health and local government services, who are all being forced to cut back on jobs and the services they provide. It is very unfair for the SLCC to be sitting on that much money when the rest of the country is in trouble.”

When asked about the revelations that SLCC board members also sat on the Audit Commission quango, he said : “If I were in that position, I would find it very difficult to reconcile my duty to ensure best value for public services while at the same time sitting on a quango which is sitting on nearly 2 million pounds, mainly for its own benefit or that of the legal profession.”

The Accounts Commission have refused to make any detailed comment, but were visibly angry in communications over the revelations. Their spokesman would only say : “As the Accounts Commission has no statutory role in regulating or scrutinising the SLCC, this is not an issue over which it can take a position.”

No one was available at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to answer further questions this afternoon and the question of whether the SLCC can be made to repay the millions put in by taxpayers will now be taken up by politicians & campaigners.

Better giving the money to hospitals, education and keeping us all safe & sound, rather than simply emptying it into board members expenses claims and the back pockets of the legal profession ?

Consumer protection ‘a low priority’ as Law Society demand Legal Complaints Commission’s ‘crooked lawyer’ complaints levy be reduced

Law Society disputes law complaints body’s budget. THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND is demanding a reduction in the annual ‘Penman levy' complaints levy imposed all solicitors currently set by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission at £275 for solicitors with three or more years experience, this despite the fact the levy has already been reduced once by the ‘less-than-independent' SLCC, who are proposing a freeze on complaints levy payments for the coming year.

The complaints levy is used to fund the operation of the SLCC which was created in 2007 to ‘independently’ investigate complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’ and clean up the high levels of closed shop complaints whitewashes which, remarkably continue to occur during Law Society investigations into client complaints against their own members.

Chief Executive Lorna Jack : Law Society’s replacement for Douglas Mill. Lorna Jack, Chief Executive of the Society contended the SLCC were handling lower levels of complaints due to lawyers facing financial hardship during the downturn. Ms Jack said : “The SLCC’s budget should reflect what is happening more widely in the economy, particularly given the financial difficulties solicitors have faced during the recession, and reflect the level of complaints the SLCC is currently handling, and expected to handle in the forthcoming year. At a time when solicitors are having to make tough decisions about their businesses and the Society has reduced the cost of the practicing certificate by £100, it is vital that the SLCC offers value for money.”

Ms Jack went onto attack the Legal Complaints Commission further, claiming it had plenty reserves to reduce levies on impoverished lawyers (who will pass on the levy charge to clients anyway, and then probably double or treble it according to the usual accepted practices of fleecing clients).

Ms Jack continued : “The SLCC’s proposed budget would indicate that they have more than sufficient funding to reduce the financial burden on solicitors and still run the operation effectively. It is particularly frustrating that, when the SLCC was planning its 2009/10 budget, the Society maintained that the levy on solicitors was too high and would lead to excessive reserves. Having now seen the proposed budget, (including reserves to cover 6 months operational costs) it seems we were justified in our view and we will continue to press for a reduced levy on our members this year.”

£275 a year for crooked lawyers to stay out of jail ? Come on Lorna, where else does someone get such a cosy deal ? It’s hardly worth complaining about when the Law Society does so much to protect the profession against consumer complaints …

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine. Commenting on the Law Society’s call to reduce the levy, rather than simply freeze it, Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission said : “The budget consultation process is currently ongoing and it would therefore be inappropriate to respond to comments made in a press release from one of the professional bodies. We expect to receive formal responses from all the professional bodies following discussions with their representatives. The formal responses will be published on the SLCC website.”

Well, now that is a change, we wont need to do Freedom of Information requests to see what the Law Society of Scotland said in their responses … so lets hope for a bout of arm twisting and bullying well worthy of Scotland’s governing body of solicitors which as never once placed consumer protection above the interests of its solicitor membership.

SLCC Budget freeze takes account of downturn for lawyers, not downturn for Scotland. While the Law Society sticks to its chosen path of confrontation on this year’s complaints levy, Jane Irvine explained the Commission’s way of thinking for their 2010/11 budget. Ms Irvine said : "The Board is keen that levies collected from the legal profession do not change dramatically from year to year. Taking this and the economic downturn into account, we have decided to use SLCC reserves to stabilise the levy fee at a time when there is a reduction in the number of practising legal professionals, which of course, means fewer levies to be collected by the professional bodies."

