Solicitors ‘cover their backs’ as vote ensures Law Society retains representation of legal profession & complaints self-regulation roles

Law Society of Scotland voted to continue representing & regulating Scotland’s 10,000 solicitors. SOLICITORS in Scotland, even the ‘crooked ones’, can sleep safely at night once more, on the announcement the legal profession have voted in favour of the Law Society of Scotland retaining its representative role of lobbying for the interests of Scotland’s 10,000 solicitors over & above anyone else, while also maintaining its self-regulatory role, helping to preserve the legal profession’s control over consumer complaints against Scotland’s notoriously poor quality legal services market, where each year up to 5000 clients register complaints or dissatisfaction against their solicitors & law firms.

The unsurprising news came to light after the results of the Law Society’s latest ‘referendum’ were released, showing 73% of solicitors who voted, voted in favour of the Society maintaining its dual role of representing solicitors best interests, and investigating complaints against their colleagues. 4,138 solicitors (almost 40% of members) voted in the poll in which solicitors were asked to vote on a single question. ‘Should the Law Society of Scotland as statutory regulator continue to be responsible for promotion of the interests of, and the representation of, solicitors in Scotland?’ 3037 voted yes and 1101 voted no.

Law Society President Ian Smart. Ian Smart, President of the Law Society of Scotland commenting on the vote said : "The resounding result is a mandate for the Society to continue to represent, regulate and support its members. It gives the Society a green light to continue its programme of change including reform of its governance structure and member services. Solicitors in Scotland have recognized that they benefit from keeping the dual roles of regulation and representation together. The very essence of what it is to be a profession is bound by its ethics and principles as well as any common knowledge and skills.”

Mr Smart continued : “Being part of a profession and a qualified solicitor should remain as a badge of distinction unlike other unregulated legal advisors, and is something we should all be proud of. The Council, committees and staff work tremendously hard on behalf of the profession and the message from a recent survey that the profession would like the Society to do more representational work for members is reflected in the referendum vote as we always believed it would be.”

Translated into plain language for the rest of us, Mr Smart’s statement would read : Solicitors have given the Law Society a green light to continue covering up client complaints, control the individual’s access to justice, and continue to lobby against any reforms which may threaten the legal profession’s dominance over legal services in Scotland.

A legal insider condemned the whole referendum as a product of spin, accusing the Law Society of Scotland of engineering the vote to ensure it retained its power over regulation and the profession at large.

He said : “This referendum was all about ensuring the Law Society of Scotland was going to continue to exist, and for that continued existence, it needed to ensure it retained power over complaints and representing the membership. With the results of the vote, both aims were achieved, and the Law Society goes on to fight another day.”

Meanwhile a Scottish Government insider claimed that senior officials and Ministers at the Justice Department were happy to see the Law Society continue “as-is” because they felt it was easier to deal with the Law Society in its present form rather than what may emerge after its passing – which would account for the Scottish Government’s continual cave-ins (with more, as yet unannounced, to come) over the legal profession’s demands to water down the Legal Services Bill, which will end up about as much use as no use for widening the public’s access to justice in Scotland.

More cover-ups on the regulation side of things can be expected … but it is certainly no great surprise that solicitors have voted for the Law Society to retain regulation & representation of the profession, as both issues are simply too powerful to let slip from the profession’s control, as many previous scandals have demonstrated …

Scots consumers 'to miss out' on access to justice reforms as Legal Services Bill debate reveals Law Society calls the shots on ‘Tesco Law’

Scottish Parliament debated Legal Services Bill. THE LEGAL SERVICES BILL for Scotland, proposed by the Scottish Government to improve Scots consumers access to justice “is turning into little more than a legislative time wasting exercise controlled by the legal profession” according to consumer sources today, after the developments of the past week which saw the bill debated at the Scottish Parliament last Wednesday 28 April where the Bill was passed by 98 votes to 2, amid many retractions by Scottish Ministers on key parts of the bill after intervention by the Law Society of Scotland.

Last Wednesday’s tedious & winding debate, which left spectators in little doubt this piece of access to justice legislation was developing into ‘little more than a protection racket for the current legal services monopoly held by solicitors in Scotland’, saw many retractions of the proposals aimed at allowing Scots consumers to make their own choice on where they could purchase legal services, such as from independent non-lawyer owned legal providers, as opposed to the current Law Society controlled monopoly on legal advice. The Holyrood debate was then followed by a remarkably staged piece of theatre two days later on Friday, where the Law Society of Scotland’s Council, who purported to be previously in favour of alternative business structures voted to oppose abs allowing non-lawyers majority ownership of existing law firms.

Legal Services Bill Stage 1 Debate – The only people not consulted appear to be consumers & fee paying clients ! (click on the links to watch video of the debate)

Fergus Ewing Opening Speech Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010 Part 1

Fergus Ewing Opening Speech Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010 Part 2

Bill Aitken Opening Speech Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010 Part 1

Bill Aitken Opening Speech Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010 Part 2

Richard Baker Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010

David McLetchie Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010

Robert Brown Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010

Nigel Don Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010

Bill Butler Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010

James Kelly Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010

Fergus Ewing Closing Speech Legal Services Bill Scottish Parliament 28 April 2010

Two days after the Holyrood debate took place, an already planned policy change was voted through by the Law Society of Scotland’s ‘Council’, which changed its policy on alternative business structures (ABSs) to support majority ownership (51%) of law firms remaining with solicitors or solicitors with other ‘regulated’ (preferably self regulated, of course) professionals. More changes are planned, on the Law Society’s stance on the Legal Services Bill itself, as well as a slew of amendments the Society has persuaded (forced) the Scottish Government to undertake to the bill during it’s next hearings at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee.

Law Society President Ian Smart. Commenting on the Law Society’s vote change, and making reference to further, if unspecified amendments the Law Society are seeking to what was once a consumer choice bill, now little more than a lawyer’s own market protection bill, the Law Society’s President, Ian Smart in a media release said : “We have listened to the profession and there are strong differences of opinion about the way forward, with large and small firms on both sides of the debate. There does, however, seem to be an acceptance that ABSs are inevitable, as reflected in the parliamentary vote, and that a compromise must be found. ”With that in mind, the Society’s Council – which includes solicitors from every sector of the profession – has adopted what it believes to be fair and reasonable compromise position, which would prevent outright external ownership, for instance by supermarkets, but allow firms to compete in a changing marketplace.”

Mr Smart ended by saying : “The next stage of the parliamentary process, which involves making detailed amendments, is almost upon us so the need to present a clear Council policy without further delay was uppermost in the minds of Council members. “We remain committed to ensuring that the proposed legislation is effective, workable and in the interests of the profession and the public. To achieve that, we will remain in discussions with all interested parties and continue to welcome feedback from solicitors.The revised policy will be put to the Society’s membership at its annual general meeting on 27 May. We hope that others will recognise the benefits of supporting a compromise position.”

