LAW ROGUES SURVEY: Consultation launched by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - What should lawyers & clients expect from solicitors’ regulator run by vested legal interests?

Legal regulator seeks consumer & legal views on ‘new’ strategy. SCOTLAND’S ‘independent’ regulator of complaints about solicitors – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has launched a consultation seeking views from the public, clients & the legal profession on a strategy for the next four years.

The SLCC – created by the Scottish Government in 2008 at a cost of over two million pounds of taxpayers money, was originally planned to be a single gateway for all complaints relating to the legal profession, and a break from endemic dishonesty and corruption in the system of self regulation of solicitors – managed by the Law Society of Scotland.

However, the past eight years of ‘managing’ public complaints about solicitors has brought few headline success cases for clients of rogue solicitors solicitors – despite a staggering £20 million pounds of clients’ funds in the form of complaints levies thrown at the widely criticised pro-lawyer SLCC.

After eight years of doing little to raise standards in Scotland’s legal profession, the SLCC now claims : “We want to continue that journey: looking at greater efficiency and effectiveness (especially around early resolution); how we can share trends and learning from the many complaints we have dealt with to inform better practice; increasing our visibility; improving our own customer service; and drawing on best practice principles in regulation and consumer policy.  In our strategy we discuss why this approach is good for consumers, and good for the sector – high confidence in legal services plays a vital role in sustaining and growing the market.”

However, a recent media investigation uncovered most of the staff and investigators at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are in-fact families, friends & business associates of solicitors, reported here: 'Independent' Scots legal watchdog consists of solicitors’ husbands, wives, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, & employers.

And in December last year, the commission announced it would publish selected details of cases the regulator had investigated in relation to corrupt lawyers.  NO NAME, NO SHAME: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will protect identifies of rogue solicitors & dishonest law firms.

Pointedly, the SLCC refused to name or shame any solicitor or law firm involved in complaints and scams – leaving consumers in the dark on lawyers and their law firms who are the subject of frequent complaints for the same offences against clients & consumers of legal services in Scotland.

The latest annual report from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, 2014-2015 SLCC Annual report - published in December 2015 - indicated the regulator had paid out £401,000 to victims of rogue or corrupt solicitors, reported here: ROGUES PAY: 1009 cases of rogue lawyers reported to ‘independent’ legal regulator as SLCC claim mediation success up, £401K awarded to clients of dodgy solicitors.

However, the figure of £401K is thought to be a tiny fraction of the amount of fraud involving solicitors and their clients every year, demonstrated alone in one on-going case brought to the attention of the media where a sole solicitor is involved in the disappearance of around £500,000 from a trust.

Now, seeking what some in the legal profession are calling a “51st shade of grey”, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has announced  a consultation on a new strategy for the next four years, aimed at putting consumer understanding at its heart.

The draft strategy outlines a number of key priorities for the SLCC including work with consumer groups, lawyers and professional bodies such as the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.

This work includes greater efficiency and effectiveness in complaints handling, increased visibility for the SLCC and considering whether the current regulatory set up delivers effective protection and redress for consumers.

SLCC consultation 2016  – Your views count.

Speaking with regard to the consultation, Bill Brackenridge, SLCC Chair said,  “At a time when consumer rights and redress are very much on the agenda for all sectors, this strategy lays out the path to an even more effective and efficient legal complaints handling system, where we build on the learning from complaints we’ve already undertaken in the last seven years.”

“We’re currently in a strong position and now is a great time to start planning for the years ahead – to our 10th anniversary in 2018 and beyond.  We think we can deliver even greater value to consumers and to lawyers, but working in partnership is a key part of this.  We’re looking forward to hearing what our stakeholders want to contribute to the refreshed approach we’re laying out.”

Former Law Society director, Neil Stevenson  - appointed SLCC Chief Executive during 2015 added, “One area we think will be of particular interest is focus on the consumer journey – we tend to talk about regulation from the perspective of the pieces of legislation, or the institutions involved. With the strategy we’re consulting on, we’ve lifted techniques used with patients in the NHS, and used them to examine the pathways along which lawyers and consumers experience regulation.  It makes you look very differently at the current landscape – for example, should a single complaint travel across as many as four organisations to be resolved? And even if that is the best way of handling it, how do you work together to give the consumer a single explanation of the system and the different stages? ”

“Personally, another project I see as vital is work to look at situations where we decide a client has suffered poor service, but the firm is being disbanded and the client never gets the refund in fees we award.  We think this undermines confidence in the regulation of the sector, and want to work with others to look for solutions.  We believe clients should be sure they will always get redress when things go wrong, and we know lawyers also want to be able to give this reassurance, but that’s not a promise that can always be made at the moment.   Of course, the purpose of the consultation is to see what focus and projects others think are important, and we’d really encourage debate and input.” 

Submit your questions, comments and responses to consult@scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk.

The deadline for responses is Friday 11 March 2016.

The SLCC’s budget and operating plan for 2016-2017 are also out for consultation. All documents relating to the consultation can also be viewed on the SLCC’s website at the following links

Draft Strategy for 2016 - 2020 (PDF, 1.3 MB)  Draft Operating plan for 2016-2017 (PDF, 715 KB) Draft Budget and proposed levies for 2016-2017 (PDF, 847 KB)  Consultation questions,  on which we would specially value your views (PDF, 705 KB)

Previous media investigations, reports and coverage of issues relating to the SLCC can be found here: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - A history of pro-lawyer regulation.

