OWNED POLL: Law Society ‘scripted’ survey criticised by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - new data reveals few clients of dodgy lawyers ask legal regulators for help

Law Society poll did not reveal all – SLCC. THE FINDINGS of a Law Society of Scotland survey claiming hard-to-verify client-solicitor satisfaction rates have come in for criticism by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) – the ‘independent’ regulator of solicitors & legal services in Scotland.

The Law Society poll – published in early January 2015 - claimed Scottish solicitors were highly regarded by the public.

However, the SLCC have now challenged the poll’s findings, claiming high levels of legal service in Scotland are “not a universal experience”. The ‘independent’ SLCC also cited higher compensation awards against rogue solicitors and ‘increasing redress’ provided by the SLCC to wronged clients.

And, in another swipe at the Law Society’s poll dodging, the SLCC has now revealed that only a third of clients polled who were dissatisfied with their solicitor did anything about it, and not one client involved in the poll knew they could refer their complaint to the SLCC.

However, carefully prepared statements avoided any explanation on why the SLCC’s involvement in the poll was kept secret until a media investigation published documents revealing the SLCC's role.

A spokesperson for the SLCC said: “Towards the end of last year, the Law Society of Scotland released the results of a poll of the public’s perceptions of the legal profession. This indicated that, overall, people expressed a high level of satisfaction with solicitors. While we agree that the vast majority of solicitors provide a high level of service, this is unfortunately not a universal experience. As our figures show, we are increasingly providing redress for those clients who receive a poor service from their solicitors – a picture also supported by the record level of compensation awards and refunds of legal fees we highlighted in our last Annual Report.”

The SLCC went on to explain it’s previously secret involvement in the poll, revealing it asked searching questions on how clients react to the provision of poor legal services.

“We were given the opportunity to include questions in the Law Society’s poll. We asked two related questions aimed to assess public awareness of the role of the SLCC. In particular, we wanted to know whether clients who were dissatisfied with the service they had received from their solicitor knew they could bring their concerns to us.

The answers to these questions were revealing. Of those who were dissatisfied with their solicitor: only a third did anything about it; and none knew they could refer their complaint to the SLCC.

Solicitors throughout Scotland have a duty to make their clients aware of the SLCC and how to make a complaint to us. We continue to see evidence that this is not happening – less than 5% of those who complain to us say that they found out about us from their solicitor. We are concerned that, as a result, the voices of many dissatisfied clients are just not being heard. As a priority, we are currently working with the Law Society to ensure that all solicitors provide clear and consistent sign-posting to our service.

Clearly there is also more work that we, as an organisation, need to do to increase public awareness of the SLCC. Our Consumer Panel, newly-established this year, will be looking at how we can make sure that, on the occasions where things do go wrong and fail to be resolved, the public knows to bring those concerns to us.  Our half year results show that when this does happen - we can help put things right.”

Complaints slightly down – SLCC statistics for first half of 2014/15. Alongside the SLCC’s attempt to clear the air on their involvement in what some legal insiders have referred to as a “vanity survey”, the SLCC released complaints statistics for the first half of the operational year, showing a slight drop in complaints.

The SLCC said: “The headline figures for the first half of the SLCC’s operational year show that, overall, the number of complaints we receive is declining, reflecting a continuing trend which we have highlighted in previous years.

More importantly, however, we note the proportion of those complaints which are either accepted as eligible complaints or resolved by us during our eligibility process. They represent almost 60% of all received complaints (up from just over 40% in the corresponding period in 2013).

It’s also clear from the figures that the number of accepted complaints which are then either resolved or upheld in favour of the complainer has also increased – 115 complaints compared to 97 in 2013.”

Responding to the SLCC’s criticisms, the Law Society’s Chief Executive – Lorna Jack – said: “In the vast majority of cases, solicitors’ clients are happy with the advice and the level of service they receive. However we know that things do go wrong from time to time and it is important that people have proper recourse to address any failings through a strong legal complaints system.”

“Dealing with complaints is and will always be difficult for everyone involved. What we want to ensure is that the process in place is robust and fair to both complainer and solicitor, and that we reach the right outcome.We will work with the SLCC to ensure that the legal complaints system in Scotland continues to improve.”

The Law Society did not comment on why the involvement of the SLCC was withheld from statements released by the Law Society along with articles written for newspapers during January by the Law Society’s own President – Alistair Morris.

The research carried out by IPSOS MORI for the Law Society of Scotland claimed that of clients who had used a solicitor in the past five years - more than 90% “of respondents” said their own lawyer was either very trustworthy (70%) or fairly trustworthy (27%), with 87% describing solicitors overall as very or fairly trustworthy.

However, no detailed material has been made available which could verify the claims, or identify which solicitors or law firms were involved. It has also emerged some solicitors and law firms were provided with scripted responses by the Law Society to answer questions from the pollsters.

Legal insiders also point out the SLCC’s admission of involvement in the ‘rigged’ poll only came about after the publication of heavily redacted communications between the SLCC & Law Society which revealed both regulators discussed how to frame questions for the survey. The now published documents also revealed the Law Society demanded all material handed to the SLCC regarding the poll was not to be released to the public or media.

LAW POLL FIDDLE: Law Society of Scotland survey on client satisfaction used scripted replies, question rigging & involvement of ‘independent’ legal regulator SLCC was kept secret

Law Society poll details to remain secret says regulator. A SURVEY conducted by the Law Society of Scotland claiming Scottish solicitors are highly regarded by the public was so dishonest, the involvement of the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) and discussions about the poll and question rigging had to be censored out of documents released under Freedom of Information legislation.

AND, it emerged from an investigation into the poll the Law Society of Scotland demanded that all key documentation shared with the SLCC was provided to them on a confidential basis and on condition the material was safe from searching Freedom of Information enquiries by the media.

The research carried out by Ipsos MORI for the Law Society of Scotland claimed that of clients who had used a solicitor in the past five years - more than 90% “of respondents” said their own lawyer was either very trustworthy (70%) or fairly trustworthy (27%), with 87% describing solicitors overall as very or fairly trustworthy.

The survey went onto claim high numbers of clients felt their solicitor was an expert in their area of law and had provided good service enough to recommend to others. However, no independent material has been made available which could verify the claims, or identify which solicitors or law firms were involved.

Today, in documents released by the SLCC - blacked out to conceal discussions with the Law Society on how to ‘frame’ questions for the Ipsos-Mori survey, a murky trail of data manipulation emerges between the ‘independent’ SLCC & the Law Society – involved in a concerted attempt to manipulate the public into believing client-solicitor satisfaction rates are higher than the eventual publicity about the poll – published in late December 2014 & January 2015.

The documents released by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal a series of polls, carried out by the Law Society in order to boost its image and that of the legal profession.

In one email between the SLCC and Law Society representatives on the ‘poll’, a Law Society representative tells his SLCC colleague: At the recent LSS/SLCC strategy day, I agreed to provide you with our polling plans so we could discuss possible areas for some joint work. There are three pieces of polling work which we plan to carry out before the end of the calendar year, all carried out by Ipsos MORI.

• Public polling on attitudes towards solicitors (around 1,000 people) - polling carried out in September with results due in October.

• Political monitor (around 100 Members of the Scottish Parliament) - polling carried out Sep-Nov with results due in early December.