“Making detailed amendments” …. that will of course relate to ensuring solicitors control the legal services market in Scotland, and ensure any ‘consumer choice’ is killed off at birth .. and with the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government apparently so willing to bend to the Law Society at every stage, consumers shouldn’t expect much from this fatally damaged piece of legislation. There is little doubt now the Legal Services Bill will end up as badly damaged as the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, and will do nothing for Scots consumers, in terms of widening choice of legal services & access to justice.

Background : The Legal Services Bill (Scotland) came into being after the consumer organisation Which? issued a “super complaint” to the Office of Fair Trading under section 11 of the Enterprise Act 2002, stating that the consumer interest was being harmed the restrictions on advocates' business structures, solicitors and advocates providing services jointly, third party entry into the market, and direct consumer access to advocates.

The OFT’s response to the Which? super complaint can be viewed here : OFT response to super-complaint (pdf) along with their comments from July 2007 which stated : “Which? argued that the current restrictions against such practices prevent legal services providers in Scotland from adapting their business to best fit the needs of Scottish consumers. The OFT concluded that the restrictions are unnecessary and believes that there would be benefits to consumers if they were lifted – such as efficiency gains and higher levels of innovation in the provision of legal services.”

The Scottish Consumer Council, now renamed Consumer Focus Scotland, issued its response to the OFT’s consideration of the Which? super complaint, broadly supporting the moves to open up Scotland’s legal services market. The SCC’s reply to the OFT can be viewed HERE (pdf)

You can read the full official report of the debate here : Legal Services Bill Stage 1 Debate Wednesday 28 April 2010 and you can find out more about the Legal Services Bill here : Legal Services Bill (Scottish Parliament)

You can read my own coverage of the Legal Services Bill here : Legal Services Bill for Scotland - The story so far

Solicitors war against Legal Services Bill reforms reveals campaigning Glasgow lawyer holds position on Financial Services ‘consumer’ panel

Law Society of Scotland members ‘in state of civil war’ over access to justice reforms. As the debate heats up over the Scottish Government’s plans for legal services reform, the Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly, who is seen by many solicitors as ‘leading the fight’ by some law firms to persuade the Law Society of Scotland to block the passage of the Scottish Government’s Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which aims to promote & widen consumer access to justice & legal services, also holds a position on a ‘consumer lobby quango’ known as the Financial Services Consumer Panel, which 'advises & ‘challenges the Financial Services Authority on policy matters, to ensure the FSA takes into account the consumer interest.

The Financial Services Consumer Panel profile page for Mr Dailly lists the following details : “Mike is Principal Solicitor and Director of Govan Law Centre, Glasgow, one of the largest community based law centres in the UK. He is a Member of the Secretary of State for Scotland’s Poverty Advisory Group, Legal Advisor to the UK Sustainable Home Ownership Partnership, and a Member of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland’s Advisory Panel. He has over 15 years post-qualified experience as a practising civil court solicitor in Scotland with experience in using the law to protect consumers’ rights and tackle social disadvantage. Mike has European and international law experience, and has several academic publications to his credit. He also acted, from 2005-2008, as the solicitor to the UK unfair bank charges campaign.”

“Mike joined the Panel to bring to it a fresh consumer law perspective. He wants to ensure that the existing regulatory frameworks works as well as possible, while identifying areas of legal or operational practice that could be improved or strengthened for UK consumers. Mike sees membership of the Consumer Panel as providing an exciting opportunity to support the regulatory work of the FSA by constructing careful and persuasive legal arguments. He is particularly interested in preventative and self-help solutions, and a rights-based approach to ensure that consumers get a fair deal when it comes to money matters.”

The Financial Services Consumer Panel were asked for comment on whether they felt Mr Dailly’s stance against the pro-consumer reforms of the Legal Services Bill, was a potential conflict of interest in terms of the aims of the FSCP.

A spokeswoman for the Financial Services Consumer Panel said : "Mike sits on the Panel as an individual consumer advising the FSA on the regulation of financial services. Like all members of the Panel he has specific expertise - in this case being a lawyer - and he also has personal opinions. We are aware of his stance in relation to the Scottish Legal Services Bill and see no conflict of interest."

While the Financial Services Consumer Panel apparently support Mr Dailly’s stance against the Scottish Government’s plans to widen public access to justice & legal services in Scotland, through the Legal Services Bill, known to some as ‘Tesco Law’, the aims of the lobby group and its members seem to be at odds with other quarters of the UK consumer lobby, where, for example, the highly influential Which? consumer group, and Consumer Focus Scotland have expressed full support for the Legal Services Bill, which itself came about after Which? launched a “supercomplaint” to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on the state of Scotland’s closed shop legal services market, chiefly dominated by solicitors & the Law Society of Scotland.

Upon investigation of the Which? “supercomplaint”, the OFT concluded there were failings in Scottish consumers being able to access legal services at their own choice, going onto recommend the Scottish Government address the issue without delay. The OFT’s response to the Which? super complaint can be viewed here : OFT response to super-complaint.

The Scottish Consumer Council, now renamed Consumer Focus Scotland, issued its response to the OFT’s consideration of the Which? super complaint, broadly supporting the moves to open up Scotland’s legal services market. The SCC’s reply to the OFT can be viewed HERE and you can read more about all this in an earlier article, here : Holyrood's Justice Committee offers ‘cautious support’ for Legal Services Bill reforms, as lawyers fight to hold back Scots wider access to justice

One might be left wondering why a lawyer who sits on a consumer lobby panel which didn’t say too much about the much similar Legal Services Act 2007 coming into force in England & Wales, now thinks we Scots should not have the same wide choice & access to legal services as our English cousins will soon enjoy, since the Legal Services Act 2007 has already come into force south of the border.

Mr Dailly, keen to ensure the Law Society of Scotland will drop its support for the Legal Services Bill, has set up a weblog called “Justice for Scotland” to organise his campaign for a “NO NO” vote to the planned Law Society referendum on the Legal Services Bill, to be held on 16 April 2010 at the Sheraton Hotel in Edinburgh, a referendum which was originally called by the Scottish Law Agents Society, and which no consumers are invited to watch take place. The hostility by some quarters of the legal profession against the Legal Services Bill, has apparently caught the Scottish Government off guard, resulting in yet another defence of the planned legal services reforming legislation by Fergus Ewing.

Click to view Mike Dailly & Ian Smart debate solicitors best interests in a consumer world :

Some of the arguments being presented by the legal profession against the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill range from Ministerial interference in the Law Society’s Council appointments, to the possibility that crooks may end up owning legal firms.

