Former Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion joins Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as costly, scandal tainted law regulator tries to clean up its act

Ex-FOI Chief Kevin Dunion joins board of dodgy law regulator. SCOTLAND’S ‘independent’ regulator of solicitors, the traditionally anti-client & scandal tainted Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has announced that  Mr Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s first Information Commissioner has now joined the SLCC’s board as a ‘non lawyer’ member. Mr Dunion’s appointment is for five years and runs from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2018.

A Press Release issued by the SLCC said it was pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Dunion to it’s board but did not mention the fact that in his previous role as Scottish Information Commissioner, he regularly investigated the SLCC in response to cases brought to his office concerning appeals against the legal regulator’s refusal to disclose information in response to Freedom of Information requests made by journalists. Mr Dunion also found on many occasions the SLCC had unfairly blacked out documents and mistreated the public, journalists and the media with regard to FOI requests.

On one occasion, Mr Dunion’s office ordered the SLCC to disclose a series of previously blacked out bitter quotes made against a member of the public by another lawyer board member who happened to be the husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith. The now former lawyer board member, identified in emails as ‘retired’ solicitor David Smith, had embarked on name calling exercise against financially ruined clients who had made complaints against their solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported the case here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

Mr Dunion’s office also ordered the SLCC to disclose details of sky high expenses payments made to it’s board members after the SLCC had bizarrely argued payments should be kept secret to protect board members from mental health problems.

The shocking sums of expenses claims paid out to board members, were subsequently revealed at £158K a year, reported by Diary of Injustice here : REVEALED : £158k of board members rocketing payments & expenses claims at ‘duck-out’ law regulator Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Diary of Injustice journalists also used FOI legislation to investigate the SLCC after more evidence of board members anti-consumer stance emerged with the disclosure of internal emails documenting exchanges between the SLCC’s then Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman and a key lawyer board member Glasgow Divorce solicitor Margaret Scanlan OBE who joked about being too “out on the razzle” the night before, to think, while demanding consumer groups be excluded from key research into the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt Master Insurance Policy.

The incident involving Scanlan, who is no longer on the SLCC’s board, was reported by Diary of Injustice and the Sunday Mail newspaper in 2009 here : HERE and again more recently last October 2012 HERE after Scottish Govt insiders claimed the “Drink fuelled & ‘hate filled’ emails of MacAskill appointees had ruined the credibility” of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Mr Dunion’s office also ordered the SLCC to disclose a series of bitter quotes made against a member of the public by another lawyer board member who is also the husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith. The now former lawyer board member, identified in emails as ‘retired’ solicitor David Smith had embarked on name calling exercise against financially ruined clients who had made complaints against their solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported the case here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

Interestingly, in an interview with BBC Newsnight last September 2012, Mr Dunion made references to developments in England & Wales where the UK Government are looking at including the Law Society within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation. It was pointed out the Scottish Government are still dragging their feet on this issue.

Indeed, the Scottish Government have taken a directly opposite approach, with Justice Secretary Kenny Macaskill adopting a hostile position to requests to bring the Law Society of Scotland within the scope of the Scottish version of the Freedom of Information Act. Diary of Injustice reported more on this as long ago as March 2009 here : MacAskill’s ‘no intention to include Law Society in FOI review’ allows lawyers to keep scandals & criminal records hidden from public scrutiny.

It is also hoped Mr Dunion may raise concerns over the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s use of arms length projects to thwart media & public Freedom of Information requests for data gathered during research & survey activities which the regulator uses to justify it’s existence while refusing to release actual evidence of its claims.

The SLCC’s latest attempt at getting round FOI laws was revealed in a recent Diary of Injustice investigation which found the SLCC had instructed paid researchers to retain data and not pass it on directly to the regulator, in an attempt to avoid compliance with requests made under FOI legislation. Diary of Injustice reported on the scandal here : Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'

While Mr Dunion now joins the SLCC as a board member, observers of Scotland's notoriously pro-lawyer complaints regulator will recall that last year, the fourth, & former Chief Executive of the SLCC, Rosemary Agnew, who was rebuked at least FIVE times by Mr Dunion over her handling of FOI requests, succeeded Mr Dunion as the Scottish Information Commissioner, reported by Diary of Injustice, here : SHHH HAPPENED : Scotland’s new Information Commissioner to be Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew, rebuked FIVE TIMES for being ANTI-FOI

HOW FOI OPENS UP SCOTLAND’S LEGAL SYSTEM :

Freedom of Information requests & investigations conducted by Diary of Injustice journalists have contributed to a wider understanding of how the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) operate, where SLAB & Crown Office officials appeared to be more interested in expenses claims & flying high on intercontinental air carriers than pursuing sleazy solicitors who make off with millions of pounds of taxpayer funded legal aid.

Scotland’s Crown Office have also been caught short, awarding themselves HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS in staff bonuses from the top of the organisation down, yet by all accounts failing to enforce the law when it came to instances such as the FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escape justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years , and all because the Lord Advocate’s ‘independent’ Crown Counsel kept saying there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

The Scottish Government too have come in for exposure, where FOI requests revealed its own Ministers directly intervened with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, demanding the SLCC hand back ONE MILLION POUNDS to lawyers who pled poverty over last year’s complaints levy, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Undue Influence : Freedom of Information reveals how Law Society used Scottish Government Ministers to reduce complaints levy for crooked lawyers. Further requests revealed the Justice Secretary himself even signed off on a secret payoff for the allegedly ‘too sick to ever work again’ now former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman, reported by Diary of Injustice here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

Last year, the Diary of Injustice team began work on a major investigation into Scotland’s judiciary using Freedom of Information legislation and other investigative resources. Investigations revealed a number of judges who had been secretly prosecuted for criminal offences, one at least involving Benefits Cheating, while other members of the judiciary were apparently involved in dodgy financial & property arrangements and even holding ‘tax efficient’ schemes aimed at mitigating payments of tax on financial gains. Diary of Injustice and the Sunday Mail newspaper reported on these findings here : ALL THE LORD PRESIDENT’S MEN : Benefits cheats, drunk drivers & tax dodgers, yet identities of convicted Scottish judges to remain secret for now

The Diary of Injustice team have also investigated the financial costs of Scotland’s judiciary after our FOI requests forced the publication of JUDGES EXPENSES, allowing the public to peer into the murky world of Scottish judges earning up to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS a year plus expenses, tips & hospitality so far unrecorded. Diary of Injustice first reported on the issue of judicial expenses, here : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates and further reports continued HERE, all brought to you by Freedom of Information legislation & tips from well placed sources.