• Members polling (around 550 members) - polling carried out in December with results due by calendar year end.

Can I suggest that we find some time in the next few weeks for us to chat through the questions we have asked in the past and plan to ask this year? Perhaps Wednesday 13 or Thursday 14 August?

After a round of fixing questions and manipulation of data, an email from the Law Society of Scotland complains Ipsos cannot get to work on the survey because the pollster company was “busy with referendum stuff” in reference to the Scottish independence Referendum during September 2014.

“Please find attached the public research with your proposed changes. I will send it on to Ipsos and let them advise on the best way to frame the questions. This research will now not happen before October-they're quite busy with referendum stuff at the moment! If you can get back to me next week with any comments, I would appreciate it.”

During attempts to publicise Ipsos-Mori survey, the Law Society had so much difficulty obtaining publicity it’s own President – Alistair Morris put his name to articles spinning out the poll – which now appears more of a spin session than an accurate accounting of what the public really feel about high charging Scots lawyers who are costing their own legal profession over £1000 a day in compensation awards to ripped off clients.

Outgoing SLCC Chief Executive Matthew Vickers backed the decision to keep much of the details of the SLCC’s involvement with the survey a secret. He also supported the Law Society’s condition of providing documentation to the SLCC on the sly.

Matthew Vickers said: “The information which has been withheld relates to the survey carried out on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland ("the Society") by IPSOS MORI. The SLCC was given the opportunity by the Society to contribute some questions to the survey and following the survey the results of the poll were shared with the SLCC by the Society. The Society provided the material to the SLCC on a confidential basis and this was agreed and reaffirmed with the society at the time.

Vickers – who is standing down from the SLCC to take up a role in mediation at Ombudsman Services, added he strongly rejected any calls for the Law Society documents to be released in the public interest. Vickers said there was a greater interest in withholding the information from the public than releasing it.

Law Society President Alistair Morris said: “Overall, the results from the Ipsos MORI research are very positive and we are delighted that our members are so well thought of. However we can never become complacent and we have to recognise that things do go wrong from time to time. In addition to ensuring that we have a strong regulatory system in place, it’s important that we can understand the reasons behind clients dissatisfaction and what we at the Law Society can do to provide the right support and training to ensure that solicitors offer the advice and services that their clients need, whether they are buying a house, completing a business deal or appearing in court.”

However, it now transpires a number of solicitors did not want anything to do with the survey, some even questioning it’s cost and worth.

Earlier today, a law firm contacted in the survey talked about the discredited poll, admitting they were provided with a scripted response on how to respond to the pollsters.

Speaking to DOI a solicitor claimed he disagreed with the Law Society intruding into solicitor client relationships purely to seek publicity for it’s own ends.

He said: “The Law Society’s desire for publicity is more often than not counter productive and creates an unnecessary air of potential disagreement or conflict if clients refuse to become involved”.

The solicitor indicated colleagues in the profession had also received similar prompts from the Law Society to respond to the “vanity survey”.

ROGUE FEE: Legal regulator SLCC reveals rogue solicitors compensation data, admits powers to nullify dodgy legal fees only used in two cases during 2013/14

Regulator admits sparse use of powers on legal fees. DOCUMENTS released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal the ‘independent’ regulator of legal services in Scotland - the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) is failing to use its powers to reduce legal fees to zero when presented with detailed complaints & evidence about rogue lawyers – even after the regulator eventually decides the lawyer is guilty of failing their client.

Among a raft of data on how compensation is paid by the legal profession to clients after complaints have been investigated, upheld, or mediated, the regulator was forced to admit it had used powers to nullify fees in only two cases in the past year which resulted in clients not having to pay their lawyer a penny.

In one case, the SLCC said fees were recorded as being reduced to nil at the “determination stage” – where the SLCC usually conclude a solicitor is guilty of a variety of offences including having providing poor legal services to clients.

And, in stark contrast to the SLCC’s claims of overall success in mediation, the regulator also revealed the only other case were fees were reduced to zero was a mediation case - raising questions about why lawyers are able to recover any fees at all after being found guilty of ruining a client’s legal affairs.

When asked to give a total amount of exactly how much compensation had been paid at the time of the release of the SLCC 2014 Annual Report – which made a big show of £365K being paid to clients in compensation & fee abatement deals, the SLCC claimed it had no records and therefore could not answer. The regulator said law firms who agreed to rebate fees or pay compensation did not tell the SLCC when such repayments were made, if at all.

The information released by the regulator which details compensation and fee reductions paid in the last year, 2013-2014, reveals the highest award made by the regulator against a rogue solicitor or law firm - was £20,000 - while the lowest award was a mere £50.

While awards of compensation to clients and fee rebates are up, the fact that other than in only two cases, all solicitors & law firms who were found to have provided clients with poor legal services were still able to recover some amount of fees from their clients raises the prospect that clients who complain about their solicitors are not making the point clear enough to the SLCC they  expect fees reduced to nil.

In one case currently being looked into by journalists, it appears a client who made a complaint about their solicitor and asked for fees to be reduced to nil was talked out of it by the SLCC itself.

The information released by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in response to questions on compensation & fee reductions during 2013-2014:

1. How much of the £365,000 listed in the latest 2013-2014 annual report as Compensation & fee reductions for complainers at all stages has been paid at the time of the report's publication;

Compensation/fee rebates agreed as a result of a settlement reached at investigation stage or by way of mediation will generally be paid directly by the practitioners involved to the complainers. Although the SLCC will check that agreements are adhered to, it does not hold records of how much of the compensation/fee refunds has been repaid to complainers in these cases and it is not copied into correspondence between practitioners and complainers about payment arrangements.

2.    How much (amount) is fee reduction & number of cases where fee reduction took place and scale of awards;

The total amount for fee reduction is broken down between cases resolved at investigation stage, cases resolved by way of mediation and cases which have gone to determination. Figures are produced for each of these stages. The figures are recorded for the last financial year July 2013 - June 2014.

At investigation stage fee reductions were made in 15 cases. £9360.35 was agreed in respect of fee refunds. The lowest amount of fee reduction agreed was £91 and the highest was £2112.

At determination fees were abated in 30 cases. The SLCC does not have complete records of the total fee rebates awarded in those cases as it is often not provided with details of the final figure for the fee rebate from the practitioners once a determination is made. I can, however, advise that from our records the total fee rebates awarded at determination amounted to more than £29,608.99. The lowest figure for fee rebates at determination I have identified is £50.50 and the highest is £14,876.32.

At mediation fee reductions were made in 12 cases. A total of £29,610.40 was agreed in respect of fee reductions. The lowest amount of fee reduction I have identified was £488 and the highest was £13,417.74.

3.    How much (amount) is compensation and number of cases where compensation was awarded including scale of awards;

The total figure for compensation is broken down between cases resolved at investigation stage, cases resolved by way of mediation and cases which have gone to determination. Figures are produced for each of these stages.

The figures are recorded for the last financial year July 2013 - June 2014.

At investigation 44 cases were resolved and the sum of £50,627.56 was paid in compensation for injury and distress in respect of those cases. The lowest amount of compensation agreed was £50 and the highest was £6752.66. In 4 cases compensation was paid for losses. The total paid for losses amounts to £22493.50, with the lowest amount being £1000 and the highest £17,000.