ROGUES PAY: 1009 cases of rogue lawyers reported to ‘independent’ legal regulator as SLCC claim mediation success up, £401K awarded to clients of dodgy solicitors

Mediation hearings hijacked, compensation only a fraction – say clients. THE LATEST annual report of the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) - reveals increasing numbers of solicitors are evading full investigations and formal determinations on poor quality or dodgy legal services provided to Scottish consumers in the year 2014-2015.

The figures, based on complaints reported to the client-funded legal regulator from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015, reveal 1009 complaints about solicitors were ‘reported’ to the SLCC in the past year, and the number of complaints  accepted for service and conduct rose from 319 to 424, with three cases relating to unnamed members of the Faculty of Advocates.

Nearly 200 cases were resolved or withdrawn before an eligibility decision was taken. The Complaints Commission claim 56 cases were resolved at mediation, a success rate of 76%.

However, the experience of clients reveal mediation is not an even handed or impartial approach.

Clients involved in mediation cases who contacted the media revealed  that when they turned up for mediation hearings, the solicitors they had complained against brought additional representatives who were not supposed to be in attendance.

Clients revealed mediation hearings had been effectively hijacked mediation hearings  by law firms with what one client described as “bully tactics”.

In another mediation hearing involving a client and a solicitor from a well known law firm, it was alleged the mediator desperately put forward the solicitor’s view there should be no settlement – even before the mediation hearing began.

2014-2015 SLCC Annual report – complaints down, up & pennies to clients. The SLCC’s annual report also reveals that at investigation stage 60 cases were resolved by report, and 21 cases by conciliation, with 30 cases withdrawn. A total of 132 cases - down from 210 the previous year – went to determination, of which 109 were wholly or partly upheld.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claim that a total of £401,340 (up from £365K in 2013-2014) was agreed or awarded in compensation, fee refunds and reductions to Scottish consumers for inadequate professional service by Scottish lawyers during the year. 

However, as the SLCC has refused to quantify the scale of financial losses alleged in complaints made about solicitors, it is difficult to estimate what percentage of compensation is actually being handed back to clients wronged by their solicitors.

In one instance reported to the media, it has been revealed a single solicitor is being investigated over complaints relating to a trust fund valued at over £500,000. The complainants have not received any compensation to-date, and the case has been on-going for over a year, with pressure being exerted on the complainants to enter mediation.

Residential property transactions remain the most common sources of client complaints, at 29%, followed by litigation (20%), family law (16%) and executries, wills and trusts (15%).

The most frequent types of complaints concern failures to communicate; failures to advise; delays; failures to provide information; failures to follow instruction and failures to prepare adequately.

Chair Bill Brackenridge commented: “It has been a year of performance in handling complaints and ensuring consumers get redress from their lawyers if they’ve received an inadequate service. The annual report also shows that we’re using complaints data to improve professional standards across the wider regulatory system.”

“A personal highlight was our successful lobbying for the power to convene a statutory consumer panel, which is now informing our plans for the future and the quality of our day to day work."We were also delighted to recruit Neil Stevenson as our new chief executive, charged with leading a longer term plan for the organisation to ensure we deliver value to consumers and to the sector.”

Former Law Society Director of Professional Support - Mr Stevenson  - said: “We’re in a great position and now we’re looking ahead to the next four years to make sure that the SLCC continues to make a difference for consumers and the profession. We are looking forward to going out to public consultation in January on an exciting new four year plan. Our plan will consider how consumers select and experience legal services and their needs when things go wrong with a service, rather than just looking at the system from a perspective of regulations and institutions.”

The latest figures announced today, bear little difference from previous years reporting of complaints handling at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

This year, the SLCC also dropped claims it was partly funded by the public after a statement which appeared in last year’s annual report angered the Law Society of Scotland.

Last year’s annual report under former Chief Executive Matthew Vickers, stated: “We are funded by a levy on the legal profession and hence, indirectly, from fees charged to the public.”

Under the new Chief Executive – Neil Stevenson - former Law Society Director of Representation and Professional Support – the annual report now states: “The SLCC receives no public money. We are funded by a levy on the legal profession, collected from individual practitioners by the relevant professional organisations."

However, Diary of Injustice revealed in 2008 - the SLCC had received around £2 million pounds of taxpayers money from the Scottish Government, which has never been repaid.

Funding for the SLCC is gathered from an annual levy on the legal profession – who in turn recover the levy with hikes in already sky high legal fees and charges to clients.

Neil Stevenson was appointed to the role of Chief Executive after the resignation of Matthew Vickers earlier this year, reported here: GONE MEDIATIN’: Pro-lawyer legal regulator loses another CEO as Matthew Vickers leaves Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for Ombudsman Services role

The Law Society’s decision to retake control of the ‘independent’ SLCC by placing one of their own in the CEO slot came after after the Scots legal profession was left reeling from the effects of the damaging BBC Scotland investigation “Lawyers Behaving Badly” -  which blew the mask off lawyers investigating their own colleagues and how the legal profession covers up legal aid fraud.