Well, since we already have reached & passed the stage where crooks & criminals own and work in law firms (The Law Society’s own Chief Accountant Leslie Cumming found that out to his cost in 2006), that only leaves the Ministerial interference excuse, which was swiftly dealt with by an even swifter climb-down from Fergus Ewing on that very issue as I reported in an earlier article here : Scottish Government back down on lay appointments to Law Society Council as lawyers interests threaten to break pro-consumer legal services bill

If Scotland were to get the same entitlements as consumers in England & Wales, we as consumers could end up being able to buy cheaper legal services from non-lawyer owned companies such as Banks, supermarkets or financial specialists, instead of having to use the same old law firms who invariably end up making a mess of their client’s cases while ensuring they charge huge fee demands for negligent, poor, or even non existent legal work, with many of these same Scottish law firms generating up to 5000 consumer complaints a year, many left unresolved, or even whitewashed by the Law Society of Scotland.

If the current legal services market in Scotland can only offer lack of choice, poor quality yet expensive legal services, wholesale regulatory failure, and little respect of the fee paying client, why should we as consumers be forced to use it ?

Its time for change. I would encourage all consumers to support the Legal Services Bill by contacting your MSP at the Scottish Parliament, expressing your opinions on whether you feel Scots should be given wider access to justice & wider choice of legal services as surely everyone is entitled.

You can read my own coverage of the Legal Services Bill here : Legal Services Bill for Scotland - The story so far

Tesco Law swapped for ‘Penman vote fiddle’ as Law Society’s support for legal services bill leads to solicitors civil war over access to justice

Law Society of Scotland accused by its own members of not being democratic. SOLICITORS CLIENTS in Scotland have known for years, the Law Society of Scotland are, to put it mildly, a rather undemocratic organisation when it comes to taking into account the views of up to 5000 clients a year in dealing with regulatory issues & complaints against solicitors, with most complaints receiving what is commonly known as the ‘whitewash treatment’, where solicitors facing even the worst complaints would still remain in a job, no matter how severe the offence, or how severe the financial loss to consumers.

However, only now with the advent of a new legal services model for Scotland, where consumers may actually have the right to choose a non-lawyer to represent their legal interests, do solicitors find out the Law Society’s ‘undemocratic streak’ works both ways, after yesterday’s ‘vote nobbling’ of the Special General Meeting called by the Scottish Law Agents Society, where over 3000 'proxy votes’ cast by solicitors mainly it would seem, against the Law Society’s support of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, were put aside, because the Law Society knew it would lose the vote. So, its only taken since 1949 .. some sixty years late, for solicitors to come out and call their own governing body undemocratic, and unwilling to listen to its own membership. Well .. all I can say to that is welcome to the real world.

Clients have felt maligned by the the Law Society’s ‘lack of democracy’ for decades under the society’s self regulation of the legal profession, where clients who had the need to complain of poor service or otherwise from their legal representative consistently had their complaints, views, evidence and pleas for help cast aside by Drumsheugh Gardens time after time after time .. a well worn path by the Law Society, and now the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which continues to this day.

Tell me, members of the Scottish legal profession .. where were all your protests when clients suffered a raw deal at the hands of the Law Society ? Is that a pin I hear dropping ?

Seriously, over the years of writing my blog, some solicitors have come to me saying things along the lines of “all this must end”, “self regulation has to go”, “we know we would be better off without the Law Society of Scotland” … but not once have I seen headlines in the newspapers of something along the lines of “Solicitors challenge their own Law Society to give clients greater say over complaints”. If such a move had taken place, believe me, members of the legal profession, you would have had much greater respect from the Scots population many years ago.

Where only now, that certain quarters of the legal profession itself are realising their dominant control of Scotland’s legal services market is threatened, do we see solicitors protesting against their own governing body … not for the best interests of clients (although I’m sure some claim that is exactly what they have in mind) .. moreover the protests are about money, and the loss of it.

Its just not good enough. As solicitors, you all have yourselves to blame for the mess you are in, which ultimately clients will have to pay for.

Decades of confrontation with clients, decades of lies, deceit, decades of arm twisting Members of the Scottish Parliament, and their Members of Parliament at Westminster before them into watering down or killing off proposals to reform regulation of the legal profession, reform of rights of audience, reform of court procedures, reform of civil & criminal law, and now, reform of the public’s access to justice, has given the public a view of the legal profession which will never change .. that of a selfish, manipulative, corrupt, anti-client, anti-consumer monopolistic business who will stop at nothing to protect its own interests.

It could have been so different, if the profession’s membership had listened to its fee paying clients, consumers and well .. common sense, all those years ago, but even now, as solicitors I doubt you are at all interested in the views of the very consumers who pay your way and maintain your existence. When you are, then you can claim you have clients best interests at heart in your accusations against the Law Society … but until then, be honest, its only about money – not the client’s best interests …

However, even in today’s newspapers, the rights of consumers in this debate on legal services, still seem very far away, as the grim reading in today’s papers makes for the chance of passing legislation increasing Scots access to justice, where The Times reports that We got it very wrong, admits Law Society boss as ‘Tesco law’ founders, the Scotsman reporting : Law Society accused of 'affront to democracy' as voting postponed and the Herald reports : Blocking ‘Tesco law’ could cost Scotland £500 million, warns law society president

Law Society’s Ian Smart – no nobbled vote here, its just we knew we’d lose it so we adjourned it ! In a release from the Law Society, its President Ian Smart continued the society’s line on the Legal Services bill, saying : “The Legal Services (Scotland) Bill proposes major changes. There is no disguising that there are differing opinions within the profession on this. However all sides must be happy that there is now a fuller engagement with these issues and it would be churlish not to acknowledge the contributions of the Scottish Law Agents in that process. It was clear that as the debate proceeded today, the two sides may not be as far apart as perceived prior to the meeting. The decision to adjourn was taken in the hope that we might yet reach agreement on a way forward that is acceptable to the vast majority of our membership.”

Clearly the Law Society knew it would lose the vote, so, simple way of dealing with that is to stop the vote. Yes, a good show for democracy there, but as consumers we have all experienced this same policy where the Law Society deals with thorny issues .. simply kill discussion, kill reforms, kill any chance of public debate.

Law Society insider James Ness, famed for nobbling a Committee decision to send Borders solicitor Andrew Penman to the SSDT announced the vote would be cancelled. The opposing view from the Scottish Law Agents Society, revealed, amazingly, that James Ness, whom readers may remember, represented Scotland’s most famous crooked lawyer, Andrew Penman, before the Complaints Committee back in 1994 and got him off the hook from some of the most serious complaints imaginable, announced the vote proposed by the SLAS would not go ahead. Well, there’s a surprise ! So the shadow of crooked Borders solicitor Andrew Penman is still playing a hand in obstructing consumer reforms to legal services, and at the same time cancelling a vote by lawyers against their own Law Society of Scotland.