At determination compensation was awarded in 86 cases amounting to £191,515.56. This amount covers compensation for injury and distress as well as compensation for losses and outlays. The lowest amount of compensation awarded was £50, the highest was £20,000.

At mediation compensation was agreed in 31 cases amounting to £37,187. This amount covers compensation for injury and distress as well as compensation for losses and outlays. The lowest amount of compensation agreed was £50 and the highest was £8750.

4.    If any cases resulted in fees to complainers being completely nullified and if so how many (and on what scale - amount);

At investigation we have no records of any cases where fees were reduced to nil. At determination we have records of fees being reduced to nil in one case. At mediation we have records of fees being reduced to nil in one case.

5.    Costs are listed as £43,000 for enforcement of compensation, fee refunds and levy payments. How much of this has been recovered and how many civil actions or enforcement actions, if any, have been raised to recover these amounts.

The figure of £43,000 provided in the annual report is an estimate of the staff costs for the work undertaken in recovery of compensation and levy payments etc. The amount does not cover the legal costs of raising actions for recovery of funds. This sum is not recoverable.

An insider at a consumer protection body who was passed the figures by Diary of Injustice commented: “Consumers who make complaints about their solicitors should keep a written record of any material they send to the SLCC while making it clear from the outset one of the goals they expect from the complaints process is for any legal fees to be reduced to nil.”

Detailed coverage of the SLCC’s latest annual report, released in December 2014 can be read HERE, and a further report on why the SLCC has refused to name one single rogue solicitor since 2008 and how solicitors end up recovering compensation they are forced to pay out features HERE

SECRET SCOTS : FOI Chief Rosemary Agnew voices transparency concerns as Scottish Public Authorities fail on Freedom of Information requests

Information Commissioner Rosemary Agnew raises concerns over FOI failures. SCOTTISH Public Authorities are failing to respond to Freedom of Information requests on time, says Scotland's Information Commissioner Rosemary Agnew in her 2012-2013 Annual Report published today. The report reveals a 14% rise in appeals to the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office during the last year with 27% of those cases relating to failures by public authorities to respond to FOI requests.

Speaking at the launch of her Annual Report, Commissioner Rosemary Agnew revealed that there was a 14% rise in appeals to her office in 2012/13, and that 27% of those appeals related to a failure by the public authority to respond. This is the highest proportion of such appeals to date. Under Scottish FOI law, public authorities have a legal duty to respond to the requests they receive within 20 working days.

The publication of the report coincides with new research which reveals that only 49% of the Scottish public are confident that they would receive an FOI response within 20 working days, with only 10% stating that they would be "very confident" of a response.

Information Commissioner Rosemary Agnew said: "These findings concern me. Eight years on from the introduction of FOI, we would expect authorities to be more effective at handling requests, not less so. When they don't respond, authorities fail to respect people's legal rights to information: information which can be extremely important to individuals and communities. By contrast, authorities that perform well take a customer focussed approach, respond promptly and engage with requesters.

"A failure to respond can also harm public perception of FOI. While many FOI requests are answered on time and a lot of information is provided, the research findings reveal that this is certainly not the public's perception.

"Scottish public authorities that are falling short should take steps to address their performance as an immediate priority. In doing so, they should also remember that failing to respond doesn't make requests go away, but just creates unnecessary extra work and increases costs. Failure to respond generates complaints, review requests, and appeals to my office, and damages a public authority's reputation. The most efficient option is to get it right first time."

As those who make FOI requests and many in the media will know, some of the most persistent offenders in Scotland are local authorities, Departments of the Scottish Government, NHS Scotland trusts and others all eager to cover up internal scandals, the persisting, endemic jobs for the boys culture, the pernicious abuse of vulnerable individuals and widespread waste of public funds including large, sometimes secret pay-outs to top public officials the details of which only emerge after months of wrangling over the terms of FOI replies, requests for reviews and a possible appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Key public authorities in charge of the justice system are well known to journalists as some of the worst offenders, which include Scotland’s prosecution service the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) who appear to be operating a policy of regular delay in response to FOI requests.

It has been found in many cases brought to the attention of the media that Crown Office staff have persistently engaged in expanding the required time to reply to FOI requests by weeks, even months in some cases, while in others, regular refusals to hand out information have become a staple diet of Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s £100million a year Crown Office.

Commenting on the Information Commissioner’s report, a Scottish government spokeswoman said: "Scotland has the most robust freedom of information regime in the UK, with a transparency system that sets an example for other nations to aspire to.”

"In 2012 we received over 1,900 FoI requests - the highest number on record - and we are on course to receive even more in 2013. We strive to respond on time to all cases, and the number of technical appeals we receive has decreased since the end of March 2013."

She added: "Our commitment to proactive publication and sharing of information with the public is enshrined in legislation."

Scottish Information Commissioner Rosemary Agnew has also announced today she is planning to lay a Special Report for the Scottish Parliament exploring such failures in the spring.

The Commissioner's 2012/13 Annual report: Upholding the right to know reveals that:

The number of FOI appeals increased by 14% over the last year, to 594 appeals.

564 cases were closed, a 9% increase on the previous year.

The Commissioner found completely in favour of requesters in 37% of cases and completely in favour of authorities in a further 37%. The remainder were partially upheld.

60% of appeals were made by members of the public

43% of appeals related to local government bodies and 31% related to the Scottish Ministers or the Scottish Parliament.

Enquiries to the Commissioner rose by 8% last year.

The report also contains examples of how FOI has been used by the Scottish public over the last year, seeking a wide range of information on issues relating to housing, health, transport, education and the environment.

Discussing the rise in FOI appeals, Rosemary Agnew said: "Our case volumes have continued to rise, with a 14% rise over the last year and a 49% increase in the last five years. I'm happy to report that we've been able to manage these increases through a combination of hard work and a considered review of how we conduct our business. As a result, we have closed more cases than ever and reduced the time we take to investigate appeals.

"However, I am concerned about how sustainable this position will be in the longer term. These advances have been achieved against a backdrop of decreasing resources, and if volumes continue to rise, it will pose significant challenges to my ability to enforce FOI effectively."

Appeal statistics - by Region and Sector

More detailed information on appeals received since 2005, broken down by public authority, region and sector, are available in the following spreadsheets:

2012/13 Public Authority Tables - by Sector (Excel - 597kB)

2012/13 Public Authority Tables - by Region (Excel - 1.6MB)

Technical appeals

These are appeals made following a public authority's failure to respond with the FOI Act's 20-working day timescale. 

The 2012/13 Technical appeals investigated - by authority reveals that 29% of the appeals investigated by the Commissioner in 2012/13 related to such a failure to respond.

Lawyers FOI secrecy feud with regulator wrecks £10K ‘Complaints Handling Research’ as 75% of solicitors, advocates refuse to disclose client complaint statistics

Lawyers survey boycott & unverifiable data ruins complaints research. COSTLY RESEARCH undertaken by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) into how lawyers & advocates ‘handle’ complaints from their clients has today been labelled “an expensive failure & time wasting exercise” after results revealed a staggering 75% of all Scottish law firms & advocates either “refused”, were “not available” or “terminated” their participation in the research which sought disclosure of key details on how complaints from dissatisfied clients are handled made to them before clients are forced to approach regulators such as the SLCC or Law Society of Scotland.