Since the BBC programme aired in January 2014,  the Law Society demanded significant changes to the SLCC after concluding the hapless complaints quango – staffed mostly by former Law Society insiders – failed to stand up for lawyers during the BBC Scotland investigation.

Another attempt by the Law Society to spin out a client satisfaction poll backed up with dodgy statistics came apart when DOI revealed the full extent of how the poll had been rigged -  featuring in a media investigation here: OWNED POLL: Law Society ‘scripted’ survey criticised by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - new data reveals few clients of dodgy lawyers ask legal regulators for help

The pro-lawyer Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was created in 2008 as a result of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007

The legal quango – staffed mainly by former Law Society employees, solicitors and Ministerial appointed board members claiming up to £150K a year in expenses, has racked up staggering costs of well over £20 million to Scottish clients in the past seven years, with little to show for it.

Previous media investigations, reports and coverage of issues relating to the SLCC can be found here: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - A history of pro-lawyer regulation.

PURGE LAW: ‘Reform minded’ Legal complaints chief ousted for Law Society insider as solicitors regulatory body retakes control of ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Law Society’s Neil Stevenson retakes complaints quango for lawyers.THE LEGAL profession’s definition of ‘independence’ took a full turn yesterday as the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) and the Law Society of Scotland announced long time Law Society insider Neil Stevenson is to be the SLCC’s latest Chief Executive, replacing former Foreign Office careerist Matthew Vickers who took on the role in June 2012.

Stevenson’s appointment to the tarnished position as head of the pro-lawyer anti-client SLCC – created in 2008 and at a staggering cost since to Scots clients of over £20 million in complaints levies paid by solicitors and recovered via legal fees to clients – comes after widely reported evidence showing the SLCC has failed to live up to expectations of dealing with rising numbers of rogue solicitors who rip off their clients.

And, the Law Society’s decision to retake control of the ‘independent’ SLCC by placing one of their own in charge also comes after a challenging year for self regulation of the legal profession – left reeling from the effects of the damaging BBC Scotland investigation “Lawyers Behaving Badly” -  which blew the mask off lawyers investigating their own and legal aid fraud.

For the past fifteen months since the BBC programme aired in January 2014,  the Law Society have demanded significant changes at the SLCC after concluding the hapless complaints quango – staffed mostly by former Law Society insiders – failed to stand up for lawyers during the BBC Scotland investigation.

And, earlier this year, further friction between the two legal regulators emerged when the SLCC criticised a rigged poll organised and funded by the Law Society which claimed solicitors are ‘well liked’.

Articles on the client satisfaction poll - published in some media outlets were written by the Law Society’s own president Alistair Morris in which the Law Society President extolled the virtues of lawyers, backed up with dodgy statistics.

However the full extent of how the poll had been rigged -  featured in an investigation by DOI reported here: OWNED POLL: Law Society ‘scripted’ survey criticised by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - new data reveals few clients of dodgy lawyers ask legal regulators for help

Another twist to the friction between the SLCC & Law Society emerged after it was revealed a series of communications between the SLCC and law reformers brought about a tipping point forcing Law Society bosses to act.

The communications - which fell into the hands of the Law Society - ‘in real time’ – appear to have helped the decision to force out the then SLCC CEO – Matt Vickers – who stood down out of the blue earlier this year to pursue a career at Ombudsman Services, reported here: GONE MEDIATIN’: Pro-lawyer legal regulator loses another CEO as Matthew Vickers leaves Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for Ombudsman Services role

The replacement of an outsider with a Law Society insider as head of the SLCC have led to further suggestions the anti-consumer quango can do nothing without a say so from the Law Society.

In an announcement the SLCC said yesterday: The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the independent body for complaints against solicitors, advocates and other legal practitioners in Scotland, has announced the appointment of Neil Stevenson as its new Chief Executive Officer.

Neil Stevenson has been with the Law Society of Scotland since 2004.  He is currently the Society’s Director of Representation and Professional Support.  He will be joining the Commission in mid-July.

As the new CEO Neil’s priorities will be to drive the full implementation of the SLCC’s strategy – to provide an excellent complaint resolution service for legal complaints in Scotland, to provide guidance on service standards to the profession and consumers and to raise the confidence in the legal profession in Scotland.

Bill Brackenridge, Chair of the SLCC welcomed the appointment. He said : “I am delighted to welcome such an accomplished professional to the Commission; he will inspire our staff to deliver their challenging role and move the Commission to a higher level.

Neil Stevenson, the new CEO said “I have thoroughly enjoyed my time with the Law Society and am grateful to have all the opportunities and challenges afforded to me.  I am looking forward to joining the SLCC and working with the staff to deliver some very challenging objectives.”

The Society's chief executive, Lorna Jack commented: "I am delighted for Neil and congratulate him on his appointment. As someone who understands the legal profession and with his passion, good judgment and positive attitude, I know Neil is going to make an outstanding contribution as SLCC chief executive.”

Jack continued: "Whilst I am sorry to lose Neil from the Law Society, we will benefit from his hard work for many years to come. In his time as director of representation, he has helped to transform the range of services and support we offer the profession. He has championed our innovative new Smartcard project, ensured we remain a leader on equality and diversity, and has helped develop our new long term strategy. All of us at the Law Society are grateful for everything he has done.