CALLED TO THE BARS : Drink fuelled & ‘hate filled’ emails of MacAskill appointees ruined credibility of Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claim Govt insiders

Already wounded over refusals to investigate complaints against corrupt lawyers, the SLCC became “a laughing stock" in email revelations. A DRINK FUELLED hate-filled rant between a now former Board member of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) who was personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and a former Chief Executive who mysteriously resigned over ill health then turned up again at the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has been identified by Scottish Government insiders as the spark which left the SLCC with no credibility as an impartial regulator or of Scottish solicitors.

The bizarre rants, attacking campaign groups and clients making financial damages claims against dodgy Scottish lawyers were written by Glasgow based divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan OBE, then a Board member of the SLCC in 2008, to Eileen Masterman, the legal regulator’s third and most controversial Chief Executive who spent only a few months in the job before being accused of lying by Scotland’s Finance Secretary, John Swinney MSP, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Scottish Govt. Finance Chief John Swinney blasts Legal Complaints Commission as liars over secret meetings with Law Society insurers Marsh UK

In the bitter email exchanges, revealed after Freedom of Information requests were made by Diary of Injustice, Mrs Scanlan went on to single out a former complaints campaign group for special attention, demanding the SLCC give no recognition to such groups in a forthcoming investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy & Guarantee Fund, both of which have been roundly condemned as being “institutionally corrupt” by Consumer rights groups, submissions made to Scottish Parliament investigations and hundreds of clients who have ended up financially ruined as a result of involvement with the Scottish legal profession.

Mrs Scanlan also branded claimants to the notoriously corrupt Master Insurance Policy as “chancers”, yet a ground breaking investigation carried out by the University of Manchester’s law school later that same year in July 2009, linked the Law Society’s Master Policy with suicides of clients of solicitors who were involved in damages claims against the Master Policy compensation scheme after being financially ruined by their lawyers.

Margaret Scanlan was ‘on the razzle again’ while clients of ‘crooked lawyers’ burned. Yesterday, the Sunday Mail newspaper featured email correspondence obtained under Freedom of Information laws in which SLCC board member Margaret Scanlan, a solicitor with Russells Gibson McCaffrey in Glasgow, confessed to the Commission she was suffering from the effects of a hangover after being “'out on the razzle again last night”. Stunningly Scanlan in her emails then went on to tear apart consumers hopes the SLCC would fulfil its intended monitoring role of the ‘crooked lawyer compensation schemes, operated by the Law Society of Scotland, known as the Guarantee Fund & Master Insurance Policy which are designed to (but do not) protect consumers funds from crooked lawyers who steal money or mishandling client’s legal affairs.

Margaret Scanlan : “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 ..”

Margaret Scanlan condemns claimants against crooked lawyers as “chancers”. However, further emails from Margaret Scanlan have now emerged which depict the same Law Society style 'anti-consumer-anti-claims culture' operating at the supposedly independent Legal Complaints Commission, where Scanlan stunningly labels claimants to the Guarantee Fund as "chancers" indicating she may have personal knowledge of cases, despite the fact that claims to the Guarantee Fund are supposedly confidential.

Margaret Scanlan : "The only complaints I am aware of on the functioning and extent of the GF [Guarantee Fund] have come from corporate bodies eg lending Institutions whose claims have largely not been entertained on basis that is not what GF is for. This includes our friend **** (censored) whose cause is vigorously espoused by **** (censored) but is a complete chancer in my opinion."

Today, a senior source in the Scottish Government’s Justice Department claimed the revelations which ended up in the media, “revealed the regulator’s institutional contempt for members of the public who make complaints against crooked lawyers”. The source also went on to criticise the Justice Secretary himself for allowing the legal profession to dictate terms on a daily basis as to how the supposedly “independent” SLCC investigate complaints made by clients of poorly performing Scottish solicitors.

However, the anti-client culture at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission did not end with just one board member, a fact revealed in continuing investigations by Diary of Injustice after sources within the SLCC leaked details of bitter meetings where consumers, campaign groups, individuals and clients of well known corrupt lawyers were openly slated and derided by the highly remunerated Board members who were taking hundreds of pounds a day in expenses claims.

Further revelations revealing the strongly anti-client, anti- consumer views of the SLCC’s board emerged again in 2010 after Scotland’s then Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, ordered the release of further bitter email exchanges showing David Smith, husband of Court of Session Judge Lady Smith, who regularly branded victims of crooked lawyers as “frequent flyers” in emails the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission fought to keep the public from reading. Diary of Injustice reported on Mr Dunion’s decision and the scandal surrounding Mr Smith’s treatment of victims of rogue lawyers in an article here : FOI Chief Dunion orders Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to release board member’s anti-client jibes, Master Policy study details

SLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision published late last week by Mr Dunion are emails containing anti-client jibes from one of the SLCC’s board members, David Smith who 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”, a term (among many unprintable) apparently widely used among SLCC Board members & staff against anyone who submits complaints against solicitors.

A Justice Department insider condemned the use of such language, describing the words used in the email written by Smith as “being filled with hate for people who complain about their lawyers”. He further commented : “No wonder the SLCC fought against the Information Commissioner to keep it from public gaze as this depicts a very anti-client culture permeating the entire board of the SLCC.”

David Smith, Margaret Scanlan and Eileen Masterman are of course no longer at the SLCC, yet attempts to re-float the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission since the media revelations of how badly it views members of the public have consistently failed, with most people forced to deal with the prejudiced regulator ending up viewing the SLCC as little more than “a front company for the legal profession to put complaints against their members to bed”.