And while the lack of participation effectively rendered the ‘independent’ SLCC’s research unusable, insiders at the regulator now also believe many law firms fiddled the numbers and simply LIED in what little data was actually handed over by the legal profession, as none of what was submitted can be independently verified or subject to public inspection.

Figures released in the two reports published by the SLCC show that of the total numbers of questionnaires & letters sent out to every law firm & advocate in Scotland by research firm TNS-BMRB who were commissioned by the SLCC to carry out the research, 850 law firms and 350 advocates either refused or for a variety of other reasons, failed to disclose any details on how complaints made by dissatisfied clients are handled.

Although TNS BMRB had undertaken the research in May & June 2012, both reports had curiously remained secret until the SLCC responded to a Freedom of Information request from Diary of Injustice, which can be viewed online in its entirety, here : FOI Release - SLCC Research into complaint numbers & complaints handling by practitioners

Later that same day (31st January) after the documentation was released to Diary of Injustice journalists, the SLCC issued a press release with a short comment from Richard Keen, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. There has so far been no comment from the Law Society of Scotland on the survey or the lack of participation of its members.

Both reports can be viewed on the SLCC’s website HERE & HERE or online here : SLCC Final Report on Complaints Numbers & Complaints Handling amongst Scottish Advocates & here : SLCC Final Report on Complaints Numbers & Complaints Handling amongst Scottish Legal Firms

The mass non-participation of Scotland’s legal profession in the ‘independent’ regulator’s complaints survey comes as no surprise after Diary of Injustice earlier reported on calls by various sections of Scotland’s legal profession to boycott the survey after lawyers groups such as the Scottish Law Agents Society (SLAS) voiced fears that any information handed over to the SLCC would be released to the media via Freedom of Information Requests.

To allay the lawyers concerns over complaints data being released to the public, the ‘independent’ SLCC brokered a sinister deal of secrecy, and ordered research firm TNS BMRB not to hand over any data to the SLCC directly, thus avoiding Freedom of Information and its requirements. The SLCC issued a public statement to the legal profession saying : “While it is the case that the SLCC is subject to Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), it should be noted that information is being ingathered on a confidential basis by the researchers purely for the purpose of statistical analysis by them. Information from individual legal firms, or data that could identify any legal firms or individual practitioners, will not be passed on to the SLCC.”

DOI reported on this highly questionable move on the ‘independent’ SLCC’s deal with lawyers to avoid FOI disclosure of complaints information, here : Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'

TNS BMRB were tasked with securing the following information for their research :

Statistical Information
1. To establish number and type of transactions by practice area, since 2008;
2. To establish number of complaints dealt with since 2008, by practice area;
3. To identify from where complaints originate;
4. To establish the outcome and disposal of complaints.

Complaints handling
1. To identify management information systems in place for complaint record keeping;
2. To establish how lessons learned about complaints handling are captured and cascaded through the firm;
3. To assess how clients and others are informed about how to make a complaint;
4. To determine the type and provider of any training/guidance received on complaint handling;
5. To ascertain the appeal of different options for further support on complaint handling

The SLCC claimed that the research, the first of its kind in Scotland, was intended as an initial fact-finding exercise. As such, it has highlighted scope for further work which the SLCC will undertake as part of its on-going oversight role.

However, the information which made it into the research and the conclusions of both reports unsurprisingly reveal complaints records within the Scottish legal profession are at best, a mess.

More worryingly, if unsurprisingly, analysis of the reports by consumer campaigners reveal a deliberate act of deception on the part of lawyers to avoid accurate reporting of client dissatisfaction with Scottish solicitors & law firms, now rated as among the worst & most expensive in the entire European Union.

Critics who have viewed & studied both the report into law firms & advocates have raised serious doubts over the accuracy of information handed over to the research firm by Scottish lawyers & advocates, highlighting the fact there is absolutely no way to authenticate any of the data handed over to the researchers in interviews or questionnaires.

One senior spokesperson for a Scottish consumer group said she believed “much of the material was probably fabricated by law firms who were told not to reveal accurate complaints data to the SLCC or their researchers.”

Speaking about its piece of expensive, unverifiable research, David Buchanan Cook, the SLCC’s Head of Oversight issued a vague public statement claiming: “While the reports show that complaint levels are low, they are increasing. Complaints have a direct impact on any business, so it's surprising that more practitioners don't take simple steps to listen and to put matters right. The reports show that in a quarter of complaints resolved a simple apology was all that was needed yet a large number of practitioners faced with a complaint do nothing at all. In these cases both the complainer and the practitioner lose out.”

Mr Buchanan Cook continued “The reports do highlight that it can be more challenging for smaller firms and sole practitioners to deal with complaints in terms of resources, processes and experience. We will be working with both the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates to draw up best practice guidance later this year to help. We will also be using the reports to identify where we can help the profession to improve complaint handling. The public has a right to expect complaints to be listened to and where something has gone wrong, the practitioner should put it right. It's not just a question of fairness- it's good business sense too.”

The SLCC refused to answer questions on the low participation rate of the survey and offered no comment on the legal profession’s call to boycott the SLCC’s research, which will be met out of its 2011-2012 budget. However, a legal insider at the SLCC admitted “lawyers had been expected to lie in their responses to the research”, now branded “an expensive failure & time wasting exercise”.

With the Law Society of Scotland apparently refusing to issue a press statement on the research, Richard Keen QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates was wheeled out to provide some backup to the beleaguered SLCC. Mr Keen said : “The Faculty of Advocates takes its responsibility for complaints handling extremely seriously and notes from the report that the level of complaints to new cases is "undoubtedly low." The Faculty will study the report and engage with the SLCC in taking forward a number of broad themes that have been identified.”

It should be noted that clients & consumers were completely shut out of this SLCC research project, as Diary of Injustice earlier reported here : Consumers ‘locked out of debate’ as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission carries out yet more research on how solicitors handle complaints

Crown Office ‘Bonus Culture’ delivers no justice bonus for Scotland as more than £1/2 Million is handed out in perks to Lord Advocate’s staff

Investigation reveals Scotland’s Crown Office has been over-eager to get in on the bankers bonus culture while crime fighting suffers. AS major parts of Scotland’s criminal & civil justice system descend into farce, with trials involving charges for breach of the peace up to attempted murder & fraud being abandoned on an almost daily basis, suspects accused of even the most serious offences being allowed bail, refusals or failures to prosecute instances of racially motivated crimes, sexual assaults & high profile failures on alleged sectarian offences & criticisms from the judiciary over the state of the courts, an investigation has revealed prosecutors & other employees at Scotland’s much criticised & failing Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) are benefiting from the bankers style bonus culture to the tune of HALF A MILLION POUNDS A YEAR, according to figures obtained from the Crown Office under Freedom of Information laws.

Crown Office staff appear more focussed on bonus culture than taking cases to trial with enough evidence in Scotland’s courts. The figures, reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper reveals that the Crown Office, under the current Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, which costs taxpayers a staggering ONE HUNDRED & EIGHT MILLION POUNDS A YEAR has been dishing out bonuses of up to TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS at a time to its senior employees and that bonuses of FOUR to EIGHT THOUSAND POUNDS are commonplace among higher end staff while others at the Crown Office have to make do with much smaller bonuses of £500 - £1,000 a year. These revelations come at a time when prosecutors have been blaming the failure of over a thousand cases on the infamous  Cadder v HMA ruling which saw the right to legal representation while being interrogated by Police brought into Scots law for the first time after a UK Supreme Court ruling which itself was castigated by senior politicians including the Justice Secretary & First Minister for alleged interference in the Scottish justice system.