"I am now looking forward to working with Neil in his new role. The relationship between the Law Society and the SLCC has improved greatly over the last few years. Given the specific roles we play in the regulation of solicitors, this has been important, particularly for the public who depend on both of our organisations to work together to protect their interests."

The current biography of Neil Stevenson on the Law Society of Scotland’s website says: “Neil joined the education team of the Society in 2004, having previously worked on medical and dental training for NHS Education for Scotland. He holds an Edinburgh law degree and a masters in management, and has previous experience in the oil and gas sector and management research. Neil is responsible for the confidential helpline service provided by the solicitors in professional practice and for the provision of CPD to the profession through Update. The professional support team focuses on ensuring the Society listens to and learns from its members, campaigns on their behalf, and provides support services to individuals and firms. He is a director of both the independent charity LawCare and the Scottish Arbitration Centre.”

Stevenson’s directorship of “Law Care” – a charity set up by the legal profession to help and defend solicitors who have been found out for ripping off their clients – will be of interest to clients who end up in the unenviable position of having to approach the SLCC to make a complaint about their solicitor. The charity has filed numerous reports with the pro-lawyer SLCC & Law Society Complaints Committees - pleading for corrupt solicitors to be let off the hook on everything from embezzlement to faking up paperwork.

Stevenson’s directorship of the Scottish Arbitration Centre may also put him in conflict of interest with SLCC policy of forcing complainants into the murky world of arbitration – where clients who are ripped off for large sums of cash by their solicitor end up with only a pittance in return. The Scottish Arbitration Centre - started by the Scottish Government and backed by lawyers, is a sponge for taxpayers cash and international trips by lawyers & former judges who are trying to promote Scotland’s tarnished legal sector as a haven for international mediation.

REVOLVING DOOR OF LEGAL REGULATOR CHIEF EXECUTIVES:

The post of the SLCC’s Chief Executive has seen considerable controversy since the legal quango was created in 2008. Now, eight years on and five Chief Executives later, the SLCC is looking for another boss to steer it through troubled waters and continuing accusations of pro-lawyer bias.

MacAskill as Justice Secretary backed secret payoff for ‘too ill to work’ former Chief Executive. The SLCC’s first ‘appointed’ Chief Executive - Eileen Masterman - held the role for less than a year, negotiated a secret, substantial payoff backed personally by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and resigned from her role at the SLCC on grounds of “ill health”. Eileen Masterman then returned to work for her former employer - the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) as a “complaints reviewer”, and was accused of whitewashing the circumstances of the death of a baby at the NHS Forth Valley Hospital – reported by Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper here : Deputy First Minister to look into death of baby McKenzie Wallace after parents complain of ‘whitewash’ report by SPSO investigator Eileen Masterman

The SLCC’s first Chief Executive – civil servant Richard Smith - resigned from the role after disagreements about how the SLCC would act as a regulator. Mr Smith was then replaced by another civil servant before Mrs Masterman was eventually appointed as the first ‘official’ CEO.

Concluding a turbulent few months which saw exchanges of letters between current Deputy First Minister John Swinney and Masterman over claims and counter-claims about the Master Policy – reported here: SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh’ Masterman stood down from the SLCC – which by that time had suffered significant reputational damage.

After a speedy recruitment round, Rosemary Agnew then became the SLCC’s fourth Chief Executive, reported here: The £80K job no-one wants : Lawyers lobby seek FIFTH time unlucky Chief Executive for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission role. However Ms Agnew later resigned to take up the post of Scottish Information Commissioner in early 2012.

The SLCC’s current and now outgoing CEO Matthew Vickers took on the role in June 2012, reported here: “Customer Service” main focus for Ex-Foreign Office Consul taking over as FIFTH Chief Exec at ‘anti-consumer’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Scots public get raw deal in legal services as paralegals fall under Law Society of Scotland's dishonest regulatory regime

The Law Society has made a big song & dance this week about it's registration scheme for Paralegals, which is the result of 'agreements' reached between the Law Society and the Scottish Paralegals Association, inferring the scheme, which will effectively see the Law Society control and regulate paralegals, will be good for both the client and the legal profession at large.

While some may see the legal profession under the current rule of the Law Society may benefit from grabbing control of paralegals, if anything, the reverse is actually the case, where, as the Law Society has proved particularly through its recent history , it cannot effective manage any part of the profession, and adding the burden of administering, registering & regulating paralegals will do nothing to enhance either the Society's reputation or that of the profession at large.

Ostensibly, what is happening to paralegals, means that when clients have a problem with a paralegal, they will of course, have to take the matter up with the Law Society of Scotland, and as the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission doesn't seem to be equipped to deal with paralegals, the buck will stop with the troublesome Law Society of Scotland who historically have ensured client complaints go nowhere.

So, in short, Law Society of Scotland control over paralegals is a bad thing for clients .... as we all know from how the Law Society has mismanaged complaints against solicitors for the past thirty years plus.

Want an example of what could happen to a client complaint to the Law Society of Scotland against a paralegal ? Well, there are plenty examples on this blog and in the media of how the Law Society of Scotland treat complaints against lawyers .....

