Cats & Doughnuts : Lawyers challenge to legal aid cuts struck down by Holyrood Committee while Law Society claims ‘public interest is at it’s heart’

Representatives of the Glasgow Bar Association ‘hotly’ contest Law Society backed cuts to legal aid fees & access to justice. TESTIMONY from members of the Glasgow Bar Association & officials from the Law Society of Scotland at this week’s Tuesday session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee over the Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011, which propose a 25% cut in legal aid fees to Glasgow solicitors, raised some interesting viewpoints as to the credibility of the Law Society as a representative & regulatory body for both solicitors & the public.

The debate, which featured solicitors David O’Hagan & Gerry Sweeney appearing for the Glasgow Bar Association, and ‘access-all-areas’ Michael Clancy & Andrew Alexander appearing for the Law Society of Scotland, took place after a motion was lodged by James Kelly (Scottish Labour) recommending annulment of the of the Scottish Government’s proposal to cut 25% off the fees for attending Glasgow’ Stipendiary Magistrates Courts where solicitors currently earn £515 for each case. The proposed cut will leave that fee at £390.

The motion by Mr Kelly to annul the legal aid cuts affecting the Stipendiary Courts was defeated on a 5-4 vote after the Justice Committee Convener, John Lamont used his casting vote to decide the issue.

In the money : Lawyer v Lawyer at Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee over cuts to legal aid fees. Pity they wouldn’t expose the Master Policy & Law Society anti-consumer policies in the same terms (Click images to watch video footage)

Part 1 :

Part 2 :

The lively, if at times tedious debate between solicitors, the Law Society & msps who appear to blur into a striking similarity with each other, lasts nearly fifty minutes and the verbatim account of the proceedings can be viewed at the Scottish Parliament’s website, here : Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/162).

Much of the debate is about legal aid fees which lawyers pick up for appearing at Glasgow’s Stipendiary Magistrates Courts along with claims the Law Society has failed to represent the interests of Glasgow solicitors over the legal aid cuts. There is, sadly, little in the proceedings for those who are campaigning for fully independent regulation of the legal profession, or any mention of ideas along the lines of those I have proposed for years, and featured again earlier in the month, HERE.

As the debate closed, it should be noted the final say went to the Law Society of Scotland, where the well known Michael Clancy made some rather unconvincing claims about how the Law Society has ‘the public interest at heart when thinking about access to justice issues’.

According to the Scottish Parliament’s Official Report of the meeting, Michael Clancy said : “The society has a statutory obligation to promote the interest of the solicitors profession and the interests of the public in relation to that profession. Of course we have the public interest at heart when thinking about access to justice issues. The internal management of our committees is another matter… It is unfortunate to suggest that the society does not have access to justice concerns at its heart. We deal with people, too. We deal with people who are solicitors and people who are solicitors' clients. We accept that they are complex and human individuals, just as much as we are. We are not just statistical policy wonks.”

You must be kidding, Mr Clancy. No one outside the Law Society of Scotland’s sphere of influence believes this.

Of course, we should be under no illusions about the terms of this debate. Its about money, much more so than regulation or the or creation of separate organisations to represent solicitors & clients best interests.

The now well publicised bickering within the legal profession on the subject of legal aid cuts, which has led to several resignations from the Law Society’s Council reported by Scottish Law Reporter HERE, HERE and HERE along with several features in The Herald newspaper such as HERE, HERE HERE and HERE, seems to have spilled out into public after a Law Society Committee proposed, among other things, the merging of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which was reported HERE and, with the suggestion that “putting solicitors in charge of their own legal aid payments as "like putting Homer Simpson in charge of a doughnut factory", HERE

One of the protagonists in the debate, the well known Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre wrote on his blog in the independent Scottish legal publication “The Firm” earlier this week in a posting entitled “8 out of 10 cats” : “Dual regulatory and representative functions are incompatible. All of the discord and disharmony we have in Scotland's legal profession; and the concern or distrust that many members of the public have for lawyers; flows from this inherent conflict. Which is why we need an independent statutory regulator of legal services in Scotland - not for solicitors (and the oft-quoted poll of how 8 out of 10 of solicitors prefer the Law Society) but because the public interest demands it. Likewise, Scottish solicitors like any other worker should be able to choose their own trade union. It's that simple. If you fix this blockage, everything else will work.”