She added: "The general levy for the next financial year will remain the same with additional categories being added to bring In-house Conveyancing and Executry Practitioners inline with In-house Solicitors and to also include members of the Association of Commercial Attorneys."

SLCC Board members “We’re in the money, we’re in the money”. In January of each year, the SLCC consults with the professional bodies and their members on our budget for the next financial year. This is in accordance with the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The levy is gathered by the professional bodies (but not always paid on time) ; the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and the Association of Commercial Attorneys (the levy for Conveyancing & Executry Practitioners is collected by the Law Society of Scotland).

Your can read the letters to the professional bodies and the proposed budget for 2010-2011 here (PDF 4.39MB).

Jane Irvine continued: "Similarly, whilst our previous budget doubled the levy we apply when complaints are upheld, this will not increase in our next financial year. What we have done, however, is to give ourselves more discretion when and how we charge the complaints levy with the maximum set at the relevant levy banding.”

"The SLCC proposed budget for 2010 to 2011 is £2,839,336 and although our budget calculations need to factor in running costs of up to six months, our under-spend has enabled the overall budget to be reduced by over £145,000."

To understand why the ‘Penman Levy’ complaints levy exists, read this : How Law Society's 'cancelled' prosecution of Borders solicitor Andrew Penman ignited moves to reform regulation of Scotland’s crooked lawyers

To find out where some of this money goes, a couple of my previous articles make illuminating reading : Calls to scrap 'complaints laundering' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as expensive anti-consumer quango revealed as talking shop for lawyers & Expenses secrecy scandal as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seeks ban on information requests to protect lawyers 'mental health & safety'

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill wrote off £2 million of taxpayers money as start up costs of new crooked lawyers regulator. So, no increase in the complaints levy for lawyers, but no thought either of paying back the two million pounds plus of Scottish taxpayers money pumped into the SLCC by the Scottish Government which Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill wrote off as ‘start up costs’, which you can read more about here : MacAskill silent on taxpayers £2million 'write off' to lawyers quango as Complaints boss reveals Law Society defaulted on levies.

What with the recession and public services needing the money more than crooked lawyers, surely the SLCC should be handing back those millions which would be better spent on hospitals & health rather than letting the legal profession get away with receiving yet another gigantic bung from the taxpayer.

Proposed levy charges for 2010/2011 are:

Solicitors with 3 plus years experience £275
Conveyancing or Executry Practitioners
with 3 plus years experience £275
Advocates £223
Solicitors within first 3 years of practice £138
Conveyancing or Executry Practitioners
within 3 plus years of practice £138
In-house solicitors £91
In-house Conveyancing or Executry
Practitioners £91
Commercial Attorneys £91

Complaints levies are charges made against legal practitioners when a complaint is upheld. The proposed complaints levies for 2010/2011 are:

Mediation levy £0
No complaint upheld £0
Complaint accepted - First Settlement up to £500
Complaint accepted - Second and
Further Settlements up to £700
Formal Determination - First up to £800
Formal Determination - Second up to £1,200
Formal Determination - Third
and Further Determinations up to £2,000

My previous reports on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission can be read here Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : The story so far, and it should be noted the SLCC’s first annual report is yet to be published, dates floating around at the moment suggest March 2010, and we can also expect the final report of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, a position which the SLCC’s current Chair, Jane Irvine held prior to the Commission taking over the SLSO’s functions.

However, what we wont be seeing is a parade of clients or consumers who the SLCC have protected by addressing & resolving complaints & complicated cases of fraud involving solicitors ripping off the general public, because apparently, there are no major honours of resolving significant client complaints to speak of. Wonder why ? just read my earlier reports on the SLCC to find out.

Commission budget 'protects lawyers not consumers' as taxpayers £2 million fails to be repaid despite economic meltdown

While Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is in Canada, wasting yet more taxpayers money on the failing "Homecoming" project, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been engaged in spinning out a story to cover up the SNP controlled administration's little talked about multi million pound gift to the lawyers complaints quango, which has mostly went on personal benefits, huge salaries, pension schemes and personal insurance policies for a bunch of lawyers, retired Policemen, and other alleged experts in the field of regulating complaints against lawyers.