Neil Stevenson - who was appointed by the infamous Douglas Mill to head up 'strategic change' at the Law Society of Scotland, wrote this week in the Scotsman law page on the subject of Law Society control over paralegals :

"There is no doubt that paralegals already provide a valuable service within the legal market, but at the moment anyone can call themselves a paralegal. Introducing a registered status will mean that employers can be sure of the standards met by employees. It will also give paralegals the professional recognition they deserve. And clients will benefit from knowing that the paralegal, who they may have more direct contact with than a solicitor, has been assessed properly.

This development also represents continuing change at the Law Society of Scotland. An innovative regulatory approach has been developed to tackle the issue, and state-of-the-art IT will underpin compliance"

I would remind readers that Douglas Mill, the outgoing Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, is probably the one individual who has done the most damage to the Scots legal profession over the years, with policy failure after policy failure, leaving the profession with the highest levels of complaints, the highest levels of negligence cases, and the poorest level of public trust & respect for solicitors for decades ..... hardly a man who should have any lasting influence on things if the damage he and his kind have done, is to be repaired ?

"An innovative regulatory approach" from the Law Society of Scotland .. I wonder what on earth that could mean in the light of how they have handled regulation for all these years ?

Perhaps the Law Society of Scotland will simply lose the pretence of any honesty whatsoever and bin all complaints against paralegals as they are apparently doing at Drumsheugh Gardens in the run up to October 2008 when the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission takes over regulating service complaints and other issues relating to client complaints against Scottish solicitors.

What we are seeing in these moves by the Law Society over paralegals is simply a move to ensure it will control the legal profession from top to bottom, at every level, ensuring it will have influence & control over everything from the admissions process to control over rights of audience & representation, and of course, retain as much influence and control over access to justice itself.

As things stand, the Law Society will still be able to dictate and restrict the Scots public's choice of legal representatives in a continuing highly restrictive legal services market as indicated by last week's Law Society Alternative Business Structure proposals, and now the public are faced with an even greater danger in the quality & accountability of the present level of legal services on offer with the Law Society's annexing of the paralegals profession.

Unless the SNP Government or other political parties in the Scottish Parliament move forward with proposals to ensure the Scots legal services market is fully opened up to competition and freedom of choice, as recommended by the OFT and many consumer organisations, we will not see any increased quality, accountability or safety of legal services in Scotland.

So, over to less public choice and ever more regulatory failures as clients get a weaker, less safe legal service than ever in Scotland - where regulation of paralegals by the Law Society is definitely not good news for anyone except the Law Society control freaks and those who wish to further control the public's access to justice ..

The Scotsman article written by the Law Society Director of 'Strategic Change" :

Paralegal registration scheme is good news for the profession and for clients

By Neil Stevenson

WHAT will becoming a Law Society of Scotland registered paralegal actually mean?

The status is a badge of quality, indicating that the holder has met certain academic standards, has a certain amount of work experience and can carry out work to a prescribed standard.

We must emphasise that the exact arrangements are still under discussion, but having spoken to most of the concerned parties we have a clear idea of how the final proposal may look.

The Law Society is proud that this is a true partnership project, with the society and the Scottish Paralegal Association working closely to ensure that this new scheme brings benefits to everyone involved.

Paralegals who have attained a formal recognition under the scheme will be eligible to apply for entry to the register. A wide range of qualifications are likely to be considered relevant, from HNC/HNDs provided by Scotland’s colleges to provision from respected commercial providers such Central Law Training and Rewards Training.

We are also delighted to have worked with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) to redevelop an HNC/HND in legal services, and are now moving to develop professional development awards in a variety of key areas of law. For the first time this will provide a qualifications framework for paralegals.

Paralegals will then need to undertake an assessed year in practice, supervised by a solicitor. Those already with office experience may be able to follow an accelerated route, with the emphasis on ensuring all those becoming registered meet the required standard.

Those achieving registration will be required to complete annual ongoing training and will have to uphold standards laid out in a code of conduct. A complaints process will be put in place, but the emphasis will be on upholding standards through a variety of regulatory approaches.

There is no doubt that paralegals already provide a valuable service within the legal market, but at the moment anyone can call themselves a paralegal. Introducing a registered status will mean that employers can be sure of the standards met by employees. It will also give paralegals the professional recognition they deserve. And clients will benefit from knowing that the paralegal, who they may have more direct contact with than a solicitor, has been assessed properly.

This development also represents continuing change at the Law Society of Scotland. An innovative regulatory approach has been developed to tackle the issue, and state-of-the-art IT will underpin compliance.

This is also a year when the Society’s own governance arrangements are being reviewed and are likely to significantly alter following the move to bring in more experience from outside the profession and streamline our management.

• Neil Stevenson is from the Law Society of Scotland.

Law Society's 'strategic change' fizzles out as protection of monopoly on access to legal services takes priority

Law Society Chief Douglas Mill's latest creation of 'strategic change', along with costly posts funded [but not voted on] by the membership, has not lasted long in the pretence of bringing change to the Scots legal profession in the face of looming changes to the way the public can access the legal services market.

As the new 'head' of 'strategic change' at the Law Society reveals in media articles today, the policy of the Law Society to maintain the closed shop of legal services, is to bring paralegals to the fore, ensuring they are fully 'Law Society registered' as the latest excuse to obstruct progress towards the opening of the legal services market to anyone suitably qualified and reaching suitable standards which the Law Society itself have never been able to attain or maintain.