Eileen Masterman resigned from the SLCC, receiving a huge payoff personally backed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, reported exclusively by Diary of Injustice here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers. After allegedly being too ill to work, Ms Masterman went back to work for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, her new position exposed after allegations of a whitewash by the SPSO and a hospital over the death of a baby, reported here Deputy First Minister to look into death of baby McKenzie Wallace after parents complain of ‘whitewash’ report by SPSO investigator Eileen Masterman

The Sunday Mail newspaper reported on the anti-consumer views of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as follows

Called to the Bars : Top lawyer admits talking gibberish at work due to hangover

Mar 15 2009 By David Taylor

A TOP legal watchdog admitted to her boss she was talking gibberish - because of a hangover. Lawyer Margaret Scanlan made the confession in a email which described herself as "cross-eyed" after a night on the tiles.

Scanlan was appointed to her job in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission by anti-booze crusader Kenny MacAskill. She wrote: "Was out on the razzle, again, last night so bit cross-eyed this morning. Please excuse any consequent gibberish."

Divorce lawyer Scanlan sent the lengthy email at 11.30am one day in November last year to watchdog chief Eileen Masterman. It was also copied to Alan Paterson, a law professor at Strathclyde University.

Campaigner Peter Cherbi, who champions legal and consumer issues, said: "This is not the sort of service the people of Scotland deserve. "It's not very good conduct for people who are supposed to be in some of the most respectable positions in the legal profession."

Scanlan was hand picked by Justice Secretary MacAskill as one of five lawyers to serve on the SLCC - a "one-stop shop" for complaints against lawyers. MacAskill plans to enforce mimimum prices for drink to combat alcoholism and drink-related problems.

The SLCC was set up by the Scottish Government to "modernise the legal complaints" system and ensure gripes are resolved quickly and effectively. It was formed after complaints that self-regulation by the Law Society of Scotland often protected crooked lawyers through cronyism.

Scanlan's email - about an insurance policy to cover solicitors' mistakes and misuse of clients' cash - was released to legal reform campaigners through a Freedom of Information request. The request also released emails from Scanlan attacking outspoken legal reform group Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers.

In one email, she wrote: "I would prefer that we not give any recognition to SACL. "I do not see why we have to name them even if we are bound to engage with them. "Their website is offensive and so far as I am aware no reputable organisations has anything to do with them"

Scanlan is a specialist in family law at Glasgow-based Russells Gibson McCaffrey.

She has also tutored in family law at Glasgow Caledonian University and was deputy chair of the Scottish Legal Aid Board between 1997 and 2007. She was also director of the Legal Defence Union between 1998 and 2002. She earns £350 a day plus expenses for her work with the SLCC.

When asked about the emails, Scanlan told us: "I have nothing to say."

A Thank You to Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion & staff for shining a light on regulation of the legal profession & the justice system

Scotland’s first Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion & his team have shone a much needed light on the justice system. WITH Scotland’s first Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion stepping down last week, Diary of Injustice & independent law journalist Peter Cherbi would like to thank Mr Dunion and his hard working, attentive team at the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office for their significant contribution in ensuring for the first time ever, consumers of legal services in Scotland, court users, party litigants, McKenzie Friends, lay assistants, journalists, campaigners, individuals and even solicitors, have finally had access to key information on the secret parts of Scotland’s justice system, such as regulation of the legal profession, which has remained a closed shop secret world for decades until the FOI compliant Scottish Legal Complaints Commission came along in 2008.

Freedom of Information requests to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its many other connected bodies, along with Mr Dunion’s investigations & decisions on  requests where the SLCC refused to disclose material, have without doubt, helped the media report on the many pitfalls of how badly solicitors are regulated in Scotland, and on the inner workings of regulatory bodies which are by most accounts, hostile to consumers who have found themselves placed in the unenviable position of having to complain about their solicitors.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been caught out so many times in Freedom of Information disclosures & investigations, which revealed anti client hate fuelled rants by drunken board members, to attempts to conceal board members lavish expenses claims running at well over 150,000 a year and so many more reports on failings of the SLCC, with a good helping hand from Freedom of Information, available HERE

Freedom of Information legislation requests & investigations by Diary of Injustice have also contributed to a wider understanding of how the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) operate, where SLAB & Crown Office officials appeared to be more interested in expenses claims & flying high on intercontinental air carriers than pursuing sleazy solicitors who make off with millions of pounds of taxpayer funded legal aid.

Scotland’s Crown Office have also been caught short, awarding themselves HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS in staff bonuses from the top of the organisation down, yet by all accounts failing to enforce the law when it came to instances such as the FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escape justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years , and all because the Lord Advocate’s ‘independent’ Crown Counsel kept saying there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

The Scottish Government too have come in for exposure, where FOI requests revealed its own Ministers directly intervened with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, demanding the SLCC hand back ONE MILLION POUNDS to lawyers who pled poverty over last year’s complaints levy, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Undue Influence : Freedom of Information reveals how Law Society used Scottish Government Ministers to reduce complaints levy for crooked lawyers. Further requests revealed the Justice Secretary himself even signed off on a secret payoff for the allegedly ‘too sick to ever work again’ now former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman, reported by Diary of Injustice here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

Even the judiciary of Scotland have come in for improvement after FOI requests forced the publication of JUDGES EXPENSES, allowing the public to peer into the murky world of Scottish judges earning up to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS a year plus expenses, tips & hospitality so far unrecorded. Diary of Injustice first reported on the issue of judicial expenses, here : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates and further reports continued HERE, all brought to you by Freedom of Information legislation & tips from well placed sources.

It’s not all about the justice system though … Freedom of Information investigations by journalists and individuals all over Scotland have contributed to significant news stories, the publicising of injustice, scandals in our hospitals, poor services, scandals or treatment of individuals by local authorities, unfair practices in the financial world, corrupt politicians stealing from the public purse & much more which have or will result in improvements to the quality of life in Scotland throughout a wide variety of fields.

Mr Dunion’s last decision as Scottish Information Commissioner is reprinted below, reminding us of the failings in our health service, uncovered by an NHS employee’s Freedom of Information request. Remember everyone, you too can use Freedom of Information to uncover information which should be in the public domain. Use FOI productively. If your FOI investigations relate to the justice system and if you want your story to be publicised here on Diary of Injustice or in a newspaper, email Peter Cherbi via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Mr Dunion’s last decision : Commissioner criticises "catalogue of failings" at NHS Ayrshire and Arran

The Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion has issued his last decision, criticising NHS Ayrshire and Arran for some of the most serious failings in records management and information recovery he has seen in his nine years in office.