He continued : “Let's face the truth. The people of Scotland deserve an independent statutory regulator of legal services; and Scotland's solicitors should be entitled to choose who represents them.”

Yes this is very true. However, if this is really to happen, as consumers, campaigners and even some solicitors now recognise, all of us will have to come together to debate & argue for this cause at the Scottish Parliament and in public with the same veracity as the Glasgow Bar Association are arguing their corner over the legal aid fee cuts.

A few solicitors & advocates trading doughnuts, a few insults, and throwing street-wise moggies at each other over the issue will not get the job done.

However, if the public were to be more widely engaged on the debate, and particularly those with experience of dealings with the Law Society on a wide range of issues (including regulation) allowed to speak, the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government may finally have to listen and be made to understand the present system of the Law Society of Scotland ruling over all it sees, does not work.

If anyone is up for campaigning for necessary & real changes to the legislation which governs those who represent the public and the legal profession, you know where to reach those who share the same views .. if not, well it just wont happen any time soon. Capisce ?

Calls for Scottish Parliament to debate future of Law Society as lawyer admits people of Scotland deserve independent regulator of legal services

Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee to hear more details over Law Society resignations. IN an update to this article, today's session of the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee will not be discussing Petition PE1388, a petition lodged by Mr William Burns calling for the Law Society of Scotland to be scrapped, after the Scottish Parliament surprisingly confirmed this morning the petition will not be heard during today's committee meeting.

MSPs were due to be told of further, well publicised disagreements between some of Scotland’s top lawyers & the Law Society over legal aid fees & media censorship, 'disagreements' which have now led to at least eight resignations from the Law Society and produced a surprising, if welcome claim from a high profile solicitor, the Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly, that "the people of Scotland deserve an independent statutory regulator of legal services".

The Law Society’s current difficulties, come amidst an ongoing confrontation between the Society & members of the Glasgow Bar Association which has now escalated into the threat of a legal challenge by the GBA to the Law Society’s authority to regulate & represent the legal profession. The powers which allow the Law Society to regulate & represent the profession were granted to the Society in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, the same legislation which Petition PE1388 is now asking Holyrood to scrap.

Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly resigns from Law Society. Over the weekend, campaigners sensed a significant boost to their demands to reform regulation of Scotland’s legal profession and bring about the demise of the Law Society of Scotland in its current format after the Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly, who resigned late last week from the Law Society’s Council and as Convener of the Society’s Access to Justice Committee, made an astonishing statement in his resignation letter claiming : “My experience on Council of the LSS [Law Society of Scotland] has taught me two things : the people of Scotland deserve an independent statutory regulator of legal services and ; the Scottish legal profession deserve the right to choose who represents them.”

Mr Dailly’s resignation letter which accuses the Law Society President & the Scottish Legal Aid Board of collusion in attempting to silence solicitors criticism of the way SLAB operates, can be read in full at “The Firm’s” website HERE.

The Herald newspaper reported on a possible legal challenge to the Law Society’s authority. The series of resignations at the Law Society of Scotland began nearly two weeks ago with the resignation of former Glasgow Bar Association President John McGovern from the Law Society’s Council. Mr McGovern, who is known to have been critical of the Law Society over a number of policies including its stance on alternative business structures, and the Society’s dual role of representation & regulation, resigned claiming the Society has "a fundamental dishonesty at its core". Several days later, the Herald newspaper featured references to Mr McGovern’s resignation and a possible legal challenge to the Law Society’s authority by the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) in a report, available HERE although it should be noted while the GBA was apparently happy to pursue the Law Society in the courts over requirements of membership, a spokesman for the GBA was quoted in the Herald report, stating : “We have no problem with the Law Society’s regulatory role”.