I have covered this issue before here :

Open access to legal services & poorly regulated paralegals wont resolve public's lack of trust in lawyers

We don't need lawyers, we need non lawyers says Law Society of Scotland as Client Relations remain in the gutter

The Paralegals profession has existed for a long time - and enjoy almost the same high levels of complaints against poor service & conduct, as do solicitors.

A few recent examples of complaints against paralegals, which have seen everything from families cheated from inheritances to collapsed house sales and embezzled client funds, prove the paralegals profession is as badly regulated & maintained as solicitors ... who occasionally, or more often than not, transfer the blame of some of their actions back & forth to paralegals to get off the hook, and occasionally drafting in paralegals to back up lies, even fake up a bit of paperwork to avoid a serious complaint as some complaints investigations have revealed ...

Since paralegals are for the most, unregulated, pursuing complaints against their work has been problematic at best.

The Law Society, in their 'cunning plan' to maintain a closed shop of legal services, can see that paralegals themselves can be a key tool in the fight to maintain that monopoly of access to justice which the legal profession dominates .. so to this end, there is to be a scheme established to register paralegals .. and take them 'under the wing' of the Law Society itself.

This move will certainly not give any client a better chance of having a fair hearing of a complaint against a paralegal's poor service, probably as complaints figures against solicitors over the years have demonstrated, it will make matters much worse and ensure the Law Society's habit of whitewashing the legal profession for even the most serious scandals will continue long into the future.

So, what do we really need to bring change to the legal profession ?

Well, for a start, we need a fully independent legal services regulator, much like the Legal Services Board in England & Wales - something which Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill angrily denies Scotland needs - because he feels, as a lawyer himself, that the legal profession should be independent from the rest of us and be able to get away with what they please.

My earlier coverage of Justice Secretary MacAskill's rather hostile response to independent regulation of the legal profession :

Justice Secretary MacAskill insists on second class legal system for Scotland as England names & shames crooked lawyers

Such an independent legal services regulator, free from any influence or ex staff & hangers on from the Law Society of Scotland and it's various affiliates, could get on with the task of ensuring standards within an opened legal services market, and tackle regulation & disciplinary matters of all kinds, leaving the Law Society as little more than a union for lawyers as it always should have been - not the sole regulator of the legal profession as it has proved it cannot be.

Next up, we need, of course, the full & unrestricted opening up of the legal services market, from the current set up where only a Law Society of Scotland member can provide you with legal services or access to the courts, to that of a well policed open business structure where anyone who reaches a suitable standard of qualification and indemnity insurance coverage, can enter the legal services market and provide the legal services to the public which the Law Society feels it cannot, and no doubt at a much cheaper price than the Law Society feels it can provide ...

Gone should be the days of £159+VAT for three lines of text on an A4 page ... and legal work which might cost £200 spun out to end up as something like £4000 .. if only the legal services market could be opened up, but as you can see, the legal profession don't want to lose their cash cow, and control over how you, the public, have access to legal services and the courts - and that control extends far up the political ladder, as recent actions from the Justice Secretary on these issues, which can only be viewed pro-lawyer and anti-public.

Of course, to get the legal services market fully opened up, we need to have someone other than the Justice Secretary and the Lord President clearing individuals or companies applications to enter the legal services market, as both the Lord President and the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill are members of the Law Society of Scotland.

We all know the Law Society of Scotland wants to maintain the closed shop of legal services .. so it's no surprise that Mr MacAskill and the Lord President have been sitting down happily striking out all applications to enter the legal services market to-date.

As readers will recall, Mr MacAskill mislead both the Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney. and the Parliament itself on this matter where he claimed in a leaked letter that people could indeed apply for rights of representation - but all have failed so far under the pen of Mr MacAskill and the Lord President.

Kenny MacAskill writes to John Swinney - 'individuals can apply for rights of legal representation, but secretly we are killing off their applications in favour of lawyers ...'

So in short, no change from the Law Society in it's 'strategic change' policy, but that is not unexpected because let's face it - who would want to lose control over the biggest money making monopoly in Scotland today - control over access to justice, access to legal services, and the right to charge and fleece the public for exorbitant costs of using those legal services.

Something about a leopard never changing its spots ?

The Scotsman reports :

An exciting time as this ‘new profession’ matures

By NEIL STEVENSON

CONFUSED? You are not alone… paralegals have long been a vital part of the legal market in Scotland. You’ll find them working with individual clients looking to buy a home or take a civil case, and you’ll find them working for Scotland’s largest commercial firms and financial institutions.

The Scottish Government and local councils employ them, and they work within Scotland’s charities and not-for-profit organisations. But you’ll notice I still haven’t defined exactly what a paralegal is.

So what happens when you ask paralegals to define their title themselves? Surely they know what a paralegal is? “A non-solicitor fee-earner” comes close to a definition, but seems to lack aspiration. From my previous work in the NHS it is extremely hard to imagine a highly qualified and experienced nurse-manager describing themselves as a “non-doctor care-giver”.

“Professional legal support staff” at least avoids a definition that rests on not being something, but then “support” doesn’t capture the workload of the hundreds of paralegals who are actually providing valuable front-line services to clients.

Perhaps more concerning is the fact that anyone can currently use the title. While law firms tend to have rigorous recruitment and supervision arrangements, especially since the solicitors supervising the paralegals remain personally responsible for the quality of their work, this is not always the case with non-law firms.