From the Scottish Law Agents Society website : “Deputy Registrar, James Ness announced that the motion to adjourn the meeting, once seconded, would go straight to a vote without need for a direct negative or opportunity for any members to address the motion, either in support or in opposition. Further, the proxy votes would be excluded from the vote so that the motion would be decided by those personally present. A number of points of order were raised from the floor and, while these were courteously answered, matters proceeded as initially ordered by the Deputy Registrar and the whole meeting suddenly disappeared through a sort of metaphorical trapdoor.”

“It had been fairly clear from the outset that, with the Law Society Council in attendance, the number of persons present who opposed the motion substantially outnumbered those who supported it, in the proportion of about 2:1, just as it was also obvious from the the proxy records which had been duly prepared and circulated by the organisers, that the proxies in favour of the motion outnumbered those against, in the proportion of almost 3:1. It was no surprise, therefore, when the option was certain defeat if the issue went to a vote, that those who opposed the motion duly voted for the adjournment of the meeting. This led to some further points of order and indeed to some outspoken adverse criticisms of the process which were finally brought to a conclusion when SLAS President Scanlan delivered a polite acknowledgement and acceptance of the technical correctness of the outcome.”

You can read more about how James Ness aided Mr Penman, blocking his prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, here : How Law Society's 'cancelled' prosecution of Borders solicitor Andrew Penman ignited moves to reform regulation of Scotland’s crooked lawyers

Scottish Government – ever so eager to concede to lawyers demands over consumer rights. Next week, we can expect more arm twisting from the legal profession on the Scottish Government & Scottish Parliament, inevitably bringing further concessions on the Legal Services Bill, perhaps watering down completely any chance that Scots will gain the right to choose their own legal representatives from an expanded legal services market, rather than be forced to live under the current regime where the legal profession itself determines who among us has the right to pay through the nose for access to justice …

Is this fair to consumers ? It certainly is not …. but as we see from the vested interests at play here, consumers have little or no voice in this battle over legal services at all, as the legal profession have already secured their political allies, even in the form of the Justice Committee Convener himself, Bill Aitken who, by the sounds of his praise for Douglas Mill and solicitors in general, is apparently dead against any reforms to giving people control over their own legal affairs … perhaps, then, as someone pointed out earlier to me today, the Office of Fair Trading will have to step in and force a change on behalf of Scots consumers, to ensure at least someone, is protecting our interests in this debate on legal services …

You can read my own coverage of the Legal Services Bill here : Legal Services Bill for Scotland - The story so far

Law Society SGM no-vote washout : Legal Services should be treated like any other business as consumers demand wider access to justice

Law Society of Scotland’s meeting washed out with no vote. It will come as little surprise to most that today’s Special General Meeting of the Law Society of Scotland, called by the Scottish Law Agents Society to vote on the Law Society’s own ‘alleged’ support for the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, turned out to be less of a confrontation, rather more the expected fudge predicted by many, as well as a complete washout in terms of furthering consumer’s wider choice & access to legal services in Scotland.

Rather than the imminent break up of the Law Society, hoped for by some in the legal profession (and many outside it), the adjourned SGM at Murrayfield ended up agreeing to seek more talks on ‘building a consensus’ between those opposed to & those in favour of the Legal Services Bill’s proposals of alternative business structures, where law firms will be allowed via the new legislation, to bring in outside capital investment, and possibly end up being owned by non-lawyers (obviously a horrifying prospect to lawyers !).

Law Society President Ian Smart - ‘not possible to reach agreement’. It was reported that discussions took place during an extended break and when the meeting resumed, Society President Ian Smart announced that although it was not possible to reach agreement on the spot, both sides were willing to keep talking to see if an agreed position could be found and the meeting was adjourned, amid protests the adjournment would remove the voices of around 3,000 solicitors who had sent in proxy forms to enable them to vote on the original SLAS motion, which called for the Law Society to change its stance over supporting alternative business structures (abs) in the Legal Services Bill – a stance the SLAS believe threatens independence of the legal profession.

The feeling remains however, in all these headlines on the battles between the Law Society and various factions of the legal profession, consumers are being left as spectators of what really amounts to a lot of red herrings, lots of smoke & mirrors, diversions from the real arguments, the real fears, the real worries of solicitors, that once legal services are available in Tesco, Morrisons, Asda, or even, Lidl, law firms might find their clients are off to the supermarket for a quick shop along with a quick house purchase, or quick, cheap, advice session on how to handle a legal issue, instead of engaging a solicitor and going through endless appointments, endless letters, endless court appearances, endless fee demands, endless complaints, and well, no end in sight to the issue which brought them into their solicitor’s office in the first place …

Cutting costs, giving consumers wider choice & rights to access justice & legal services is obviously a good thing for consumers. If solicitors are keen to compete with others offering legal services, then reducing fees, vastly increasing success rates & vastly decreasing the time it takes to conduct clients cases, or litigation, might help attract customers back to law firms. Competition is good .. and it might even raise standards in the profession, which the Law Society seem not to be able to achieve on its own.

It should come as no surprise however, that desperate times provoke desperate arguments from the legal profession (or at least its governing body) to maintain a grip over control of access to legal services in Scotland, with recently the Law Society’s President, Ian Smart arguing that legal services, and access to them, should be treated as much more than a business, as I reported last week : “We have also maintained that consumers must be protected and that access to justice is a priority – legal services is not and cannot be seen as a purely commercial activity.”

On closer inspection, Mr Smith’s argument holds little support outside the Law Society’s sphere of influence.

“Consumers must be protected”. Speaking from the consumer’s point of view … Yes, consumers do need to be protected, from you & your colleagues, Mr Smart. However, only a fully independent regulator of legal services in Scotland can protect consumers from legal services, because the Law Society of Scotland and now the Law Society ‘ infected’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are just not up to the job.

“Access to justice is a priority”. No its not. It should be, but its not, not anyway while the current legal services model exists its not. Access to justice under the current system, where solicitors & law firms dominate the legal services market is only granted to clients or consumers if a solicitor thinks they have a chance of making money out of their case, not just because someone comes through the door of a solicitor’s office and claims their rights have been violated, or they need to take legal action to resolve a difficulty, injury, issue of negligence, or require to be helped in some other way.

Access to justice in all of those cases, and indeed any imaginable instance, is only a priority if the solicitor thinks so, and justification for taking the client’s issue further will inevitably be judged on a commercial basis. No chance of making money out of you ? Then the solicitor cannot or will not undertake the work. Not much of a priority of access to justice there …

“Legal Services is not and cannot be seen as a purely commercial activity”. Just why is that ? Do law firms offer legal services simply out of goodwill and without any regard to commercial factors and with no motive other than to serve the greater community at large, represent the interests of justice and fight vigorously for the rights of individuals ? Obviously not. Going to a lawyer and accessing legal services is (or at least should be) as commercial an activity as going to the post office to buy a stamp, or buying a train ticket and travelling from A to B.

