Revelations in Court of Session appeal show Law Society & Fiscal deliberately failed to take witness affidavit and excluded crucial evidence

Taking a long time, but about three years later, I finally have the Legal Services Ombudsman's report into the Law Society of Scotland's handling of my complaint against Michael Robson - the now infamous 'tennis playing lawyer', which you can read more about here :Lawyer who took on Law Society for clients ended up as dishonest as those he challenged

Sunday Mail - Michael Robson, an untrustworthy solicitor who did nothing for his clients

The report basically shows the Law Society of Scotland handled my complaint against former lawyer Michael Robson, with the utmost prejudice against me, and that the Council of the Law Society of Scotland deliberately excluded the details of Michael Robsons conduct in the medical negligence case relating to my mum, just to deny me a fair hearing, deny me the chance to give an input into the case, and deny me any justice - just as they do with everyone else.

Legal Services Ombudsman's report on the Law Society of Scotland & Court of Session case involving Michael Robson

Perhaps more importantly, the Legal Services Ombudsman's report shows that the Law Society of Scotland and even Law Society Fiscal in the case, Mr David Reid of Messrs Flemming & Reid, failed to the point of deliberately seeking to deny me the chance to make a formal affidavit that I was entitled to input into the Court of Session hearings.

From the LSO report into Michael Robson

"In his response of 17 December, the Fiscal expressed his surprise. He said that he had understood that you were „very interested in the prosecution’. He suggested that enquiries should be made as to your whereabouts when you were required as a witness. However, I cannot see that any such enquiries were made. On 21 March 2005, the Law Society provided the Fiscal with your e-mail address. I can only assume that it was at that point they realised that they had a contact e-mail address for you on another file.

Here follow a couple of sample emails from the Law Society Fiscal Paul Reid to myself, showing firstly, his intention to take statements from me, then silence, after no doubt the Law Society decided I should again be denied access to justice or given a chance to speak.

Law Society Fiscal Paul Reid writes to contact me for a statement - on a hearing which was to take place the very next day early in the morning ....

From: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
To: <petercherbi>
Subject: Council of the Law Society of Scotland - Michael G Robson
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:24:16

FLEMING & REID, SOLICITORS, 180 HOPE STREET, GLASGOW, G2 2UE

TELEPHONE: 0141 331 1144

Our ref: PR/GP

Dear Mr Cherbi,

Council of the Law Society of Scotland

Michael G Robson

I write further to my recent correspondence in connection with the above to which I have not heard from you in response.

In the course of discussions with representatives from the Law Society I was advised that you were now communicating with them by way of e-mail. I am therefore taking the liberty of presenting this message to you by way of e-mail.

A hearing in connection with the prosecution of Michael G Robson is to take place tomorrow within the Scotsman Hotel, 20 Northbridge, Edinburgh, before the Discipline Tribunal at 10am. I had written to you previously asking that you contact me in order that I may obtain from you a statement which would then be encapsulated within the form of an Affidavit of your evidence. I have not heard from you in response. I would be grateful if you would telephone me upon receipt of this e-mail to indicate whether or not it is your intention to attend tomorrow to give evidence on behalf of the Complaint.

I look forward to hearing from you in early course.

Yours sincerely

P A Reid, LLB (Hons) Dip.LP.NP.

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE

My reply :

From: "PC" <petercherbi>
To: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
Subject: Re: Council of the Law Society of Scotland - Michael G Robson
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:50:07

Dear Mr Reid,
Thanks for your email.
I'm sorry it seems that the Law Society haven't kept you informed of my
whereabouts or my health, but in any case, I am not currently in the Uk
and wont be able to return until sometime before June.
I certainly could not attend tomorrows hearing
However, I would like to attend the hearing, or give evidence, I cannot advance you
a statement by tomorrow - 10am
I would suggest, given the importance of my testimony, and the fact that
you were not made aware that I was not at my address to which you were
writing (which was actually 47 Bongate), you try to obtain a postponement
or adjournment of the hearing on these grounds, as I would very much like
to input into this hearing, given Mr Robson's conduct as per his
representation of my affairs.

Fiscal Paul Reid replies :

Reply-To: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
From: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
To: <petercherbi>
Subject: Council of the Law Societry of Scotland - Michael Robson
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:03:2
Dear Mr Cherbi,

Council of the Law Society of Scotland

Michael G Robson

I write further to your e-mail of 12th April in connection with the above.

I have yet to be made aware as to whether Mr Robson intends to appeal the judgement. A period of 21 days following release of the written Findings is allowed for either party to mark an appeal.

I suspect the indication that an appeal will be forthcoming is based upon previous history insofar as Mr Robson is concerned.

From my own part I would consider that any appeal at his instance is bound to fail. However if an appeal is so marked then it would be my intention to counter-appeal the decision of the Tribunal in relation to your evidence.

When that is determined, at that stage it would be my intention to meet with you, if possible, and obtain from you a statement in relation to your involvement with Mr Robson and the manner in which you were let down. I trust this will not cause you a difficulty. If there is any further information which you require from me, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

P A Reid, LLB (Hons) Dip.LP.NP.