Yet as the ink was barely dry on the release of the Crown Office’ bonus culture statistics, a Scottish Government insider has since come forward to Diary of Injustice this morning, admitting that “had it not been for the massive public sector finance cuts caused by the recession, the bonuses paid to Crown Office employees would have been significantly higher than half a million.”

Diary of Injustice recently reported in late October on arguments within the Crown Office over case backlogs & lost prosecutions, which culminated in the Lord Advocate attempting to refute claims from his own staff they were short of money and not enough in number to tackle crime : Lord Advocate tells Holyrood his own Fiscals are wrong over claims of case backlog & ‘stress’ as £108 million pours into failing Crown Office

In the wake of the latest revelations of a self serving Crown Office, there are growing numbers of Scots who feel the Crown Office has become an unaccountable public body which is out of control and in need of significant reform after being hit by constant scandals over collapsed high profile cases, corruption and allegations of institutional racism and even sectarianism amongst its employees.

Earlier this year questions were raised over the impartiality of the Crown Office in connection with prosecutions against the legal profession when investigations by Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed the Crown Office REFUSED to prosecute FOURTEEN solicitors for legal aid fraud involving huge sums of public money. An additional investigation by Diary of Injustice revealed one of the alleged fraudsters who the Crown Office refused to prosecute, was married to a Procurator Fiscal.

And in what must be one of the most staggering wastes of resources many have seen from the Crown Office for a long time, around HALF A MILLION POUNDS has been spent by COPFS and a variety of other justice connected public bodies including several Police Forces on one single Breach of the Peace trial against an anti-abuse campaigner, as reported on Scottish Law Reporter here : The £1/2 Million Breach of the Peace charge, 13 hearings, 15,000 travel miles, Cross Border Police seizures, surveillance & a former Lord Advocate

The Sunday Mail reports on the bonus culture at the Crown Office ;

WHAT PRICE JUSTICE ? Crown Office staff net £580k in bonus payments in just two years

Dec 18 2011 Exclusive by Russell Findlay, Sunday Mail

STAFF at the Crown Office have pocketed bonus payments of more than £580,000 in just two years, we can reveal. Two years ago, 419 workers shared payouts totalling £326,844, while 518 were handed £253,330 for 2010-11.

The bonus culture in Scotland's prosecution service can be revealed days after a sheriff claimed underfunding was hampering justice. The Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service - headed by Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland - has an annual budget of £108million, with £69million of that on staff costs. Bonuses were paid out to around a quarter of the 1650 employees.

Yesterday, MSP Sandra White said: "These public sector workers are paid to do a job - good performance should be in-built, not an added bonus. I would like to know why bonuses were paid, especially given so many high-profile Crown Office failings in recent years."

The Crown Office recently admitted the number of rape cases being prosecuted has dropped. They blamed the fallout from the Cadder ruling, when police interviews without lawyers present threw more than a 1000 cases into doubt. Last week, Dundee Sheriff Richard Davidson hit out at the lack of cash to run jury trials in the city. He revealed that cases were forced into adjournment due to funding problems. We also revealed that the Crown have failed to prosecute any of the 14 lawyers reported for alleged Legal Aid fraud.

Legal reform campaigner Peter Cherbi said: "It hardly seems appropriate that Crown Office staff are being paid bonuses. " The Crown Office say that bonuses are "based on performance levels attained and are made as part of the appraisal process".

A spokesman added: "No bonuses are being paid in 2011-12 and there are no plans to do so in future."

HOSPITALITY WINS : Law firms who won £20 Million legal contract wined, dined & lobbied Scottish Government’s Legal Directorate for three years

Scottish Government was wined, dined & lobbied by law firms, lawyer regulators, lawyer lobby groups & universities. A HOST OF LAW FIRMS who secretly wined, dined & in some cases lobbied the Scottish Government over the past three years on areas of law & justice where in some cases, the legal profession’s interests are known to conflict with those of consumers, won valuable contracts in the latest recession busting taxpayer funded TWENTY MILLION POUND legal project by the current Scottish Government to rapidly enlarge its already burgeoning 225 plus lawyer strong legal department to include even more Scottish law firms who are to provide legal services outsourced by the Scottish Government's Legal Directorate (SLGD).

The as yet unpublished details now been revealed in a Freedom of Information response by the Scottish Government showing a host of law firms, regulators, lawyer lobby groups & even universities have offered so many dinners to officials from the Justice Directorate, one Government insider jokingly said it should be named the Justice Dining Directorate.

Hospitality’s in for the Scottish Government’s Legal Directorate, as law firms who wine & dine officials win stake in 4 year £20 Million contract for outsourced legal advice. Some of the declarations of ‘hospitality’ include : 07/04/2008 Lunch Pinsent Masons, 18/04/2008 Lunch Dundas & Wilson, 26/06/2008 Meal Scottish Public Law Group, 29/05/2008 Lunch Dundas & Wilson, 20/08/2008 Meal and Edinburgh Festival Show Shepherd & Wedderburn, (No record held of date) Symposium and Dinner of the  In House-Lawyers Group of the  Law Society of Scotland Dundas & Wilson, 10/11/2008 invitation to In House Lawyers Dinner Burness (did not win a contract), Meal Glasgow University, 08/10/2009 Meal after Scottish Public Law Group Event, 13/11/2009 Invitation to WS Dinner LBC Wise Counsel, 3/11/2009 WS Society Dinner (invited as guest of Morton Fraser, Solicitors), 20/11/2009 Law Society of Scotland In House Lawyers Pinsent Masons, 20/11/2009 Dinner at In House Lawyers Group of Law Society of Scotland McGrigors, 15/01/2010 Meal provided by Glasgow University Law School Advisory Panel, 22/01/2010 Lunch Edinburgh University Law School, 25/02/2010 Meal after Scottish Public Law Group event Faculty of Advocates, 26/03/2010 15 lunch provided by Glasgow University Graduate Law School, 26/03/2010 Meal provided by Glasgow University Law School in connection with GLSS teaching to GU Diploma in Legal Practice students, 21/04/2010 Invitation Scotland PLC Dinner - Glasgow Hilton Hotel Law Society of Scotland, 17/08/2010 Attendance at Fringe show plus meal Shepherd & Wedderburn Solicitors, 27/10/2010 Dundas & Wilson Invitation to Chairman's Dinner, 11/03/2011 The Law Society of Scotland Dinner, 16/11/2010 Meal at Edinburgh University after Edinburgh Law School event "Scotland & Independence" 15/03/2011 Dundas & Wilson Invitation -Leadership Lunch.

Scrutiny of the above information released today reveal several law firms who wined & dined the Scottish Government over the course of the last three years, also managed to win tenders to provide the Scottish Government with additional legal services via the new framework agreement across five legal subject areas, complementing the work of the Scottish Government Legal Directorate (SGLD), which also manages the outsourcing of legal work. There is of course, absolutely no suggestion whatsoever the wining, dining or even any lobbying, helped win the law firms any contracts from the latest multi million pound subsidy offered by the Scottish Government to Scotland’s legal profession. It is merely, coincidence !