Legal Services is a business, Mr Smart. Get over it.

However, until we hear the issue of consumer’s best interests being talked about in this debate, you can be sure the consumer & fee paying client, will always come last to the interests of the legal profession … leading to more concessions to the Law Society from the Scottish Government in the weeks to come as the Legal Services Bill travels through the Scottish Parliament.

Funnily enough, the Law Society will then claim it was their work which ‘won’ the even more yet-to-announced, well rehearsed ‘concessions’ from the Scottish Government, and thus maintain its existence to fight another day ….

You can read my own coverage of the Legal Services Bill here : Legal Services Bill for Scotland - The story so far

Scottish Government back down on lay appointments to Law Society Council as lawyers interests threaten to break pro-consumer legal services bill

Scottish Government backed down after threats from lawyers. AFTER TWO WEEKS of bitter campaigning by solicitors who threatened to derail passage of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill through the Scottish Parliament over certain powers which allowed Ministers to appoint non-lawyers to the Law Society’s ‘decision making’ Council, it has been revealed the Scottish Government has caved in to demands from the legal profession who want the Law Society’s ‘decision making’ Council to remain an exclusive lawyer-only affair.

The sudden climb-down by the Scottish Government, who are now also expected to cave into more demands from the legal profession intent on watering down the Legal Services Bill proposals to retain their long held monopoly over the public’s access to justice in Scotland, come after an intense two weeks of campaigning by solicitors, law firms, and even the Law Society of Scotland, who, while officially supporting the Legal Services Bill, were privately threatening to kill off the bill’s chances of securing a successful passage in the Scottish Parliament, after it became known several MSPs had been contacted by Law Society officials & individual solicitors keen to see the bill would not accumulate enough support for its passage into law.

Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Government’s Minister for Communities & Safety was wheeled out at a Law Society ‘road show’ to announce to angry solicitors their beloved ‘Council of the Law Society of Scotland’ would remain a lawyer-only club, making the following announcement :"The power of Scottish Ministers to make regulations specifying the proportion of lay members and the criteria for selection was intended as a fall-back, only to be used in the unlikely event that there would be a need to resolve any disagreements regarding the proportion of lay members.”

Mr Ewing continued : "Following representations from the Law Society of Scotland, in which it re-affirmed its commitment to lay appointments, I no longer consider it necessary for Scottish Ministers to have this fall-back power. Therefore, I intend to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill to delete section 92(4), (5) and (6) of the Bill."

Ian Smart, still pulling the strings against wider transparency at the Law Society. Ian Smart, President of the Law Society of Scotland welcomed the Scottish Government’s capitulation to lawyers vested interests, saying : "This is an important concession and very good news for the profession. The government promised to listen to the Society and the profession’s representations and they have done so. We, along with others, have pressed hard for changes to key aspects of the Bill and I am very pleased that the first of these have been taken on board and that amendments will be made.”

Mr Smart continued along the theme of putting a gun to the head of the Legal Services Bill & wider consumer rights of access to justice : "We’ve had a constructive working relationship with the government which we want to continue, and we will be seeking further amendments. Independence of the legal profession is essential and we have stressed throughout the ABS debate that, along with the profession’s core values and principles, it cannot be compromised. We have also maintained that consumers must be protected and that access to justice is a priority – legal services is not and cannot be seen as a purely commercial activity.”

Mr Smart seems to think the way in which Scottish solicitors fleece the public with expensive, poor quality legal services should not be treated as a purely commercial activity, rather he casts up these non-existent ‘core values & principles’, of what one may ask ? What values do solicitors have these days when consumers have a better chance of winning the Euromillions lottery than finding an honest law firm in Scotland who wont rip them off ?

Law Society wins the day again after the usual threats of a split & intimidation of Scottish Government. Section 92 of the Legal Services Bill had required the Law Society to appoint a number of non-solicitor members to its Council to represent the public interest - a joke, surely as the Law Society have never represented the public interest. The now withdrawn proposals would also have allowed Scottish Government Ministers after ‘consultation with the legal profession, to set limits or requirements on how many non-solicitors would sit on the Law Society’s Council.

The proposals drew bitter arguments from within the legal profession, which boiled over onto television with arguments between the Law Society’s current president, Ian Smart & Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, who along with several other law firms aligned to the Glasgow Bar Association threatened to split from the Law Society over the issue of control of the Law Society’s Council and perceived Ministerial interference, which it was claimed, would lead to a fundamental loss of the legal profession’s independence.

I reported earlier on the arguments within the profession which led to today’s climb-down by the Scottish Government, here : Lawyers squabble over control of legal services monopoly & regulation as Scots consumers forced to wait for wider access to justice, accompanied by a video clip, worth watching again :

Law Society’s Ian Smart & Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly argue the toss on Legal Services reform :

Law Society wins the day again after the usual threats of a split & intimidation of Scottish Govt. While it may look to some the bitter arguments between lawyers & the Law Society threatened to disturb the ‘harmony’ of the legal profession, seasoned observers are well used to these kind of tactics, where part of the profession will break off in an outburst against Government proposed reforms, while the Law Society feigns support to a certain degree for the disputed Ministerial plans. A few days or weeks later, the plans are then quietly (or as in this case, spectacularly) dropped by Scottish Ministers, allowing the legal profession to regain its harmonious outlook of ripping off consumers and getting away with it.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : ‘A Government Agency’. Earlier this week, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was even dragged into the fight against the Legal Services Bill by lawyers desperate to retain their monopoly over regulation of complaints and the public’s access to justice, when the Law Society’s Chief Executive Lorna Jack launched attacks at the hapless law complaints quango, branding it a “Government Agency”.

Attempt to deflect attention from Law Society’s woes ? Lorna Jack attacked Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Lorna Jack said earlier this week in comments issued to magazines & newspapers : “We also need to be aware of the law of unintended consequences. The easiest way to split the functions would be pass regulation to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. That would remove a huge amount of control from the profession and hand it to a government agency – and that could be a serious own-goal.”

The usual turn of events then ensued after Ms Jack’s comments appeared in the media, with other ‘personalities’ emerging from the legal profession’s blood stained woodwork to issue veiled threats if the Scottish Government handed over all the Law Society of Scotland’s present regulatory functions to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, there would be more trouble in store for the Legal Services Bill and anyone supporting it …

Replying to Ms Jack’s outbursts against the SLCC and pleas for solicitors unity, Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre said the Law Society should combine with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in a new, slimmed down regulator, with representation left to existing & new professional associations. Personally, I doubt that could work, as Mr Dailly is simply proposing a Law Society take-over of the SLCC, which already appears to have happened without anyone particularly noticing ….