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE

A further chaser from me, a year later, asking about my statement, after silence from the Fiscal ...

From: <petercherbi>
To: "Fleming & Reid" <flemingreid@btconnect.com>
Subject: Re: Michael Robson
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:21:56

Mr Reid
I am informed that the prosecution of Michael Robson is to be in May, but I have not heard from you as to the matter of whether I am giving a statement or not.
It seems I have also been contacted by elements of a lobby group who are volunteering to be in touch with Mr Robson, to ensure that all his rights to cross examine witnesses or cases in the prosecution, are adhered to.
It seems therefore if I am not going to testify for you, I will be testifying for someone else, which is very odd to me, because I am the complainer of course

Clearly I was still waiting on giving a statement a year after .. but the Law Society were determined to see I had no chance in having access to the court on this one ...

A catalogue of obvious delay, denial of access to justice and prejudice seems to be the course of the day in the Law Society's determination to prevent me from speaking in court against their lawyer Michael Robson.

Even worse revelations in the Legal Services Ombudsman's report show the Law Society Fiscal made an attempt to delete references to my complaint so they could be heard at a later date - supposedly, and that was unsurprisingly denied, simply because no one in the court, even Mr Robson, wanted me to be able to speak about how he treated the case of my mum's death at the Borders General Hospital.

From the Legal Services Ombudsman's report :

"On 20 February 2004, the Law Society lodged a complaint of professional misconduct with the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (the Tribunal). That complaint included details of your allegations against Mr Robson. A hearing took place before the Tribunal on 23 March 2005. You were unable to give evidence as you were only made aware of the hearing the day before.

The Fiscal made an application to delete reference to your complaints which would allow them to be held over to a later date. That application was denied. No finding of professional misconduct was made in relation to your complaint. However, Mr Robson was found guilty of professional misconduct in relation to another matter before the Tribunal."

Quite convenient for both the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal and the Court of Session that I wasn't allowed to make any affidavit or statement about how Michael Robson had treated me as a client - and with my complaint being one of the principle complaints against Mr Robson which the Law Society had investigated, that is an incredible denial of access to justice, which the court itself became part of. Mr Robson was happy too of course, as he didn't have to answer for why he lied the whole time he said he was handling the medical negligence case involving the death of my mum.

The conclusion of the Legal Services Ombudsman's report finds the Law Society guilty of wrongdoing, so to speak, and offers a paltry 100 pounds for their actions. Quite disgusting that in our society, an ombudsman has such limited power, but this is just another good example of how crooked lawyers get away with it, time and again, with everyone, not just myself.

Legal Services Ombudsman's conclusion :

"I have considered the handling of your case by the Law Society and in my opinion they failed to take reasonable steps to keep in contact with you between February 2004 and March 2005. I am also of the view that they failed to give you adequate notice of the hearing of 23 March 2005 and you were therefore unable to give evidence. I recommend that the Law Society compensate you in the sum of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to you as a result"

Ultimately, the Law Society gets off the hook again, and if anything this case simply shows the present structures of prosecuting crooked lawyers and recovering damages in Scotland is a complete and utter failure.

So can I find a lawyer to represent me in a case to sue the Law Society and Mr Robson for what happened ? I doubt it, as all lawyers are members of the Law Society of Scotland and wont want to do anything to upset the powers that be.

Offers of legal representation to clear up this mess will be gratefully received ...

This is all a good example of how our glorious Scottish legal system is geared to self protecting lawyers and the legal profession against any member of the public who may have a valid claim against a solicitor. That in itself is a good enough argument to ensure that any regulation involving the legal profession must be fully independent, transparent and have no connection whatsoever with the present systems the legal profession has put in place over the years to constantly save itself from any harm.

Reform these injustices now, and bring fully independent regulation for the legal services market, which must be fully opened up to break the Law Society's monopoly on access to justice - as they have so well demonstrated against myself and so many others.

Lawyer who took on Law Society for clients ended up as dishonest as those he challenged

One of the more difficult articles for me to write, as this relates to a lawyer, Michael G Robson, who handled the case of the death of my mother at Borders General Hospital, and lied about what he was doing with regard to pursuing a medical negligence action against the Hospital.

Michael G Robson, formerly of Robsons WS, Ratho, had many a famous client who had problems with the legal profession. Iain McIntyre for one, was a client of Mr Robson, who tried to sue his lawyers for negligence, but was blocked from doing so by the then Secretary of the Law Society, Kenneth Pritchard, and his successor, Douglas Mill.

I was but another of those clients Mr Robson happily took on, with an assurance that work would be undertaken, and cases brought to court, among them, an attempt to do something about crooked accountant Norman Howitt & ICAS, an action for Judicial Review against the Law Society of Scotland in their handling of the Penman complaint & their treatment of further complaints filed against other legal firms, and of course, the case of the death of my mother at Borders General Hospital, from medical negligence.

In the end, Mr Robson did nothing on any of my cases, nor it seems did he do much, if anything for any of his other client, and ended up before the Law Society over several complaints from clients, including some from myself, over lack of action on cases and failure to correspond or take instructions.