NHS employee Mr Rab Wilson had asked for copies of Critical Incident Reviews, Serious Adverse Event Reports and associated action plans, which are used in the primary care field as a structured way of investigating incidents and ensuring lessons are learned.  NHS Ayrshire and Arran advised Mr Wilson that they held only one action plan.

However given the potentially serious nature of the incidents which give rise to Critical Incident Reviews, and the Board's stated policy on these reviews, the Commissioner challenged this position when the case was appealed to him, and over the coming months more than 56 action plans were found.  The Commissioner has ordered the Board to disclose anonymised versions of the reports and plans to Mr Wilson.

Mr Dunion, who demits office tomorrow, said: "This case has involved a catalogue of failings by NHS Ayrshire and Arran to search for and find information falling within the scope of Mr Wilson's request – perhaps the most serious such case by an authority in my time as Commissioner.  Claims made to Mr Wilson turned out to be wrong and prior assurances given to me and my staff turned out to be unjustified.  At the very least, this constitutes a significant failure of records management, but, given the nature of the information which was the subject of the request, the failings may point to wider governance issues which have to be addressed.

"Mr Wilson's persistence was characterised by the Board as being vexatious, but perhaps instead should have raised concerns that records concerning critical incidents which should have been held were missing, policies regarding action plans were not being adhered to and public confidence that plans had been drawn up and acted upon could be affected.  Certainly I found it so difficult to believe that such documents could be unaccounted for in terms of whether they had been created, acted upon or destroyed that it caused me to continue with my investigation despite the Board's protestations.

"As this is my last decision, I will recommend to the new Commissioner, who takes up post on 1 May 2012, that consideration is given to carrying out an assessment of NHS Ayrshire and Arran's freedom of information practices."

The Commissioner has taken the unusual step of writing to Dr Martin Cheyne, Chairman of Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board, to bring these serious breaches directly to his attention, as well as to Mr John Burns, the Chief Executive. The case will also be brought to the attention of Scottish Ministers and other relevant bodies.

SHHH Happens : SLCC Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew tipped for FOI Commissioner role after 5 FOI ‘rebukes’ & refusals to monitor Master Policy

Rosemary Agnew, Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission tipped for FOI anti-secrecy role. ROSEMARY AGNEW the current Chief Executive of the under achieving, anti-consumer law complaints quango, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) which has today been named along with other Scottish public bodies in a Hall of Shame of organisations including the Scottish Government, Police, quangos & local authorities which deliberately mishandle Freedom of Information requests & disclosures, is reported to be tipped in the secret race to replace current Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion who leaves office in February 2012.

However, it can also be revealed today Ms Agnew in her capacity as SLCC Chief Executive has been rebuked by the current Information Commissioner, Mr Dunion on at least FIVE OCCASIONS for failures in handling FOI disclosures, one of which included the withholding of sensitive compensation payments data during the period Ms Agnew was actually being interviewed for the post of FOI Commissioner by Scottish Parliament officials.

The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB) which itself has been responsible for many controversial decisions including the runaway construction budget of the Scottish Parliament itself, topping half a billion pounds of taxpayers money, is rumoured to be at the point of recommending Ms Agnew’s appointment to the post of FOI Commissioner to msps in the next few days. Yet so far, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and even Ms Agnew herself have all refused detailed comment on the seemingly controversial appointment, which was revealed today in the Daily Record newspaper.

Asked about the rumoured controversial recommendation of Ms Agnew to fill the FOI Commissioner role, a Scottish Parliament spokesman simply said : “We expect to be in a position to confirm the nominee to Parliament early in the new year, ahead of Kevin Dunion’s departure in February.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were contacted for comment and asked : “Does the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have any comment on reports its Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew is to be recommended to msps to replace the current Scottish Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion upon his demit of office in February of this year, and what Ms Agnew's appointment to the post (if confirmed by msps) will mean for freedom of information requests to the SLCC.”

A further question was put to the SLCC : “Does the SLCC have any comment on how the SLCC will cope with having to recruit a third Chief Executive in four years to the SLCC and the impact on the Commission's role of having three Chief Executives since 2008 ?“

The SLCC issued a blunt “no comment” to both questions.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice this morning, a legal insider said he was horrified someone with a record of refusing FOI requests could be appointed to the role of Scotland’s FOI Commissioner.

He said : “Unless Ms Agnew has significantly changed her attitudes towards FOI, I doubt a candidate with at least five rebukes for handling FOI requests who is coming from an organisation which has a history of waging a war of attrition against Freedom of Information laws, can fulfil the requirement for maintaining & strengthening Freedom of Information legislation in Scotland.”

A leading political observer, commenting on the SPCB’s appointment agreed it looked like the Scottish Parliament were about to choose someone who might not continue Mr Dunion’s work of expanding & upholding Freedom of Information compliance in Scotland.

Ms Agnew’s suitability for the role of FOI Commissioner has also been questioned today after it was claimed decisions taken by her in her role as Chief Executive of the Scottish legal Complaints Commission to refuse to monitor consumers individual claims made against the Law Society of Scotland's Master Policy which have left some clients penniless, in a state of financial ruin and facing years of hardship, ill health and hounding by firms of crooked lawyers. The claims were made by clients who have approached the SLCC to request the law complaints quango monitor individual claims made against the Master Policy after being financially ruined by "crooked lawyers" & corrupt Scottish law firms who took their clients for a ride through the courts system.

The SLCC has powers to monitor the Master Policy under Section 39 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 although its staff & board have sought on several occasions to loosely interpreted the terms of the law in an apparent attempt to avoid becoming involved in matters which have already led to confrontation between the SLCC, Law Society of Scotland & Marsh UK, the UK subsidiary of the convicted US Insurers Marsh McLennan Companies who are brokers of the Master Policy which is backed by insurers such as Royal Sun Alliance PLC.

Letter reveals SLCC’s latest Chief Executive told client they will not monitor claims made against crooked lawyers. In a letter released to Diary of Injustice, the SLCC’s Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew refused to become involved in monitoring claims to the Master Policy. Ms Agnew wrote : “..it is not within the SLCC’s remit to monitor individual claims made under the Master Policy. Under the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (Section 39), the SLCC may monitor the overall effectiveness of guarantee funds, etc and professional indemnity arrangements put in place by the Law Society of Scotland for its members (ie the Master Policy). This power does not extend to our active involvement in the way in which individual indemnity claims are being dealt with by the insurers.”