Mr Dailly in his online blog at “The Firm” is also reported to have called for Ian Smart to step down as Law Society President, for, as Mr Dailly alleges, failing to promote the interests of solicitors - above everyone else by the sounds of it …

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is no fan of independently regulating fellow solicitors. Given the equally hapless Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has made it be known he has no intention of creating an independent regulator of legal services in Scotland – presumably because Mr MacAskill fears independent regulation as much as any of his more crooked colleagues in the profession itself, we can expect the Scottish Government to settle for ‘the quiet life’ and back down yet again, giving the Law Society total control over regulation once again, as if it already doesn't control the SLCC as things currently stand …

Today, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refused to comment on Ms Jack’s ‘Government Agency’ jibe, preferring to point out in a statement “The SLCC does not intend to comment on the article that appeared in the Scotsman. The status of the SLCC is defined in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, Schedule 1 Sections 1 (1) and (2) and there is a link to the Act on the SLCC website.” – sounds as if they have a lot of confidence in themselves …

Given the developments of this past week .. it may well be that Scots are not going to receive much of a fairer deal for access to justice or access to legal services, certainly if the legal profession & the Law Society of Scotland have their wicked way once again …

Lawyers squabble over control of legal services monopoly & regulation as Scots consumers forced to wait for wider access to justice

Law Society’s argument to maintain closed shop legal services weak. The debate on the Legal Services Bill, which aims to open up Scotland’s monopolistic legal services market, currently dominated by solicitors & the Law Society of Scotland, took another twist at the weekend with the appearance on television of the current President of the Law Society, Ian Smart & the Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly, where chiefly, the concerns of the profession itself were debated, rather than how consumers would ultimately benefit from long needed changes to the way we choose our legal representatives & access justice.

A clip of the interview, from BBC Scotland’s The Politics Show, passed onto me makes for interesting viewing for all those concerned about how the legal profession wish to keep their business market stitched up as the long held monopoly which lawyers have been used to maintaining over the public’s access to justice.

Both Mr Smart & Mr Dailly appeared not so interested in the lot of the client, (who is after all paying for them to offer legal services as a business, rather than some noble cause which serves the community) more the representatives of the legal profession, minus anyone from the consumer lobby, appeared to focus on the internal squabble for control of the Law Society itself, and its current dual roles of representing solicitors as well as regulating them, and of course its alleged claims to represent the clients best interests, claims which we all know to be .. well … a deceit.

Law Society President Ian Smart & Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly on Legal Services Reform.

From the debate I note Mr Dailly brings up the well known issue of supermarkets & banks price fixing their services & products. Well of course we all know the legal profession does exactly the same, and gets away with it time & again as there is no recourse to question solicitors bills (false, padded, or genuine) other than submitting the account to an almost bogus audit to the auditor of the court, who also usually happens to be a solicitor.

I think we need less of those one sheet A4 letters with four lines of text on it, charged at £160+VAT each which solicitors are so famous for charging clients for (usually around 10 or more at a time over at least a year and nothing achieved in the client’s case) and more competition where consumers will be able to shop around for legal services rather than be ripped off by the current crop of … well .. for the want of a better term, qualified robbers ?

Fortunately for Scots, there are more sensible forces in the debate on legal services reform such as Which?, who have done a lot of work to bring the Legal Services Bill to the Scottish Parliament, after the whole process was kicked off by the Which? “super-complaint” to the Office of Fair Trading, which you can read about in a previous report, here Consumers call for OFT Inquiry to investigate restriction of legal services in Scotland

Which? recently did a survey of consumers, supporting the notion that most Scots wish to see a more open legal services market, and be given freedom of choice on who represents their legal interests, rather than being forced to use a solicitor who can basically charge what they want (that old price fixing model solicitors have been used to all these years).

Which? research concluded most Scots want more open legal services market & independent regulation (click on images to view larger versions)

For consumers to be able to trust & depend on legal services, independent regulation is a must, considering the disgraceful history of the Law Society of Scotland and now the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on the subject of regulating complaints against solicitors.

Sadly the Scottish Governments Legal Services Bill currently lacks any significant proposals for independent regulation of legal services in Scotland, as the Law Society seems to have easily arm twisted the likes of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill into backing away from that idea for now … but the campaign goes on to bring fully independent regulation to Scotland’s currently ill served legal services market.

Consumer protection 'a low priority' as law firms call for split from Law Society masks solicitors power grab for Scots legal services market

Law Society of Scotland faces division over Legal Services reform. LEGAL SERVICES REFORM which would bring Scots wider access to justice is facing a new , if perhaps temporary hurdle as several solicitors & law firms who are upset over the plans contained in the Scottish Government’s Legal Services Bill, call for a break away from the Law Society of Scotland, who are now being accused of not representing solicitors best interests, by not protecting the ‘independence’ of Scotland’s legal profession – which actually translates into not protecting solicitors current monopoly over consumers access to justice.

The Legal Services Bill, which you can read more about in my previous reports HERE, if passed by the Scottish Parliament, will effectively allow much wider competition in Scotland’s currently ‘solicitor only’ dominated legal services market, freeing consumers from being forced to use a member solicitor or law firm of the Law Society of Scotland to gain access to justice or legal services.

In a reformed legal services market, banks, supermarkets and others will be able to provide Scots consumers with legal services at costs much less than those currently charged by law firms controlled by the Law Society of Scotland, who are now more widely known for their failures to represent clients best interests while charging huge fees for little work, than achieving actual successes for clients who often end up worse off than before they walked in the lawyers front door.

Those leading the call to split from the Law Society are the Glasgow Bar Association, the Govan Law Centre, along with two Glasgow law firms, MacRoberts & Thomsons , all warning that introducing Legal Services Reform to Scotland (the same reforms introduced in England & Wales during 2007 with much less fuss) will undermine centuries of independent legal representation in Scotland. While client & consumer protection appear very low down on the list of priorities in this argument which is essentially between law firms & the Law Society vying for control over the consumers right to choose their legal representative, the Glasgow Bar Association have now called for a referendum for all solicitors to decide whether the Law Society of Scotland should represent their interests.

Now that certain sections of Scotland’s antiquated, monopolistic legal services market realise their income & influence via the current business model is under threat, a drive is underway by solicitors to influence members of the Scottish Parliament to vote against the Legal Services Bill, citing among the arguments, that Government Ministers will be able to interfere in the selection of members of the Council of the Law Society, where up to 20% of the 60 will be made up of members of the public Government stooges, who could be picked according to criteria set by ministers – just like we saw at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where the Law Society managed to stuff the SLCC with its own people as I reported earlier here : Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

The problem with that argument about Ministerial interference however, is as you can see that despite Ministers apparently having the power to make independent selections, they always appear to select more stooges from the profession itself, so in reality nothing much will change, other than perhaps certain sections of the legal profession not being able to stuff the Council of the Law Society as they have always been used to doing …

Clearly solicitors don't want anyone other than solicitors on the Law Society’s ‘Council’, although that would be fine with me if the Law Society were to be stripped of its regulatory & disciplinary role, and left to be nothing more than a representative union for solicitors, rather than the all controlling, all powerful, all crooked regulator it has always been.