This week, desperate to avoid any further bad publicity or hard questions on its income, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a Press Release to newspapers calling their budget proposals a "budget reflects needs of both consumers and legal practitioners"

However, the quango has refused to pay back the millions of pounds it received from the Scottish taxpayer, at the behest of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who himself has acknowledged he will not seek the return of the much needed public money already wasted on the Commission, which has yet to generate the increased consumer confidence in the Scottish legal services market it was created to do.

I reported earlier on the Mr MacAskill’s multi million pound ‘gift’ to the SLCC here : MacAskill silent on taxpayers £2million 'write off' to lawyers quango as Complaints boss reveals Law Society defaulted on levies

The Commission's controversial decision to lower the annual complaints levy which solicitors must pay to fund the body which investigates complaints against Scottish lawyers, rather than repay the public purse, despite receiving over £2.4 millions pounds from the Law Society of Scotland by the end of last year, raises questions on just who the SLCC is serving, as clients of solicitors now find it is almost impossible to get the Commission to actually investigate complaints against solicitors, with many encountering a huge list of excuses given for the quango to take on cases against crooked lawyers.

Jane Irvine, SLCC Chairman. Jane Irvine, the SLCC's Chairman was asked for comment this week on why, despite having huge surpluses of cash, the Commission had failed to repay the millions of pounds of public money it had received, before lowering the amounts solicitors had to pay to keep it running.

Short of an explanation it seems, for the obvious, where one would think in these tough financial times, public money should be repaid rather than being handed over to lawyers, Ms Irvine denied any responsibility for the matter, and simply replied "The two sets of monies are not linked and it is not within my control."

Well, that's just great isn't it ... people all across Scotland are waiting to get into hospitals for life saving operations, people's homes are being repossessed, public services are in danger of being cut back, many of Scotland's financial institutions have had to be rescued by the Bank of England, but the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and the Justice Secretary Mr MacAskill, himself a lawyer, are happy to shower a group of lawyers with millions of pounds of public money.

Does anyone think that is justified ? particularly in these troubled financial times ?

An insider at the Justice Department commented to me "there have been moves by the Scottish Government to hamper public discussion of the sensitive subject of public funding of the SLCC" .. and little wonder, given that the SLCC has spent most of the money on itself and personal benefits so far, rather than doing the actual work the Scots public were promised it would actually carry out.

You can read more about how the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been spending millions of pounds of public money on itself and its high salaried officials here : Complaints Commission 'unfit for purpose' as secret meetings with insurers & pensions take focus over consumer protection against crooked lawyers

However, not so long ago, the Commission was embroiled in bitter internal squabbles and fights over personal benefits and a shortage of funds, which I reported on here : Legal Complaints Commission in crisis amid funds shortage & resignation threats over lack of insurance protection

From the actual SLCC Press Release on their budget proposals earlier this week, it does appear that sources within the Justice Department are correct on their claims of "a culture of spin" at the lawyers complaints quango, so lets have a look at what Jane Irvine said to the newspapers to try and get the Commission's own message out :

Jane Irvine : “As an independent, impartial and accessible organisation, the budget has been developed after listening to the views of both consumer organisations and legal practitioners."

Independent, impartial & accessible ? How can that be, when one of the first decisions the SLCC took was to refuse to investigate any complaint against a solicitor involving work which took place before 1st October 2008. The SLCC is of course, staffed by members of the Law Society of Scotland, and its Board is made up mostly of lawyers, ex Police officers & others who have been involved in self regulation for years .. hardly impartial or independent or accessible.

If you want to read how independent, impartial & accessible the SLCC actually is, have a read of the following article : Legal Complaints Commission to delay monitoring of discredited lawyers insurance as worries increase over poor regulation of crooked lawyers

Jane Irvine : “The economic downturn has already impacted upon the legal profession and a *recent survey of 196 firms indicated that 304 people, mostly support staff, had already been made redundant.”

Yes, so it seems .. but it seems the economic downturn has caused many solicitors to start faking up their bills to clients, adding fictitious work and inflating accounts, along with threats & menaces if bills aren't paid within a few days ... and strangely enough, or perhaps conveniently for Ms Irvine and her associates, the 'independent impartial & accessible SLCC is telling people it wont investigate such cases if the work happened before 1st October 2008.