A succession of additional letters from Ms Agnew to claimants have been released to Diary of Injustice, showing Ms Agnew refused requests by beleaguered clients to monitor their claims to the Master Policy.

Speaking at the time of Ms Agnew’s blunt refusals to monitor claims to the Master Policy, Consumer Focus Scotland sided with clients, and supported calls for consumers to be able to submit concerns about the Master Policy on their cases directly to the SLCC. A spokesperson for Consumer Focus Scotland said : “After concerns were raised with the SCC (Scottish Consumer Council) regarding the operation of the master policy, the SCC argued that the SLCC should be given power to monitor the effectiveness of the master policy in the Legal Services and Legal Profession (Scotland) Act 2007, and we were very pleased when this was included.”

The spokesperson continued : “It has always been our understanding that the intention behind section 39 of the Act was that the SLCC would monitor the overall effectiveness of the operation of the Master Policy, rather than monitoring individual claims. It does seem to us, however, that in order to monitor the overall effectiveness of the Master Policy, the SLCC must be able to consider evidence about the way in which individual claims to the Policy have been handled. It is therefore important that consumers are able to submit concerns about the way their claim has been handled to the SLCC, to assist the SLCC to undertake this function effectively.”

Ms Agnew’s refusal to involve the SLCC in actively monitoring individual claims to the Master Policy has come of something as a shock to many legal observers, who keenly anticipated the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would end the world of corruption surrounding damages claims made against rogue solicitors & law firms by financially ruined clients, particularly after an independent report commissioned by the SLCC found the Law Society of Scotland & the Master Policy insurers had covered up the fact clients had committed suicide after being let down by law firms who were supposedly representing their claims against the Master Policy in the Court of Session, itself well known as a cosy lawyer only club unwilling to rule against the profession. Diary of Injustice reported on the report into the Master Policy here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

A solicitor speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon said “The SLCC lacked any credibility on the news it was about to lose yet another Chief Executive.” He went onto claim the SLCC “has little consumer confidence, is not trusted by the legal profession, appears to hold no continuity and should be scrapped.”

BACKGROUND : ROSEMARY AGNEW, SLCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Rosemary Agnew is the SLCC’s second Chief Executive in three years. Ms Agnew took on the role after a short recruitment phase to replace the SLCC’s first Chief Executive Eileen Masterman who resigned after a bitter exchange with Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney over issues involving meetings the SLCC held in connection with the Master Policy.

Ironically, one of Rosemary Agnew’s key refusals to disclose information to the public was information and discussions surrounding the SECRET SUBSTANTIAL PAY-OFF negotiated by lawyers acting for former SLCC CEO Eileen Masterman and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The secret payoff was also backed by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and Scottish Ministers also refused to disclose the amount paid to Ms Masterman. Diary of Injustice reported on the secret pay-off scandal in an earlier article here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman (foreground) received Scottish Government approved pay off after lawyers intervened says auditor report. RUMOURS that Eileen Masterman, the former Chief Executive of the much derided Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), received a SUBSTANTIAL PAY OFF after she resigned on grounds of “ill health”, after serving less than SEVEN MONTHS in the £80,000 a year, £1,350 plus, a week job have now been confirmed with the publication of a “Key Memorandum Issues” document prepared for the SLCC by the Edinburgh offices of auditors Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton were called in to replace the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) as the SLCC’s auditors, after SLAB were abruptly sacked from their auditing role by the SLCC’s board in 2009 after much bickering over the Legal Aid Board’s scrutiny of the failed law complaints quango.

Today’s Daily Record report :

STOP SECRET : Revealed: Government, police & local councils all among public bodies who flouted anti-secrecy laws

Jan 9 2012 Exclusive by Chris Musson

THE public bodies who fought tooth-and-nail to keep secrets from you are today exposed by the Record. The Government, police forces, councils and taxpayer-funded quangos all flouted anti-secrecy laws by knocking back legitimate Freedom of Information requests. They were forced to back down by Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s first Information Commissioner, who ruled in favour of the public 359 times since the new rules came into force in January 2005.

The worst offenders were the Scottish Government, who wrongly refused to disclose ­information 78 times over the last seven years. However, they also received the highest number of requests of any public body. Second on the league of shame were Edinburgh City Council, with 22 decisions against them. Third were Glasgow City Council with 17 decisions fully in favour of applicants, and fourth were Scottish Water with 15.

Among legitimate requests knocked back were details on the numbers of sex offenders in various areas – with Strathclyde Police, Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary all falling foul. Surgical mortality rates were also wrongly withheld by the NHS, as were details of public payments to firms of private consultants.

Dunion and his office made 1336 decisions to December 14, 2011. As well as the 359 fully in favour of the person appealing a refusal, 450 were partly in their favour.

A person who gets knocked back for an FoI request must first appeal to the public body before going to the Information Commissioner. It is time-consuming, meaning many members of the public give up, even if they have a good case.

But public bodies often fight to the bitter end, despite decisions being overturned by the ­Information Commissioner. Public bodies’ disregard for the laws is still widespread seven years on – and even appears to be growing. Last year saw the highest total for successful appeals by the public – on 85 occasions.

Dunion, who grew up in Fife and Clackmannanshire and was the rector of St Andrews University until 2011, steps down next month from the post of ­Information Commissioner he has held since 2003. Tomorrow, he will present a special report to the Scottish ­Parliament on his time in the job, and will urge the Government to “safeguard and strengthen” openness from public bodies.

Yesterday, he told the Record he was confident Scotland had “made a success” of freedom of information since 2005. He added said: “Public awareness of Freedom of Information is at an all-time high. Public authorities are responding to requests and information is being disclosed which would otherwise have remained secret. “We know much more about contracts and expenses, deaths in hospitals and local crime rates because of FoI. “Of course, there are disputes and failings which is why the free right of appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner is so important.”

He said most appeals were from members of the public, adding: “In the majority of my decisions I have found, at least in part, that the appeal was justified.”

TIP FORCED TO DISCLOSE

A WOMAN tipped to be Scotland's new anti-secrecy tsar has had a string of rulings made against her by the man she could replace.