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations branded the current debate ‘a diversion’ and accused certain sections of the legal profession from trying to obstruct reforms which would lead to greater consumer choice and protection from Scotland’s notoriously poor legal services market.

He said : “Clearly certain sections of the legal profession seem intent on staging a coup for control of the Law Society in an attempt to thwart much needed reforms to Scotland’s legal services market. This is purely a selfish move designed to promote the interests of solicitors over consumer choice.”

He continued : “The only way to resolve the fears of solicitors in this debate would be to strip the Law Society of its regulation role and that of representing clients best interests, steps we would wholeheartedly welcome.”

Law Society President Ian Smart – independence is essential. The response from the Law Society of Scotland was to claim it had always promoted independence of the legal profession as being fundamental to its support of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. Mr Smart said : “In its response to the Bill and during parliamentary evidence sessions, the Society insisted that independence is essential and that the role of the Lord President should be strengthened to ensure that this remains the case. The Society will continue to lobby changes to section 92, which has been raised as a concern by both the Society and its members.

Mr Smart continued : “The Bill as it currently stands provides ministers with powers to make regulations which could specify the criteria they considered appropriate for appoint ability and the number of lay members on Council and can prescribe a minimum number or proportion if they believe such a prescription is necessary. Before these regulations are made, Scottish ministers would have to consult with Council, the Lord President, OFT and other consumer bodies. That would only be the case if the Society failed to implement section 92 properly. Only the Society can appoint any lay members to the Council, not Scottish ministers. It should be remembered that most other professional bodies have for many years appointed lay members because of the qualities, expertise and talent they bring, including the GMA (General Medical Council, GDA (General Dentists ' Council), ICAS (accountants), RICS (surveyors) and the BMA (British Medical Council), which although is a representative body also has large patient representative committees.”

“It may be difficult to accept any input by politicians into how the Society functions, despite it being a body set up by statute, but the 20% lay membership on Council, which will become part of the Society's obligations, was decided by Council members and has been agreed as appropriate by ministers. This is despite continued pressure from the consumer lobby for somewhere between 50% to 75% of lay membership on the Society's council. Lay members have also been on the Society's regulatory committees for around 20 years and all now have 50% lay membership. Non-regulatory committees are predominantly made up of practicing solicitors.”

“None of this represents a handing over of independence of Scotland's largest legal profession and taking an antagonistic stance does not help negotiate any long term benefits for the profession.”

If solicitors are going to have a say in who represents them, without giving any regard as to who will represent the very clients who fund their ill deserved lavish offices & law firms, perhaps clients and consumers should also be able to have a referendum on who they want to regulate legal services and handle complaints against the legal profession.

Which? revealed recently most want independent regulation of legal services. We already know from research which has already taken place on this issue, some of it dating back over a decade from the Scottish Consumer Council, to current research undertaken by UK consumer organisation Which?, consumers have always wanted a fully independent regulator of legal services in Scotland, rather than the half way, hapless, ‘just as crooked’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which now ranks among most clients as Law Society MkII when it comes to dealing with complaints against solicitors.

Only fully independent regulation of Scotland’s legal services market will resolve these and many other problems faced by consumers and solicitors alike but as we have seen from the dithering Justice Secretary, fully independent regulation of solicitors is apparently a step too far for Mr MacAskill who according to his own civil servants, is too busy purging the Justice Department than addressing issues affecting Scots access to justice …

For more on this story, read THIS REPORT in the Herald

Little mention of consumer protection for Scots as Law Society give evidence to Holyrood on Legal Services Bill reforms

Holyrood’s Justice Committee heard Law Society’s sagging performance. The Law Society of Scotland’s appearance in front of Holyrood’s Justice Committee to give evidence on the proposed reforms of the Legal Services Bill, currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament, seems to prove that despite the Law Society’s well deserved reputation for covering up complaints against its members, covering up frauds, embezzlement, theft, destruction (& the falsification of) documents, client files, mishandling of deceased’s wills, and even covering up criminal acts of its own members, officials from the governing body which ‘looks after’ Scotland’s solicitors are still willing to claim they should be left alone to regulate Scotland’s legal services market, sidelining any real improvements in consumer protection from its members.

The usual suspects from the Law Society attended the hearing, President Ian Smart, Chief Executive Lorna Jack (Douglas Mill’s replacement), the notorious Director of Law Reform, Michael Clancy (famed for killing off public petitions, calling in MSPs who are making a fuss about legal matters in Parliament, and someone from the Law Society with the bizarre title of law reform officer, Katie Hay. Missing was the Law Society’s Director of Regulation, Philip Yelland, which was a little strange, as one of the topics which received the most attention was, regulation.

The usual suspects caught on video - Law Society of Scotland’s evidence session on the Legal Services Bill :

Pt 1 Pt 2 Pt 3

Pt 4 Pt 5 Pt 6

Pt 7 Pt 8 Pt 9

The full report of the Law Society of Scotland’s appearance before the Justice Committee, giving evidence on the Legal Services Bill, can be viewed, here : Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1 Justice Committee Tuesday 15 December 2009 You can also read my earlier coverage of the Legal Services Bill, here : Legal Services Bill - The story so far

The session was opened with a question from Bill Aitken, the Justice Committee Convener, who asked the acolytes from the Law Society : “Is the Law Society convinced that the bill is necessary and that the establishment of alternative business structures will benefit users of legal services in Scotland as well as practitioners?”

President Ian Smart spoke the most during the session, unfortunately. Responding, Ian Smart, the Law Society’s outgoing President said : “The short answer to your question is yes. The bill largely implements the policy that the Law Society adopted at our annual general meeting in May 2008. We support the proposed legislation for a number of reasons. The first is simply that the legal profession's structure is changing. The conventional view of a solicitor in Scotland is someone who is in a relatively small and modest partnership of three or four solicitors based in a county town, but the profession's current demographic is far from that. Three quarters of all solicitors are now employed in one capacity or another. Some are employed by the state—locally or nationally—and others by the private sector directly, but a good number of them are actually employed. The old partnership model is in steady decline. The Law Society already allows limited liability partnerships and, since 1990, incorporated practices, and we see the bill as the next stage.”