The Law Society of Scotland has received complaints in the past from members of the public who have thought they were getting legal advice from a qualified and knowledgeable source, only to find that anyone can use the title paralegal, that there are no set standards of practice or required qualifications, and as a group paralegals are not formally regulated.

This lack of clarity is confusing for the public and those working in the sector alike. However, the Law Society of Scotland, the professional body for solicitors, is now set to establish a registration scheme for paralegals. The Society is working closely with the Scottish Paralegal Association (SPA), the independent professional association whose experienced members are calling for clear standards and more formal regulation of the sector.

Work is underway that will define the learning outcomes and workplace experience someone must have before they can use the term “Law Society of Scotland Registered Paralegal”. There will be an online database allowing professionals and members of the public to quickly confirm whether someone is registered. Once registered, paralegals will be required to stay up-to-date in the law and best practice in client care.

Paralegals will also be able to access Society services, including our highly respected professional practice helpline, our award-winning monthly Journal, and Update – our continuing professional development courses and online learning. There will be a clear progression path to more senior levels of registration.

Rigorous standards will be set and maintained that will be transparent and flexible. We hope to work with organisations providing paralegal training to learn from their experience about what is appropriate and relevant in education and assessment.

The views of the public and clients will also inform the work. The recent review of how to qualify as a solicitor provides valuable data on what non-solicitors think key skills for those working in the sector should be. And, of course, we’ll also consult with employers and paralegals themselves to make sure both education and work-based learning are at an appropriate level.

The outcome of this work should lead to paralegals working to clear standards that the public can refer to, a defined career development route for paralegals, and clear grades to help recruitment, development and retention of paralegals for employers.

With so much change in the profession and legal services market at the moment, I’m sometimes asked why I am regularly citing this project as one of the most exciting the Society has underway at the moment.

I believe it’s because we are seeing essentially a new profession, with all that enthusiasm and experience, start to emerge and be formally recognised.

And it’s because we are starting to see the “legal profession” as not just solicitors and advocates, but as a vibrant and thriving part of the Scottish economy to which a whole range of professionals contribute – something that will be a guiding theme for the Society in the future.

The Society hopes to announce more details in the spring but, if you want to sign-up to receive further information as soon as it’s available, then please e-mail your name to

• Neil Stevenson is the head of strategic change at the Law Society of Scotland.

Law Society 'can never change' as lawyers spin machine struggles to justify existence over catalogue of corruption

I have written more than enough articles on the woes of the Law Society of Scotland for readers to understand it has failed both its member base - solicitors, and even more importantly, the client base, and public.

Scarcely a week has gone by without some kind of legal scandal in Scotland, where a solicitor has ripped off or ruined a client, or multiple clients, and got away with it all because the Law Society of Scotland allowed them to, while making sure the poor ruined client got nothing.

So common a practice of lawyer ripping off client, and client getting nothing after a trek to the Law Society ... has become and so common a story to the newspapers, a news editor of one of Scotland's major newspapers last week in a phone call to me nicknamed the Law Society's office "The Shark Bowl", going on to say there were "too many politicians still in the pockets of the legal establishment who were preventing these continuing scandals from being put to bed." How true.

Nothing any of us who has had the bad luck to have to make a complaint against a lawyer didn't know already .. but nevertheless, heartening to know there are others 'on our side' who know the score ....

Well, last week, while I was writing my earlier story on the Master Policy insurance scheme of the Law Society of Scotland, one of the legal profession's hopeful entrants was writing about how the Law Society was, laughably but desperately trying to emerge as a "different organisation".

To get to this aim of being a "different organisation", the shadow of Douglas Mill rears itself once more, with the creation of yet another post, this time titled 'Head of Strategic Change' 'Director of Spin', taken up by Neil Stevenson, who will of course, be reporting directly to Douglas Mill.

Another rather sorry excuse from the Law Society, albeit paid for by the ever willing membership base of solicitors, who are seemingly only too happy to throw lots of money at Douglas Mill's self preserving policies ... for himself.

Oh .. and all these solicitors are seemingly only too happy to throw even more of their money (or clients money) at Douglas Mill while not even having a vote in what is actually going on inside the Law Society of Scotland ... and to think Mr Mill dared play the Zimbabwe 'dictatorship' card last year when trying to argue against the passage of the now passed Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 ...

So who gets to benefit from these 'strategic changes' at the Law Society ?

Well, not the public or client, that's for sure.

Its all to do with furthering the aims of the Law Society of Scotland, coming up with new ways to stifle pro consumer reforms, preventing the full opening of the legal services market to increase public choice in legal representation & service, and ensure ultimately the Law Society remains in charge of the legal market in Scotland.

In short, nothing good .. a talking shop if you like .. or even perhaps, just some 'window dressing' which a few political allies within the Scottish Parliament & Government can quote from time to time, insisting things are going to change, when we all know, they are not.

Surely if we have learned anything from the way the Law Society has failed solicitors & clients alike, it is that a separate independent organisation is needed to represent the public & users of the legal services industry.

The new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will do none of that - it is there simply to look at 'service complaints' against solicitors - and more to come on that next week ...