It took the Law Society long enough to do something about it ... they wrote some 90 or so letters to him at his Ratho office, a situation which went on for almost a year. Odd, perhaps, that no one from the Law Society thought to drive a few miles to his office and see what was going on. Law Society officials were however, content to play the situation out for as long as possible, so all of Mr Robson's clients cases might just fall into time bar, thus preventing anyone from being able to claim compensation against the solicitors negligence insurance.

The Law Society, very craftily handled the client complaints against Mr Robson, finding in the main for a poor standard of service & conduct, and recommending prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal for a number of those 'offences'. However due to the possibility of clients proceeding with negligence claims against Mr Robson for his conduct and citing the Law Society investigation and findings, the Law Society made & pressed charges of their own rather than refer too much to the way Mr Robson had treated his clients, in an effort to stall any negligence claims against Mr Robson which would ultimately have to be paid from the Master Insurance Policy - the solicitors professional indemnity insurance for negligence run by the Law Society of Scotland and Marsh UK - which has seen it's own share of corruption allegations.

Mr Robson was duly found guilty and the rest was covered in the media. Mr Robson however, did challenge the SSDT, which was reflected in newspaper reports, and a case which goes on yet to this day, delayed on many occasions of being off to tennis matches or meetings .. how the Court and it's judges sat back and allowed that is anyone's guess, but a good indicator came from a source at the Law Society of Scotland, who claims the intention of the delays is to make my case and any other claim against Mr Robson fall into time bar - the usual practice from the legal profession then.

Such was the complication of the case, and the worry of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman there may be a 'conflict of interest', my request for an investigation into the way the Law Society dealt with the Robson case was passed to the English Legal Services Ombudsman, who have had to sit on the sidelines and await a ruling from the court before taking up their investigation over 3 years since they were contacted to do it.

The Law Society of Scotland's Director of Regulation, Mr Philip Yelland, known to many clients who complain to the Law Society, wrote recently to the Legal Services Ombudsman's office in England, with as useless an explanation as ever, claiming the Law Society was 'powerless' to do anything while Mr Robson pursued the appeal against the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.

In reality, Mr Yelland and his colleagues at the Law Society of Scotland, have been only too happy to see the case drag on, and myself be constantly denied legal representation, to delay and destroy any chance of a negligence claim against Mr Robson being raised - the same trick they play on anyone else who tries to claim against a crooked lawyer ...

Following is a list of the Court appearances of Mr Robson, with excuse after excuse .. which usually revolved around playing tennis ... some of the quotes below ...

"Mr Robson was unable to attend as his employers were contracted to provide his services as a LTA tennis coach to West Lothian Council."

"Mr Robson had a tennis training course in the North of England from 15th - 17th May."

"Mr Robson was unable to attend this hearing as he was attending a tennis leaders course. It was the first course to be run in Scotland and he had been committed since June."

What where the Judges thinking of allowing Mr Robson to treat the court like that, amid the ruin and harm he had caused his clients ?.

The Law Society of Scotland's 'prosecuting fiscal' in this case is PA Reid, 'Solicitor Advocate' of Messrs Fleming & Reid, 180 Hope Street, Glasgow - perhaps known to others who have made complaints against crooked lawyers and seen a 'result' in any 'prosecution' before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal ...

Being slightly fed up with the way I was being treated, by the Law Society, the Court of Session, Mr Robson et all, I let slip the information, and at the weekend, the Sunday Mail featured the story.

Surely all this is a good example of why lawyers cannot be allowed to regulate themselves. Only fully independent regulation of the legal profession, will bring a measure of accountability & transparency to the way lawyers handle cases for their clients, and how complaints are handled when inevitably it seems, lawyers undertake very poor legal service.

Shamed Lawyer In Tennis Racket

Oct 21 2007 By Russell Findlay

Exclusive Brief Accused Of Stringing Along Court With Excuses

A SHAMED lawyer missed a string of dates to defend himself against complaints - because he was too busy playing tennis.

Michael Robson gave the crazy excuse to Scotland's highest court after appealing against a punishment for ignoring clients' wishes.

He was disciplined by legal watchdogs in 2005 but the ruling remained secret because he appealed to the Court of Session.

Robson, 55, missed a court date in April last year as he was working as a Lawn Tennis Association coach.

In May 2006, he went on a two-day tennis training course in England and that September he was at a tennis "leaders course".

Client Peter Cherbi plans to sue Robson for failing to act in a medical negligence claim over the death of his mother in 2000.

Mr Cherbi claims Robson's delays may be a tactic to avoid a court case.

He said: "The deadline for my action against Mr Robson is next year when it will become time barred.

"I suspect he is cynically playing for time. It is extraordinary judges should accept a tennis match is more important than a court appearance." In 2001 the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal found Robson had ignored 50 letters from the Law Society, criticised his "cavalier attitude" and ordered that he work under supervision for three years.

In 2002 he was struck off but that was reduced to five-years of supervision on appeal.

He is banned from working as a solicitor as result of the 2005 ruling.

When we called Robson, of Ratho, Edinburgh, he said he would phone back but failed to do so.