“It is clear that in some areas—more in relation to commercial users of legal services—there is demand for a one-stop shop, where more than one professional service is provided under one roof. Recent research by KPMG south of the border—albeit it involved the Scottish market—indicated that a substantial 75 per cent of commercial users of legal services welcomed that model. We looked into that model and, frankly, had some concerns about the ethical issues, but they have been worked through in our policy and in how the Government has implemented that policy through the bill. We see no reason why the bill cannot be the next stage in modernising the provision of legal services to the public.”

Mr Smart was then questioned on how the vote actually swung in favour of Alternative Business Structures by law firms & individual solicitors although he seemed to omit telling the Justice Committee the Law Society had campaigned hard against the vote within its ranks which, as we all now know was eventually pushed through by the larger legal firms and proxy votes.

Michael Clancy, well known for ‘calling in errant MSPs who rock the boat in the legal world, and killing off the occasional public petition seeking legal reforms. Michael Clancy then entered the debate, after being questioned by Justice Committee member Robert Brown MSP (LibDem) on what areas lawyers & non-lawyers could go into partnership with, and which particular areas of business should be reserved to lawyers only, such as “will writing” – which we have all noted that lawyers have done so well over the years (taking millions of pounds for themselves and getting away with it !)

Mr Clancy said : “They (reserved work for lawyers only) are the preparation of writs that relate to conveyancing, of documents in respect of confirmation of executors and of writs that relate to court process. Those reserved activities can be done only by solicitors and some other professionals; to do them for gain in any other circumstance is an offence. The clear answer to Robert Brown's earlier question is that the reserved areas will be unaffected by the bill and such activities will still have to be done by a solicitor in a licensed provider situation.”

Mr Clancy then went onto insist that any head of legal services in the reformed Legal Services Market must be a solicitor. He said : “It should be remembered that in a licensed provider firm—if such creatures come into being—the head of legal services will have to be a solicitor. One can envisage that the head of legal services will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the law and practice in relation to the preparation of the documents that I mentioned.”

Law Society’s current Chief Executive Lorna Jack – much less fun than Douglas Mill, less prone to animated outbursts too, sadly. The Law Society’s Chief Executive, Lorna Jack, who replaced the fallen Douglas Mill after his ‘secret memo binge against clients of ‘crooked lawyers’ which was exposed by the Scottish Government Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney during a Justice Committee hearing, managed to get some words in about ‘protecting the legal profession’s independence’ after a question from Committee member James Kelly, initially put to Ian Smart.

Lorna Jack said in reply : “I think that we have already made known our view on this question. We see a need for the Lord President's role to be re-established beyond just simply being a consultee so that it involves an approval mechanism. We therefore think that the bill needs to be amended in that respect—we have made that point.”

Ms Jack continued : “In their evidence, others have talked about the need for a super-regulator, as exists in England and Wales. However, we feel that that is inappropriate for the Scottish market, given its size. Given that the bill provides for ministers to decide after taking independent advice, we do not think that there is a requirement for a super-regulator. If you supplement that with a role for the Lord President in approving regulators, you will ensure that the independence of the legal profession is protected. We would have concerns about there being an additional layer—a quango—and about the cost of that to consumers of legal service in Scotland and, potentially, to taxpayers. The basis of our argument about ensuring the independence of the legal profession is that, alongside ministers, the Lord President takes a role in approving those who get to regulate people who deliver legal service.”

Plenty there about protecting the legal profession and its members … not much, well .. actually nothing about protecting consumers & clients, which seems to be a carry on from the Douglas Mill days.

Michael Clancy had to step in again with further answers on points not emphasised enough by Ms Jack, and also raised the Law Society’s worries over Scottish Government Ministers being able to interfere in the regulator process. Mr Clancy said : “One of the regulatory objectives of the bill is to promote the independence of the legal profession. That applies not only to approved regulators but to the existing regulators under section 86. Furthermore, the Scottish ministers, who have a particular role to play in relation to the approval of regulators, are also captured by the regulatory objectives in section 4, "Ministerial oversight". The trouble is, of course, that ministers are to act in the way that is set out "only so far as practicable".

“That provision needs to be strengthened a bit. Lorna Jack adverted to the role of the Lord President. We certainly think that the Lord President's role should be enhanced from the position in the bill. In the original consultation, "Wider choice and better protection: a consultation paper on the regulation of legal services in Scotland", the Lord President was listed as being someone who had to agree to the authorisation or rescission of authorisation of an approved regulator, yet, in the bill, he turns out to be a "consultee" in that process. It would be appropriate for the Lord President to be reinstated to his position as someone who acts in concert with the Scottish ministers in that respect.”

“Where the bill deals with the specific role of the Scottish ministers regarding elements in the legal profession, there are concerns about how that will work. In my earlier discussion with Mr Brown, I referred to section 39, "Head of Legal Services", in which it says that the head of legal services has to be a solicitor. However, under section 39(9), the Scottish ministers can make regulations about that person's functions. It is inappropriate that the Scottish ministers should be able to tell a solicitor what to do.”

“Furthermore, section 35, which deals with ministers' step-in powers, includes the proposition whereby ministers could create an approved body that would be involved in the licensing of those who deliver legal services. That is also a difficult issue, because as the Scottish ministers could create an approved body, they would then have to approve that body, so there would be a kind of infinity loop of ministerial control. That, too, should be struck from the bill.”

Ian Smart managed another plug for the Law Society’s role in Scottish public life, although it sounds so tired now, we could really all do with a break from Drumsheugh Gardens ruling over the profession and clients best interests, which are never protected, despite the all present’s claims to the contrary.

Mr Smart said, in response to a question from Justice Committee member Stewart Maxwell MSP (SNP) on the subject of the Law Society’s dual role of representing solicitors & clients : “I have been on the council of the Law Society for 11 years, and during that time it has been debated periodically. On each occasion, we came to the conclusion that the current situation was the best available, as did the Parliament during its early days when it looked into the matter in an inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession in Scotland. We can easily point to flaws in the system from the point of view of the consumer's interest or that of the profession, but we have a compromise for a profession of 10,500 in a relatively small country, and there is a degree of clarity.”

“As Cathie Craigie said, people understand what the Law Society is and the role that it holds, and that understanding exists not just within the profession but among the general public. We have an identified role in Scottish public life. The danger in fragmenting that is that it will not be entirely clear who speaks for the legal profession, and if someone has a client complaint or a general complaint about the legal profession, it will not be clear to whom they will make the representations that they want to make.”

In terms of protecting consumer interests, the Law Society’s appearance before the Justice Committee gave absolutely no hope at all for any expected improvement of standards in a reformed Legal Services market if the bill currently under consideration is passed by the Scottish Parliament, and if anyone is in any doubt about the sub standard of legal services in Scotland, and the poor state of regulation, just watch the clips of the absolutely dismal evidence session from the Law Society, and some of the MSPs who seemed more interested in being seen than being seen to do or say something constructive.