What the public and client need is an organisation, completely independent from lawyers, which will represent them and ensure there is a dedicated team of people able to help those who fall into the trap of poor unreliable untrustworthy and yes, crooked, legal services .. which for now certainly are more the norm than not in Scotland's legal services market.

The Law Society has done well out of corruption for years - made itself a good position in public life, given itself an extended power base particularly with regard to influence over public life, and political & financial decisions in Scotland which it does not deserve. The people within the Law Society are too used to these 'perks' of the job and will never give them up.

The Law Society, just as the leopard, will never truly change its spots. It will always be a club for lawyers to protect each other at the expense of the public.

The Scotsman reports :

'We can emerge as a different organisation'

By JENNIFER VEITCH

IF THE turn of a new year is a time for looking ahead to new challenges, then Neil Stevenson has more change than most to grapple with.

In his new post as the Law Society of Scotland's head of strategic change, he will be trying to stay on top of all the big issues currently facing the profession – revamping education, standards and, of course, alternative business structures.

If that wasn't enough to keep his in-tray piled high with lever arch files filled with background reading, the society is also carrying out a governance review that could lead to significant changes in its internal structure.

This newly created post represents a promotion for Stevenson, who was previously the society's deputy director of education and training.

But when strategic management is usually the domain of a chief executive, why did the society need him to step up?

"You must have picked up on the level of change facing the society at the moment and the profession," Stevenson says. "There is a great list of projects I could rattle off – the highest profile ones are education, alternative business structures and standards in the profession.

"It was just felt that the society had traditionally had real areas of expertise but had not had many people working across all the departments, and so that's really what the role is about. It's trying to make sure all these projects are co-ordinated and that they stay on track within some overall framework."

In recent years, planning must have seemed something of a luxury for the society, which has found itself on the back foot over issues like complaints handling, the Legal Profession and Legal Bill and, thanks to the Which? super-complaint, alternative business structures. Stevenson acknowledges that the society has often had to be reactive and now needs to take a more proactive approach.

"So often when issues that the society is tackling get covered in the press and suddenly become very visible to practising members of the profession, it's because there's been some external driver," he says.

"But actually most of these areas are being worked on, and what these external drivers have done is make the work more noticeable, more visible and more under scrutiny. But it is not necessarily been why the society started off on a project."

While Stevenson will report direct to chief executive Douglas Mill and his deputy, Henry Robson, he stresses that he will be working closely with other senior staff members including his old boss, director of education and training Liz Campbell, director of professional practice, Bruce Ritchie, director of law reform, Michael Clancy, and director of regulation, Philip Yelland.

"It is really about me working with other senior colleagues," he says. "That is why I am so excited about getting the job, because instead of just working with Liz, which was fantastic, now I am getting to work with all my senior colleagues and get involved in all the big projects that are going on. They are still leading them – I am trying to make sure everything is co-ordinating together."

Stevenson, who studied law at Edinburgh University and previously worked for NHS Education for Scotland, has considerable experience in running major projects for the society, such as the research into women and the profession and the recently published profile of the profession. He has also played a significant role in the ongoing consultation into education and training.

While education underpins many issues facing the profession, particularly regarding standards, he says he has much to learn about the bigger picture, and what practising solicitors think.

"There is a certain amount of getting up to speed – I am regularly being passed lever arch files of reading at the moment," he laughs. "I am also trying to make sure I am aware of the profession's views on new areas. I spoke to them a lot over education issues, but I want to make sure I am aware of what people who are practising think, as well as where we are trying to take policy."

With so many pressing changes facing the society and the profession, it will be difficult for Stevenson to have a priority. However, the short-term agenda is likely to be dominated by the society's consultation on alternative business structures, which is due to end on 31 January.

"We are looking at how we analyse the results of that, and what might happen next," he says, adding that this is far from straightforward. "Alternative business structures are something that members of the public will have a view on and will want to have their say on, but they are also in some ways quite difficult to understand.

"There will be complex regulation and overlaps with Companies House and the Financial Services Authority and so on, whereas standards of service that solicitors should be delivering, almost everyone you spoke to would have a view on that."

On standards, Stevenson plans to set up focus groups in the spring to gauge what consumers expect from solicitors, before moving to a full public consultation later in the year.

Of less direct interest to the public – and possibly even many in the profession – will be ongoing work to look at the governance of the society itself. Stevenson believes that structural change could be fundamental to ensuring the society "delivers what people want", but he cautions that it won't necessarily mean the society can respond more swiftly in the future.

"Some of these areas are incredibly complicated and they do take time – what we want to avoid is having a quick reaction just to prove we can move quickly," he says. "We want to make sure that where it's about areas such as public protection, we really are looking into what all the implications are before just making a quick response because one group wants it.

"Having worked in the public sector before coming here, I think we can be faster than some of the areas I have worked in previously. Equally I know there are probably examples of where we have been a bit slower.

"One of things we are trying to do is make sure we get it right and things like involving the public do take time to do properly. In some ways it is very easy to rush out a quick document, give people a few weeks to reply and say that's consultation."

Ultimately, amid the myriad challenges facing the society, Stevenson sees opportunity: "If you look at alternative business structures, standards, education, the fact we are reviewing internal structures – there's actually a huge package of change in place.

"Over the next couple of years, we have an opportunity to emerge as a very different type of organisation. For me, that is what is should be all about."