The full list of those law firms who won the tenders to provide extra legal advice to the Scottish Government are :

Contract, commercial and corporate – Dundas & Wilson CS; DLA Piper Scotland; Morton Fraser; MacRoberts; Pinsent Masons

Debt recovery: Harper Macleod; Maclay Murray & Spens; McGrigors; MacRoberts; Morton Fraser

Litigation, inquiries and employment: Anderson Strathern; Brodies; DLA Piper Scotland; Ledingham Chalmers; Morton Fraser

Major projects: Biggart Baillie; Dundas & Wilson CS; DLA Piper Scotland; MacRoberts; Pinsent Masons Property: Harper Macleod; DLA Piper Scotland; Ledingham Chalmers; McGrigors; Morton Fraser

The budget for this latest legal venture by the SNP Scottish Government to expand the numbers of lawyers working for the Scottish Government comes in at a whopping cost of an additional TWENTY MILLION POUNDS to taxpayers, bringing in a convenient taxpayer funded subsidy to some of Scotland’s hard pressed for profits law firms in the current recession.

The Scottish Government’s tender for the latest intake of law firms at vast taxpayer’s expense can be viewed online here :  CONTRACT AWARD NOTICE £20 Million for a panel of law firms for four years although many of the web links contained within the tender which link back to the Scottish Government's website go to non-existent pages.

Diary of Injustice revealed in an earlier article Scottish Government spending £8.1 million on 225 lawyers salaries as more Scots miss out on legal representation, access to justice although it now appears two hundred & twenty five lawyers are not enough of a legal army to cover legal advice to Ministers, the Scottish Parliament and other departments including well known over budget quangos.

The new, if costly agreement will also be used through the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate General, to source advice on Scots law for UK Government departments, agencies and NDPBs.

Bodies within the Scottish Administration which obtain legal advice from Scottish Government Legal Directorate include : Accountant in bankruptcy, HM inspectorate of Education, General Register Office for Scotland, Historic Scotland, National Archives of Scotland, Registers of Scotland, The Rent Officer, Scottish Prison Service, Scottish Public Pensions Agency, Social Work Inspection Agency, Student Awards Agency for Scotland, Transport Scotland.

The Scottish Government added in their FOI response they did not keep a hospitality register for the Government Legal Services For Scotland (GLSS), possibly because there is so much hospitality & work going on between the GLSS, law firms & the Law Society of Scotland, it would be an embarrassment to publish it.

THOSE WERE THE DAYS : In 2009, FOI revealed the Scottish Government had ONLY 225 lawyers :

FOI reveals MacAskill likes lawyers so much, he's employed over two hundred of them at our expense. Today it can be revealed the Scottish Government are spending a whopping £8.1 million pounds of public money on salaries alone of some 225 lawyers. The Scottish Government's FOI stated that : "The Scottish Government has 3 main offices which provide legal services to the Scottish Ministers and agencies for which they have responsibility: the Scottish Government Legal Directorate, the Office of Scottish Parliamentary Counsel and the Legal Secretariat to the Lord Advocate. These offices together employ 139 lawyers (as at 1 April 2009). The total annual salary for these lawyers (including national insurance contributions and superannuation) in financial year 2008-2009 was £8,146,000. In addition, a further 86 lawyers are seconded to other government offices and inquiries as part of the Government Legal Service for Scotland. Those lawyers’ salary costs are met by the host office or inquiry."

It is worth noting, nearly every day of every week of every month of every year, someone in Scotland writes to whoever happens to be the First Minister or Justice Secretary, seeking help on a usually complicated, irresolvable issue concerning Scotland’s justice system or legal profession.

As those who write these letters asking, pleading, even begging for help over long term legal difficulties will have realised as time goes on, no matter which political party occupies St Andrews House, the answers to such requests are always the same cold shoulder full of excuses offered by the massed ranks of civil servants who run the Scottish Government.

Clearly however, when it comes to lobbying, gaining favour, gaining changes to legislation which may affect business, or even wining Government contracts, the edge is gained by offering a few free lunches, rather than just a kind word or a letter. As the saying goes, you can get further with a kind word and a free lunch, than you can with a kind word …

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission pays organisations £20K of YOUR MONEY to spy on Kenny MacAskill, Law Society, its own staff & media

SLCC paid organisations £20k to spy on Kenny MacAskill, Holyrood, Law Society, media & others. CLIENTS of all Scottish solicitors are unwittingly helping to fund a little talked about yet HUGELY EXPENSIVE media monitoring & spying policy operated by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which reports back on news & any other reports or references relating to Kenny MacAskill, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Scottish Parliament, MSPs and even the SLCC’s own staff, according to documents & admissions disclosed under Freedom of Information legislation yesterday.

So far the SLCC has spent well nearly TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS on spying on the media, £7555.72 in its first financial year (2009-2009) the same year it received a whopping two million pounds of taxpayers money, with the spying project’s costs increasing to £9863.07 in financial year 2009-2010 and rumoured to be even more for the current financial year. Income received by the SLCC from the levy imposed on all solicitors, which in turn is recovered from clients through increased fees, funds the SLCC’s operating costs including the media spying project. Earlier this year it was revealed the SLCC has only managed to uphold one single complaint in its three years of existence and has made not one single referral to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, a worse record than even the Law Society of Scotland.

Keeping the SLCC informed of how they, and their targets look to the outside world, at a cost of £10K a year. The bizarre spying policy, the principle aim of which is ‘to keep the SLCC informed of any media activity where the organisation is mentioned’, uses two companies to monitor reports & references relating to : “SLCC (UK), SLCC in all Scottish daily and weekly press, Staff Mentions, Faculty of Advocates, Justice Committee, Law Society of Scotland, The Association of Commercial Attorneys, Alternative Business Structures, Client Relations Partners, and Kenny MacAskill”. The arrangement with two companies, one called Meltwater News, the other so far not identified by the SLCC, provide reports of daily mentions of the SLCC’s search terms from all online sources and has also netted critical stories on Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and on disgraced former MSP Bill Aitken, who resigned his position as Convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee after he attempted to blame Sunday Herald journalists to cover up comments he made on a rape victim.

The FOI disclosure showing how the SLCC’s media monitoring policy operates, can be viewed or downloaded here : SLCC media monitoring policy

A legal insider speaking this morning on the revelations said : “Have they never heard of using a free search engine like google to find out what's happening on the internet ? For an organisation which is supposed to be saving money, the SLCC seems to have a lot of it to waste on worries of how to maintain its image rather than attending to its duties of regulating complaints about the legal profession”

A Scottish Government source condemned the SLCC’s costly spying project. He said : “I think the 20K might have been better spent on other areas of policy rather than worrying about how they are being reported in the media.”

He also claiming the SLCC “had failed public expectations of cleaning up the poor reputation of complaints regulation in the legal profession” adding that “stalking the Justice Secretary and the Scottish Parliament at a significant cost to solicitors and their clients for signs of criticism from Scottish Ministers & msps does not do the organisation any favours.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations braded the SLCC’s media spying policy “a complete waste of money”.