Rosemary Agnew, who heads the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is one of six people interviewed to be the next Information Commissioner. But Kevin Dunion has slapped down the SLCC eight times - five since Agnew took over as Chief Executive in October 2010.

Legal Reform campaigner Peter Cherbi, who had several requests knocked back by the SLCC, cast doubt over her suitability. He said : "How someone like that could be put in charge of openness is beyond me, unless they want to shut down openness and accountability."

Agnew did not respond to requests for a comment.

Scots public support strengthening of Freedom of Information laws says Information Commissioner in final speech to Holyrood FOI Conference

Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion calls on Scottish Govt to strengthen FOI legislation. THE outgoing Scottish Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion has today called on the Scottish Government to strengthen & extend Scotland’s FREEDOM OF INFORMATION laws after new research revealed 91% of the Scottish public view FOI as an important way to hold public bodies to account for their spending decisions, and over 80% want FOI extended to cover other bodies that provide public services. The Commissioner, who has today delivered his final keynote address to the Annual Holyrood Freedom of Information Conference, also warned AGAINST changes which might limit the public's access to information, in light of evidence that being charged for information would deter 64% of people from making an FOI request.

Speaking on the eve of the conference, Kevin Dunion said: "Freedom of information has been a success story in Scotland, and public awareness of the law is at an all time high. However, there are clearly a number of areas where the law would benefit from further clarification and enhancement, and we await the Scottish Government's proposals. More generally, I have long called for FOI to be extended to a greater range of organisations, particularly in light of the loss of rights that occurs from changes in the way that public services are delivered. We are in danger of falling behind the rest of the UK where, unlike Scotland, designation of bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers has already taken place. Furthermore, the Westminster Government has indicated its intention to designate many more bodies including the Law Society and the Local Government Association.”

Mr Dunion added : "Where amendments to the law are being considered we must be extremely cautious about any suggestion that the FOI right should be restricted, for example through wider exemptions or the introduction of increased fees for requesters. We know from the experience overseas that this can have a very damaging effect on the public's uptake of FOI. The research published today shows that a significant proportion of the Scottish public - 64% - believe they would be put off making an FOI request if they had to pay to receive the information, and this figure is even higher among more vulnerable groups, such as young people and the unemployed."

Freedom of Information legislation has played a particularly important role in revealing just how inefficient & anti-consumer the Scottish legal services market is regulated by bodies such as the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where consumers have faced regular & overt prejudice in the SLCC’s dealings with complaints made by members of the public against their solicitors. FOI also revealed earlier this year how corrupt usage of self regulation of the legal profession has led to millions of pounds of legal aid being stolen by solicitors who escaped criminal charges because their colleagues at the Crown Office did not gather enough evidence to prosecute.

The research, which was carried out by Ipsos MORI in December 2011 and can be downloaded via the  Commissioner's website or read online HERE here , also reveals that :

Awareness of FOI is at its highest level, with 80% of respondents stating that they were aware of the law, compared to 76% during the previous wave in 2009,

89% of respondents agree that it is important for the public to be able to access information held by public authorities,

Even in straitened times for the public sector, 77% disagreed with the suggestion that FOI was a waste of public money, with only 14% agreeing.

There is strong public support for FOI to be extended to cover additional organisations, with:

88% agreeing that trusts providing services on behalf of local authorities should be covered,
82% agreeing that housing associations should be covered,
83% agreeing that private sector companies who build and maintain local authority schools or hospitals should be covered,
73% agreeing that prisons which are run by the private sector should be covered.

The research was undertaken as part of Ipsos MORI's Scottish Public Opinion Monitor, a telephone survey of 1,001 members of the public. Fieldwork was undertaken between 1 December and 4 December 2011. 64% of respondents agreed that they would be put off making an FOI request if they had to pay for the information. For respondents who described themselves as "not working" this figure was 70%, while it was 80% for respondents aged 18-24.

In September the Scottish Government's Programme for Government 2011-2012 included a Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, which is intended to add strength and clarity to the FOI legislation. The Government has announced its intention to publish a consultation paper on the Amendment Bill today which readers can find out more about on the Scottish Government's Consultations website with a direct link to the consultation on FOI here : Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill

FOI investigations revealed SLCC board members cared more about boozing-up & insulting consumers than prosecuting crooked lawyers. Freedom of Information legislation has played a particularly important role in revealing just how inefficient & anti-consumer the Scottish legal services market is regulated by bodies such as the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where consumers have faced bitter booze fuelled anti-client hate rants by the SLCC’s own board members & regular & overt prejudice in dealings with complaints made to the SLCC by members of the public against their solicitors. While FOI has revealed many problems at the SLCC, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates & Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal remain exempt from FOI legislation due to a variety of excuses and an intense lobbying campaign from the legal profession for their own organisations to remain secret & unaccountable from the law & public opinion.

FOI also revealed earlier this year how corrupt usage of self regulation of the legal profession led to millions of pounds of legal aid being stolen by solicitors who escaped criminal charges because their colleagues at the Crown Office were not able to gather enough evidence to prosecute, even though lengthy investigations had already been conducted by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

SCOTLAND’S FIRST INFORMATION COMMISSIONER DEPARTS OFFICE 2012 :

Kevin Dunion was appointed as the first Scottish Information Commissioner in February 2003. In February 2008 he was reappointed for a second, and final term. He will demit office at the end of February 2012. The Commissioner is responsible for enforcing and promoting Scotland's freedom of information laws. In January 2012, the Commissioner plans to lay a Special Report before the Scottish Parliament. The report will set out the Commissioner's views on the current state of Freedom of Information in Scotland. Find out more about the Scottish Information Commissioner’s work and FOI generally at www.itspublicknowledge.info

SCROOGE’D : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission buries ‘bad news’ annual report at Christmas, again refuses to release ‘compensation to clients’ data

Bah, Humbug ! MacAskill’s Scottish Legal Complaints Commission intends to bury its bad news annual report on the run up to Christmas. CHRISTMAS is a good time to bury bad news and the many ghosts of Christmas past, especially if the bad news happens to come from Scotland’s regulator of complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’, the anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) who, after a series of unexplained delays, are expected to publish their latest annual report on or after 20 December 2011 in the hope of quietly burying its consistently poor performance as Scotland’s legal watchdog which has so far not recommended the prosecution of one single crooked lawyer in what is approaching a very long four years since being created in 2008.