The issues surrounding the resignation of John McGovern from the Law Society were mentioned, although in no significant detail, by John Wilson MSP at the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee last week, as I reported here : Scottish Parliament raise questions over senior lawyer’s resignation, legal threats & claims Law Society has “a fundamental dishonesty at its core”

Since last week’s meeting of the Petitions Committee, events have somewhat overtaken the Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Government’s desire to shut down debate on , Petition PE1388, with the resignation of two additional Law Society Council members, Mike Dailly & David O’Hagan, and the entire membership of the Access to Justice Committee, all reported in Saturday’s edition of the Herald newspaper.

Campaigners and solicitors alike are now calling for a no holds barred debate at Holyrood on the future of the Law Society of Scotland and its dual roles of representing & regulating solicitors, as well as its duties of representing the public interest in legal issues as enshrined in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

A solicitor speaking to Diary of Injustice yesterday, supported calls for a fuller debate on the Law Society’s future and more input into the petition currently under consideration at the Scottish Parliament which calls for the Law Society to be axed.

He said : “MSPs should now take the opportunity to support this petition by calling for further evidence from all parties with an interest on how best to proceed with changes to the legislation which has given the Law Society almost limitless power & conflicting roles of representing the rights of solicitors and the public.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations supported Mr Dailly’s call for Scots consumers to have an independent regulator of legal services.

She said : “Regulation of legal services in Scotland is currently provided by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as the first point of contact for consumers who complain about their solicitors, and the Law Society of Scotland."

"In the case of the SLCC, there is evidence to suggest the SLCC is not viewed by solicitors or consumers as independent. In the case of the Law Society of Scotland, there is long standing evidence to suggest the Law Society is not viewed as independent.”

She continued : “The SLCC was created as an independent body to regulate complaints against solicitors after the Scottish Parliament looked at regulation of the legal profession in 2006. However the SLCC appears to have frequently failed public expectations on key issues such as its monitoring role over the Master Policy. It is my view the SLCC as it currently stands has failed to deliver as an independent regulator of legal services in Scotland.”

She concluded : “Mr Dailly in his position as a solicitor is correct to have raised the issue of separating the Law Society’s functions of regulation & representation with a call for independent regulation of legal services in Scotland. This is an issue our organisation has campaigned on for many years and therefore I continue to support calls for an independent regulator of legal services in Scotland.”

The Scottish Government were asked to comment on claims contained in Mr Dailly’s resignation letter that the people of Scotland deserve an independent statutory regulator of legal services. A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said : “Scotland already has a robust system of regulation in place for the legal profession”.

On the matter of Mr Dailly’s allegations the Scottish Legal Aid Board put pressure on the Law Society of Scotland to silence his committee’s criticisms of SLAB and proposals to merge the Legal Aid Board with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which were reported by Scottish Law Reporter last year HERE & HERE, the Scottish Government’s spokesperson said : “Both the Law Society of Scotland and the Board have refuted these allegations and we have full confidence in the Scottish Legal Aid Board”

Lets not kid ourselves here, the spate of resignations over at the Law Society of Scotland and the legal threats from the Glasgow Bar Association are more about legal aid payments to solicitors & law firms in Glasgow’s stipendiary magistrate courts than they are about defending the public’s right to expect an independently regulated legal profession.

However, if those who are now calling for independent regulation of the legal profession wish to make their mark and show the public a level of selfless community service which has never before come from the legal profession, they should make haste and go to the Scottish Parliament, presenting their arguments for :

(i) A fully independent regulator of the legal profession to replace the three shams, being the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.

(ii) The creation of a new democratic FOI compliant body to replace the Law Society of Scotland to represent the rights of solicitors, and

(iii) The creation of a powerful independent body to represent the public interest in legal affairs & legislation, as well as the rights of clients & consumers who use legal services in Scotland.

Its not rocket science, people, its justice, and providing access to justice through a well regulated, capable, trustworthy legal services market for Scotland in the 21st Century is surely something we can all achieve for the greater good of the community, instead of the greater wealth of a few in the legal profession.

In the light of the extra window of debate of the petition, I would hope those who have expressed issue with the Law Society will come forward and offer their opinions either in writing or in person to the Petitions Committee to aid the progress of Petition PE1388.