She said : “The SLCC have been so concerned about the cost of consultations such as the report into the Master Policy which happened on a shoestring budget yet we regularly see that the SLCC throws money down the toilet on anything to do with boosting its own image or keeping tabs on its critics.”

She continued : “Is this the way we expected the SLCC to perform as a complaints regulator ? I think the answer to that is a resounding ‘No’.”

While the SLCC claimed websites such as “Diary of Injustice in Scotland” were banned at the organisation’s luxurious half million pound a year Edinburgh HQ located at the Stamp Office, which is populated with staff earning up to £1350 a week & board members receiving up to £300 plus a day with almost unlimited expenses claims schemes & lucrative pension arrangements, copies of articles from this site are apparently regularly printed off from the SLCC’s Head of Communications computer and distributed around the organisation out of concern for rising levels of criticism of the now widely discredited law complaints regulator.

Reports by Diary of Injustice on Eileen Masterman’s resignation caused grave concern at SLCC. One particular subject covered by Diary of Injustice has, according to insiders, “caused grave concern and much anger among the SLCC’s board members & staff”, relating to reports from April 2010 on the six month disappearance of the SLCC’s now former CEO, Eileen Masterman, which prompted an announcement Ms Masterman had resigned over grounds of “ill health” after less than seven months in her £80,000 a year, £1,350 plus, a week job.  However, enquiries amid a host of refusals by the SLCC to disclose information on Ms Masterman’s resignation revealed there had been bitter & drawn out negotiations with legal teams on the terms of a rumoured-to-be “large ex-gratia” payment to Ms Masterman, approved by the Scottish Government in secret, which I reported on here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers :

According to insiders, even greater concerns were raised by the SLCC’s board members regarding earlier articles from Diary of Injustice which focussed on the sheer hostility of the board members towards clients of solicitors who were participating in the University of Manchester Law School’s 2009 investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy, the notoriously corrupt Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme which covers all Scottish solicitors for negligence & other client service failures.

Frequent Flyers : SLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes to Eileen Masterman in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion and featured in reports on Diary of Injustice were emails containing anti-client jibes,sent by SLCC board member David Smith to Ms Masterman in July 2009. Mr Smith, husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith, was personally appointed to the SLCC by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Smith, a lawyer who served much of his career at law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, who themselves often act for the Master Policy in protection of questionable solicitors against negligence claims, referred to participants in the Master Policy survey & deceased clients who had committed suicide as a direct result of involvement with the Master Policy, as “Frequent flyers”.

An earlier story in the Sunday Mail newspaper, revealing the boozed-up antics of SLCC board members who went on to make bitter hate fuelled remarks against members of the public & consumer groups in their emails to each other, prompted calls by some connected to the organisation “to take action” against Diary of Injustice and “attempt to discredit any reporting of internal goings on or information perceived to be anti-consumer” at the hapless law complaints quango.

Called to the Bars featured in newspapers, pointed to SLCC’s anti client culture among board members & senior officials. Margaret Scanlan’s ‘cross eyed’ email said : ““Was out on the razzle, again, last night so bit cross-eyed this morning. Please excuse any consequent gibberish. Here are my comments on Master Policy and Guarantee Fund…. The consultation should be viewed with some caution. It provides very little by way of a sound evidential basis for us to do anything…. One unidentified responded … reports complaints about difficulty in finding solicitors to pursue a claim under MP (Master Policy). Apart from fundamental misunderstandings about MP which is for benefit of practitioner and in respect of which consumer has no rights ..”  Ms Scanlan's rant against the Master Policy investigation was featured in the Sunday Mail newspaper, depicting a bitter, hate fuelled anti-client culture operating at the highest levels of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which also saw Ms Scanlan rubbish victims of crooked lawyers who tried to recover money misappropriated by their solicitors as “complete chancers”.

Despite the bitter tirades of Scanlan & Smith against consumers & victimised clients, the University of Manchester’s report published by the SLCC in 2009 linked the Master Policy to the deaths of clients, more on which can be read 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 Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was asked to justify their expenditure on spying on the media in the face of requirements by all public bodies to save money and whether they considered this is money wisely spent. The SLCC were also asked if their media monitoring spy service brought any benefits to regulation of the legal profession. A spokesperson for the SLCC said : “The SLCC has no comment.”

BACKGROUND TO PAYOFF & RESIGNATION OF SLCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE EILEEN MASTERMAN :

Sources in late 2009 had informed Diary of Injustice that Ms Masterman had failed to respond to correspondence from consumers & msps, however it was not until early 2010, firm evidence was made available Ms Masterman had been missing from her role as the SLCC’s Chief Executive for some time, as I revealed in an article on April 13 2010, here : £70K Chief Executive ‘missing for 6 months’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Secretary dodges questions on scandal-hit law quango The day after my initial article on Ms Masterman’s disappearance from  work, April 4, 2010, the SLCC were forced to announce the resignation of Ms Masterman from her post on grounds of “ill health”, which I reported on, here : SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh

Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney revealed he felt Ms Masterman had mislead him over accounts of meetings. However, Eileen Masterman’s resignation leaves questions over increasingly bitter exchanges between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & the Scottish Government’s Finance Chief, John Swinney, on a matter which I have previously reported where further documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation revealed the SLCC had clearly mislead Mr Swinney over secret meetings between its officials including Ms Masterman and officials from Marsh, the Law Society’s Master Policy insurers.

Frequent Fryers of FOI : SLCC Board Member ex-Deputy Chief Constable Ian Gordon, also the Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland refused disclosure on Masterman. Given the many questions raised over the resignation of Ms Masterman, and the lack of progress the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had made on key issues including scrutiny of the Master Policy, Freedom of Information requests were made to the SLCC asking for details surrounding the resignation. They were refused. Upon a request for a review of the SLCC’s refusal to disclose information through Freedom of Information legislation, one of its board members, former Tayside Deputy Chief Constable Ian Gordon, who is also, amazingly, the Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland, abruptly refused the Freedom of Information review, as did the SLCC’s new Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew, who considered and again abruptly refused a second request for an FOI review.

The Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion was asked to investigate the SLCC’s refusal to hand over information on Ms Masterman’s resignation. He has found the SLCC must release some details although has allowed other information to remain secret. His decision can be read here : Decision 114/2011 Resignation of the former Chief Executive Officer

Justice Delayed ? Not when it comes to expenses claims as high earning Scots judges rake in at least £78K in ‘travel’ claims

Scotland’s top judges at the Court of Session claimed £78K expenses on top of huge salaries. EXPENSES CLAIMS of Scotland’s already high earning 34 judges at the country’s highest court, the Court of Session in Edinburgh topped a whopping ‘recorded’ sum of £78,988 in the last financial year, according to details released by the Scottish Government in response to a Freedom of Information request, continuing my reporting on the costs of Scotland’s justice system, which I initially covered here : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates

However, it transpires the amount claimed by judges may be higher as the Scottish Government, who were & still are responsible for paying judges salaries, ranging from a mere £172,753.00 for ‘outer house judges’ to the Lord President’s staggering £214,165.00 now admit there were no details held of the individual expenses claims for judges on a central database as the accounts system only recorded the totals charged against headings such as Travel and Subsistence.