And in an attempt to keep the public from knowing just how bad the SLCC have performed, the SLCC has today REFUSED a SECOND Freedom of Information request to release information & figures on exactly how much money the SLCC have awarded over the last three years to clients who have suffered financially at the hands of their legal representatives. Since the SLCC came into being in 2008, it has NEVER published any data or information on how much compensation it has awarded clients who raised complaints about their solicitors.

The SLCC’s second letter refusing to disclose the compensation amounts awarded to victims of crooked lawyers states : “I confirm the SLCC holds the information that you have requested. The SLCC endeavours to release as much information as possible. However, it has decided that the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under the exemption found in Section 27 (1)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

The information you have requested is intended to be included in the SLCC’s annual report, which at the time of writing this letter is excepted to be published within 12 weeks. The SLCC has considered whether to withhold the information is reasonable and decided that it is because it will enable us to publish the information in context and in conjunction with other information about complaints.

The SLCC accepts that the information is of interest to the public but in the context of this decision has considered whether its release at this time, in advance of the publication of its annual report is in the Public Interest as set out in the Information Commissioner’s guidance. The SLCC’s view is that the arguments for withholding under section 27 outweigh those for releasing it.

1. The information requested is pertinent to the public in that it gives an indication of the effectiveness of the SLCC and information to both complainers and practitioners about outcomes of complaints. It would be argued that publishing this information as soon as possible is in the public interest for this reason.

2. The SLCC has a wider duty to report on complaints about the legal profession. Putting information in an appropriate context and publishing it in conjunction with other information to add meaning and value to it is an essential part of that reporting. Releasing the information as requested would not enable that to happen.

3. The SLCC has a statutory duty to lay its annual report before Parliament.  It is in the public interest that this is complete and appropriately quality controlled. Release of discrete sets of data in advance of publication would not support that.

I appreciate that in response to your earlier FOISA request of 5 July 2011, we had detailed our expectation that out annual report would be published within 12 weeks of your request. While this was our intention, we unfortunately experienced production related delays. Considering this delay, we have approached your request afresh in light of the above guidance along with our present confidence that we should be in a position to release our annual report within the next six weeks. We have also gone on to consider whether we should release the information anyway. Our decision is that section 27(1) should still apply and the information be withheld for all the reasons stated in this letter.

This is the SECOND FOI request for information on actual compensation figures paid out to clients who complained about their lawyers, with the first request, in July being refused by the SLCC’s Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew as a “vexatious request”, to which Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion found the SLCC had failed to handle correctly. Mr Dunion’s decision stated : Following an investigation, during which the SLCC withdrew its reliance upon section 14(1), the Commissioner found that the SLCC had failed to deal with Mr Cherbi's requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, on the basis that Mr Cherbi's requests were not vexatious in terms of section 14(1). The full decision by Mr Dunion can be read here Decision 219/2011

TODAY, an insider close to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s Board has revealed the SLCC HAD NEVER INTENDED to publish information on compensation paid out to clients until Diary of Injustice had raised the matter in FOI requests to the SLCC. The insider claimed the FOI requests, coverage of the issue on Diary of Injustice, a “rather nasty, bitter discussion between board members relating to Mr Cherbi’s investigations” (which I have been told of) and Mr Dunion’s own investigation as a result of this journalist’s request to Mr Dunion’s office on the matter, have collectively FORCED the SLCC into a reluctantly taken decision to eventually publish the compensation data.

The insider said : “The levels of compensation paid out to consumers is on the low side and the SLCC never expected to be asked about it. However because the information was requested via Freedom of Information, it was down to playing a waiting game to structure the data in such a way any criticism over the low value of awards will be curtailed by other issues in the Annual Report.”

He continued : “To put it bluntly, the SLCC abused Freedom of Information legislation to cover up the compensation figures it will find embarrassing given the amount of money spent on the SLCC and public expectations of a better complaints service than was provided by the Law Society of Scotland.”

The SLCC has the power in Section 56 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to award up to £5,000 to complainers who are directly been affected as a result of the solicitor’s misconduct (as a result of a conduct complaint) or up to £20,000 for complainers who  have been directly affected by the inadequate professional services provided by their solicitor (in the case of a service complaint). The compensation awards in all instances are at the direction of the SLCC to be paid by the solicitor who is the subject of the complaint.

Earlier in October of this year, Diary of Injustice revealed the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were awarding victims of crooked lawyers as little as TEN POUNDS, after their lives had been shattered by the actions of their legal representatives. The article can be read here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to publish details of ‘loose change’ client compensation as board & staff live it up on YOUR millions

As revealed on Diary of Injustice on Monday of this week, the SLCC’s Board have authorised their Investigations Manager to produce a report on the levels of compensation paid to clients after a discussion took place at the SLCC’s October board meeting. However it was revealed in the discussions that solicitors & clients had in some cases not accepted the levels of compensation awarded by the SLCC.

The minute of the SLCC’s October meeting stated : There was some debate around the levels of compensation recommended at Investigation stage and the levels of compensation awarded at Determination stage. It was agreed that the Investigations Manager would provide a report on compensation/abatement recommended and rewarded. The report should include any comments from the Practitioner and Complainer as to why they are not accepting proposed settlements. The target date of this report being completed is laughably listed in the October board minutes as February 2012.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was created as a result of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, and brought into being by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in 2007 spent TWO MILLOIN POUNDS of taxpayers money on the hapless law complaints quango. Mr MacAskill went onto handpick a collection of quangocrats, ex Police Officers & lawyers to fill the SLCC’s board who have to-date claimed somewhere in the region of over HALF A MILLION POUNDS in expenses claims yet the SLCC has by its own admission only upheld one single complaint against an unidentified solicitor

HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman (foreground) received Scottish Government approved pay off after lawyers intervened says auditor report. RUMOURS that Eileen Masterman, the former Chief Executive of the much derided Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), received a SUBSTANTIAL PAY OFF after she resigned on grounds of “ill health”, after serving less than SEVEN MONTHS in the £80,000 a year, £1,350 plus, a week job have now been confirmed with the publication of a “Key Memorandum Issues” document prepared for the SLCC by the Edinburgh offices of auditors Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton were called in to replace the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) as the SLCC’s auditors, after SLAB were abruptly sacked from their auditing role by the SLCC’s board in 2009 after much bickering over the Legal Aid Board’s scrutiny of the failed law complaints quango.