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

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.

Access to justice failure shows Legal Aid victory on mortgage rights case could still mean your money or your house

A recent court victory in a case involving the use of the Mortgage Rights Act (Scotland) 2001 to challenge a repossession has resulted in lawyers claiming that legal aid will now be useless for mortgage rights case and that lawyers wont take on representing the public in similar legal actions.

The Mortgage Rights Act allows homeowners to challenge a lender repossessing their home, but you have to go to court to do it, and also of course you have to use a lawyer to get to court. If you do not have the money to pursue legal action, you may qualify for legal aid, but in turn, you need a lawyer to apply for that legal aid.If you win your case, generally the Legal Aid Board will not ask for its money back from you, although strangely enough, SLAB doesn't seem to want to pursue the mortgage lenders for recovery of funds ...

While the Scottish Legal Aid Board has not asked for money back in such cases since 2003, a recent BBC News report seems to indicate that SLAB may now be changing their policy, at the inspiration of some in the legal & financial professions no doubt, and want their money back from homeowners ...

Mike Dailly : Legal Aid now meaningless for mortgage repossession cases

Unfortunately for the public, the best suggestion from the legal profession in the report comes from solicitor Mike Dailly, of the Govan Law Centre, where he states that legal aid is now meaningless for mortgage repossession, with the report going on to say that solicitors will probably not take on such cases in the future.

A better suggestion perhaps then would be to call for the opening of the legal services market, to expand the availability of, and drive down the costs of legal representation to the public, so anyone who needs representation in such a case, and legal aid funding, can get it, without it reaching the costs currently associated with such actions.

Don't get me wrong about the Govan Law Centre, I'm all for what it does and how it helps people, but just a stones throw away from Mike Dailly's own house, a poor innocent woman has been systematically victimised and abused by a Housing Association in a long running campaign designed to ruin her health and her life, which has involved using lawyers to bully and harass the lady for years, even changing her secured tenancy into an assured tenancy, without any legal basis for doing so while the victimised tenant has been and is continually denied any access to proper legal representation and justice.

The innocent woman, who has been through much hardship and personal loss, has been held in sequestration for nearly a decade by a well known lawyer who is now a serving Sheriff, solely it would seem, on the basis of recovering legal costs from a negligence action against a firm of solicitors which the tenant lodged many years ago.

Many see the sequestration itself, which has run for nearly ten years, as an act of revenge for the tenant's bravery in making a claim of solicitors negligence against the infamously corrupt Law Society of Scotland's Master Insurance Policy, and within the tenant's case, the usual suspects of the Law Society appear - Chief Executive Douglas Mill, Director of Regulation Philip Yelland ... little wonder then that the poor victimised tenant is constantly being denied access to legal representation and justice , and her life continually being interdicted by members of Scotland's gallant legal profession who are just peachy about abusing the public when it suits ...

So, how about doing something Mr Dailly ?

Only a stones throw from your own house .. you should be able to manage it ? Could you manage to help a woman whose life is being blighted, abused, and ruined by a housing association and some of your colleagues in the legal profession, just so they can get their hands on her flat ? Surely access to justice should prevail and the lady's legal problems resolved to allow her to live in peace ?

Getting back to the BBC coverage of the Mortgage Rights case, the new report goes on to quote Cathy Craigie MSP, the MSP behind the Mortgage Rights Act, has written to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to see if he will review the law to protect the public's rights & interests ... but with Mr MacAskill constantly bowing to big business and the professions recently, there may not be too much hope of that.

As for the Scottish Legal Aid Board - well, wouldn't they be better going after those financial institutions and lenders who lose these kinds of legal actions, rather than going after the homeowner who won the case ?

They have plenty of money anyway, so asking financially ruined homeowners to pay back the legal expenses who won the case, while allowing the lenders to escape paying the entire costs of the case seems to be a bit one sided.

Will the SNP and Justice Secretary MacAskill do something for homeowners in such cases or is this yet another step too far for Mr MacAskill in protecting the public from bullying lenders and a hungry legal profession ?