I reported on solicitors inflating their bills and double charging their clients here : Lawyers stealing from clients to earn 'double fees' while Law Society looks the other way in vast network of legal aid fraud & embezzlement

Jane Irvine : “Legal practitioners already working to high standards will benefit from the levy being reduced from **£409 to £275 and the £200 charge for mediation will be removed.”

What high standards are we talking about here ? Scotland has the poorest quality legal services market in the developed world, with clients paying up to 10 times more for legal services than anywhere else, and still not getting success or satisfaction in their legal affairs.

Jane Irvine again : “However, consumer organisations want to see higher standards of service and early resolution of complaints. With this in mind, the SLCC will double charges where a complaint is upheld. The minimum charge will rise from ***£250 to £500. The financial implications of an increased complaints levy should encourage practitioners to resolve complaints at an early stage."

Really ? I don't think anyone with a shred of experience in dealing with solicitors will believe that for a second ... rather it will simply increase the amounts that lawyers are prepared to steal from their clients, all because they know they can get away with it due to the very poor and very biased way in which regulation of complaints against solicitors are still being handled in Scotland, by a Commission which claims itself to be "independent, impartial & accessible"

As a final kicker to the story, revelations surfaced this morning it was the legal profession itself in the form of the Law Society of Scotland who had been campaigning for a reduction in the levies, and it seems judging by the SLCC’s Press Release, that campaign was successful so its lawyers before clients once again in Scotland. What that how it was meant to be with the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 ?

So, we must ask ourselves, who is it the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is actually here to serve ? the public ? or solicitors and the Law Society of Scotland ? and why is the Justice Secretary simply dismissing consumer interests at every turn and siding each time with the legal profession over regulation issues ?

Here follows the SLCC’s budget statement, and HERE is a link to the story in the Scotsman newspaper, who sadly fell for the badly spun argument of paying public money to lawyers instead of returning it to the taxpayer.

SLCC budget reflects needs of both consumers and legal practitioners

JANUARY 2009

SLCC budget reflects needs of both consumers and legal practitioners

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has announced budget proposals for 2009/2010 which should benefit both consumers and legal practitioners.

Set up under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLCC investigates complaints made by members of the public about services provided by legal practitioners in Scotland. The Commission opened for business on 1 October 2008 and although operating wholly independently of the legal profession, it is funded by legal practitioners in Scotland through the payment of an annual levy and charges imposed when a complaint is upheld.

Commenting on the proposed budget, SLCC Chair Jane Irvine said: “As an independent, impartial and accessible organisation, the budget has been developed after listening to the views of both consumer organisations and legal practitioners.

“The economic downturn has already impacted upon the legal profession and a *recent survey of 196 firms indicated that 304 people, mostly support staff, had already been made redundant.

“Legal practitioners already working to high standards will benefit from the levy being reduced from **£409 to £275 and the £200 charge for mediation will be removed.

“However, consumer organisations want to see higher standards of service and early resolution of complaints. With this in mind, the SLCC will double charges where a complaint is upheld. The minimum charge will rise from ***£250 to £500. The financial implications of an increased complaints levy should encourage practitioners to resolve complaints at an early stage.”

The original budget for the Commission’s first year of operation was £3,493,823. Operating costs for the next twelve months are significantly reduced with a proposed budget of £2,985,102.

ENDS

For further information contact:

Doreen Graham, SLCC Head of Communications

Editors Notes:

*Source: Economic Impact Survey, December 2008 published by the Law Society of Scotland.

**A 12-month annual levy charge for 2008/09 should have been £409 but the actual charge for the 9-months of operation was £307.

Proposed levy charges for 2009/10 are:

Solicitors with 3 plus years experience £275

Advocates £223

Solicitors within first 3 years of practice £138

In-house solicitors £91

***Complaints levies are charges made against legal practitioners when a complaint is upheld. The proposed complaints levies for 2009/10 are:

Mediation levy £0

No complaint upheld £0

Complaint accepted – First Settlement £500

Complaint accepted – Second and Further Settlements £700

Formal Determination – First £800

Formal Determination – Second £1,200

Formal Determination – Third and Further Determinations £2,000