However, the report now published by Grant Thornon FAILS to mention any references to official claims Ms Masterman resigned due to “ill health”. The report instead documents a battle negotiations between lawyers, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and even the Scottish Government over what is referred to as an unspecified “Ex-Gratia payment”, which one legal insider this morning said may have been made to head off any legal proceedings against the SLCC by Ms Masterman. The figure, which Grant Thornton, the SLCC and the Scottish Government have so far failed to disclose, is rumoured to be substantial.

Grant Thornton’s audit of the SLCC’s problems revealed Scottish Government approved payoff to former CEO. Referring to Ms Masterman’s payoff while managing to omit the figures, page eight of the report from Grant Thornton states : “Ex gratia payment to former CEO : Rosemary Agnew was appointed the role of Acting CEO in November 2009 and the former CEO, Eileen Masterman departed from the post in February 2010, with Rosemary Agnew continuing in her role. We understand that an ex-gratia payment was paid to the former CEO. The amount of this payment was determined through consultation between the former CEO, the Board and the respective lawyers. The payment was then authorised and approved by the Board and the payment approved by the Scottish Government.”

SLCC release on Masterman resignation claimed illness, omitting details of Scottish Government approved pay-off. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a public press release regarding Ms Masterman’s resignation, stating : “The SLCC has now informed its staff and stakeholders that after a period of illness, Eileen Masterman, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has left the organisation. The Commission wishes her well for the future. Jane Irvine, SLCC Chair, confirmed that Rosemary Agnew, the SLCC Head of Investigations, will continue in her role as Accountable Officer and Acting Chief Executive until further notice. The position of Chief Executive is filled through the Public Appointments process run by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland (OCPAS). The recruitment process will commence in due course.”

Following the ‘recruitment process’, Ms Masterman was eventually replaced by Rosemary Agnew as Chief Executive in 2010. The SLCC have since removed any references to Ms Masterman’s resignation from their website.

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.

Cabinet Secretary Swinney demanded explanations of SLCC's minutes contradictions. Letters written by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney dated March 2009 to the SLCC's Chief Executive Eileen Masterman brand her explanation 'contradictory' to details in the Commission's own minutes : "In your response on the 12th of December to *** subsequent letter on the 2nd of December in which *** had stated 'clearly you are saying that no date has yet been arranged for the Marsh presentation'. You indicated that a meeting took place with RSA (Royal Sun Alliance) in July 2008 but that no meeting had occurred with Marsh."

Mr Swinney went on to state in his letter : "*** has drawn to my attention the fact that the minutes of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission dated 11th of March 2008 and 7th July 2007 indicated firstly in March 2008 that 'Jane Irvine confirmed she had arranged an introductory session from Marsh' and the minutes in July said that a meeting had taken place with RSA. I have to say that I feel there is a contradiction between the correspondence you have sent to *** dated 1st and 12th of December and the minutes of the SLCC meetings of March and July."

SLCC's answers to Cabinet Secretary Swinney were far from clear. Ms Masterman’s responses to Mr Swinney's allegations of contradictions in correspondence between himself, a constituent and the SLCC, to keep secret any meetings with the insurers, fell through after details of the secret meetings emerged in board minutes of meetings of the Commission, leading to further correspondence between the SLCC & Mr Swinney, who went onto brand Ms Masterman’s explanations as "far from clear" after Ms Masterman informed Mr Swinney in letters dated 15 January 2009 "The SLCC has not consulted with Marsh or the Royal Sun Alliance about the operation of the Master Policy" which was contradicted by emails from November 2008 between Ms Masterman & the then Head of Investigations Rosemary Agnew, which read : "We received our tutorial yesterday on the Master Policy from Marsh".

Eileen Masterman then wrote to John Swinney in a letter dated March 2009 claiming "I have not met with Marsh", clearly contradicting the course of events revealed in documents released under FOI legislation where SLCC officials including Ms Masterman had in fact met Marsh.

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, emails containing anti-client jibes were revealed to have been 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”.

Called to the Bars : Evidence from earlier FOI releases featured in newspapers point to SLCC’s anti client culture among board members & senior officials. The emails from David Smith to SLCC staff including the SLCC’s then Chief Executive Eileen Masterman, support evidence from earlier FOI releases which featured in the national media of a bitter, hate fuelled anti-client culture operating at the highest levels of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has seen other board members such as Glasgow divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan who rubbished victims of crooked lawyers as “complete chancers”. In additional emails, other board members chastised consumer organisations, and sought to exclude them from the inevitable results of the SLCC’s Master Policy investigation, which the deaths of clients to the Law Society of Scotland, its insurers and the Master Policy itself.

A client who has been waiting months for the SLCC to take action on his complaint about his solicitor, condemned the organisation for its inaction over complaints and internal secrecy. He said : “I’ve been waiting nine months for a result on my complaint which has been back and forth from the Law Society to the SLCC yet neither can work out who should investigate my case. They seem to be more able to pay off their staff in the snap of a finger and make sure the dirt is kept secret rather do their job which is supposed to be investigating complaints about solicitors.”

Something to hide : Scottish Government Ministers refuse to comment on audit report’s claims they approved a payoff to the former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman. The Scottish Government were asked for comment on their role in approving the pay off to Ms Masterman amid claims that a series of leters from Mr Swinney & a law reform campaigner over the Master Policy meetings led to her downfall. The Scottish Government refused any comment, their spokesperson briefly stating : "This is a private personnel matter for the SLCC and its former employee."

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission also refused to comment on the matter or release any details of the payoff and how it was negotiated. It was also noted the SLCC’s media response was emailed at exactly the same time as the response received from the Scottish Government.

Frequent Fryers of FOI requests : SLCC Board Member former Deputy Chief Constable Ian Gordon is also the Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland for the next four years. 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 is now investigating the SLCC’s refusal to release any information on Ms Masterman’s absence and resignation from the SLCC.