The total Travel & Subsistence claims from Scotland’s 34 Senators of the College of Justice for the financial year 2009-10 was £78,988 of which, £16,299 was for Inner House judges, and the remaining £62,689 was for Outer House. The Scottish Government said the only other expenses they would record in the accounts are the Wig & Gown allowance, a one-off payment when a new judge is appointed. It transpired no such payments were made during 2009-10.

To the figures into perspective against the salaries of Scotland’s Court of Session judges :

Inner House

First Division

Lord Hamilton, the Lord President (Civil) and the Lord Justice General receives £214,165.00 p.a. Lord Kingarth, Lord Eassie, Lord Reed & Lord Hardie each receive £196,707.00 p.a.

Second Division

Lord Gill, Lord Justice Clerk receives £206,857.00 p.a. Lord Osborne , Lady Paton, Lord Carloway, Lord Clarke & Lord Mackay of Drumadoon each receive £196,707.00 p.a.

Outer House (all 23 judges receive £172,753.00 p.a.)

Lord Bonomy, Lord Menzies, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Emslie, Lady Smith, Lord Brodie, Lord Bracadale, Lady Dorrian, Lord Hodge, Lord Glennie, Lord Kinclaven, Lord Turnbull, Lady Clark of Calton, Lord Brailsford, Lord Uist, Lord Malcolm, Lord Matthews, Lord Woolman, Lord Pentland, Lord Bannatyne, Lady Stacey, Lord Tyre, & Lord Doherty

Scotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton heads the new Scottish Court Service Corporate Body, a duty of which will be to keep an eye on expenses. The disclosure from the Scottish Government went onto state that although Scottish Government remains responsible for paying judges salaries, from 1 April 2010 responsibility for paying all other judicial expenses transferred to the Judicial Office as part of the new Scottish Court Service corporate body, established following implementation of the Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

The Lord President, Lord Hamilton is of course, the head of the new Scottish Court Service corporate body, which I reported on earlier this year, here : Scottish Courts Service becomes an ‘arm's length’ independent quango led by Lord President & corporate board

While the Scottish Government apparently did not hold details of judges individual expenses claims, the situation in England & Wales is markedly different, with all judicial expenses being registered, where ‘the expenses claims of High Court Judges and above are recorded in such a way that they can be attributed to individual judges and published at regular intervals’.

Details of the English judicial expenses system and figures can be found here : Judicial Expenses for England & Wales, and as expenses are now to be ‘held centrally’ by the new Judicial Office, it is to be hoped a similar air of transparency regarding judicial expenses claims will prevail in Scotland, with all expenses details being published online, in keeping with the rest of the UK.

Information Commissioner investigates ‘anonymous threats’ claims at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after law quango refuse FOI requests

Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion investigates Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claims of ‘anonymous’ threats. CLAIMS OF ANONYMOUS THREATS allegedly directed to members of staff and other individuals connected to the controversial law complaints regulator, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are to be investigated by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, after the SLCC refused to provide Mr Dunion’s office and journalists making Freedom of Information requests on the subject with any evidence to support the claims, which legal insiders today commented, if accurate, should also be investigated by the Police.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claimed they had received ‘anonymous’ threats. The now suspect claims of ‘anonymous threats’ were made by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to the Information Commissioner’s office on two separate occasions in response to investigations being carried out by Mr Dunion’s staff into the SLCC’s refusal to disclose controversial evidence in response to Freedom of Information requests, evidence which included senior SLCC board members lambasting consumers over their input into an investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, an investigation which linked financial claims of negligence against ‘crooked lawyers’ to the suicides of clients, an issue long kept secret by the Scottish legal profession.

Master Policy secrecy : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission attempted to thwart disclosure & publication of key evidence of Master Policy Research by making unsupported allegations of threats received. In a decision earlier this year (Decision 89/2010), relating to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its handling of FOI requests for information connected with the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, now known to have caused deaths among consumers, the Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion stated : “The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by individuals and other individuals connected to the SLCC. However, the Commissioner has not received any evidence of such threats to people such as the individuals in question.”

The effect of Mr Dunion’s decision regarding the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and their refusal to hand over key documents, can be read in an earlier report, here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission faced a further investigation after it chose to censor FOI disclosures to specific journalists amid fears of media attention. In a subsequent investigation carried out by the Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s censorship of its board minutes in reposes to Freedom of Information requests from certain journalists, the SLCC made additional claims it had received ‘anonymous threats’, apparently hoping this would be enough to prevent an order for disclosure. The FOI Commissioner again reported that no evidence had been produced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to back up its claims.

Claims of more ‘anonymous threats’ were made by the SLCC during a second investigation by the FOI Commissioner. Mr Dunion, in a second decision involving the SLCC and its selective censorship of its own board minutes (Decision 101/2010) commented on the additional claims made by the SLCC of ‘anonymous threats’, saying: “The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by members of staff and other individuals connected to the SLCC. The SLCC also referred to threats made to other bodies. 56. The Commissioner notes that the individuals in question here are not employees of the SLCC and do not work in SLCC buildings. While he recognises that some of the individuals whose details have been withheld are connected to bodies to which threats have been made, he considers that the profile and role of those individuals is such that their relationship with the SLCC is likely to be public knowledge. The Commissioner cannot therefore accept that the disclosing their names from the minutes is likely to endanger, or will endanger, their health and safety in terms of section 39(1) of FOISA.”

“57. In most other cases, the individuals are not connected to such bodies. The Commissioner has not been provided with any evidence of danger, or likelihood of danger, to the health or safety these third parties, and cannot accept that section 39(1) applies to this information.”

A legal insider commented on the claims of ‘anonymous threats’ made by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, saying he believed the SLCC were making spurious claims in order to excuse deficiencies within their operations which could be revealed by Freedom of Information.

He said : “If there is no evidence produced by the SLCC of these actual threats, which, given their alleged very serious nature I would have expected to have been reported to Police, then it is highly likely in my opinion the SLCC are seeking to abuse Freedom of Information legislation, in terms of their own handling of FOI requests and their input into investigations carried out by the Information Commissioner himself.”

He continued : “In the circumstances, where it appears the SLCC made their claim to the Information Commissioner in the hope it would influence the outcome of his investigation, I would urge Mr Dunion to establish whether there is any truth to the SLCC’s claims it’s staff or staff from other bodies it referred to have been threatened.”

It has been known for public bodies to claim the mental welfare & health of their staff would be threatened if, for example, information on expenses claims were released as a result of Freedom of Information legislation, but here we have a key public body involved in the regulation of complaints against the legal profession claiming it has received ‘anonymous threats’. Clearly there is a significant public interest in this case to establish whether there is any truth to the SLCC’s claims and if true, have the issues been thoroughly investigated by the authorities and the required action taken.

If however, there is no truth to the allegations, we are left with the only possibly conclusion in that the SLCC presented false information to the Information Commissioner, a matter which would clearly reflect on the SLCC’s credibility and the individual who signed off on the claims to the Information Commissioner.

The Scottish Government refused to back the SLCC over ‘anonymous threats’ claims to the Information Commissioner. The Scottish Government, asked for a comment on the situation, apparently refusing to support the SLCC’s claims, stated : “‘The SLCC has been established as an independent body to oversee complaints against the legal profession. Having established the SLCC as an independent body, it would be wholly inappropriate for Ministers to provide a running commentary on issues concerning it.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refused to make any comment on the matter or offer any statement to support their claims now being investigated by the FOI Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.