Poisoned Chalice : MacAskill forced to parachute Government’s own lawyer onto Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after Advocates shun job offer

Humiliation for Justice Secretary MacAskill in latest SLCC appointments round as no one applies for lawyer position. KENNY MACASKILL, Scotland’s Justice Secretary and the controversial anti-consumer Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) were both left in a humiliating position of being forced to beg Richard Keen QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates for help in finding a suitable recruit to fill a ‘lawyer-only’ position at the ‘independent’ law complaints regulator, the SLCC, after documents published today reveal not one single member of the entire Scottish legal profession applied for one of four newly created & lavishly paid positions on the SLCC’s board.

The lack of any candidates subsequently forced the Scottish Government to appoint its own standing Junior Counsel to the advertised position at the SLCC, in what some say amounted to a face saving exercise for the Justice Secretary.

The humiliating lack of interest from Scotland’s 460 or so Advocates in the latest recruitment drive for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s already lawyer-heavy board was revealed in documents obtained through Freedom of Information legislation which show only one Advocate ‘was identified’ by the Scottish Government’s own recruitment team for the ‘lawyer-only’ position, after no one else from the Faculty of Advocates applied to join the infamously anti-client, anti-consumer SLCC.

The sole ‘identified’ Advocate whose name was entered into the recruitment process was later named by the Justice Secretary as the well known Maurice O’Carroll, who happens to be the Scottish Government’s own standing Junior Counsel.

Scottish Government officials were forced to write to Faculty of Advocates after no one came forward to join the SLCC’s board. According to papers released in response to a Freedom of Information request to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Scotland (OCPAS), a recruitment panel chaired by Colin McKay, the Scottish Government’s Head of Legal Services Division, encountered difficulties in its stated mission to “identify specific advocates that they could approach” to fill the lawyer-only board appointment, forcing Mr McKay to write directly to the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates himself, Richard Keen QC “for his help in encouraging applications” to join the SLCC. However, it appears the Scottish Government’s plea to the Faculty fell on deaf ears, and not one Advocate came forward to join the frequent flyers from the legal profession who are already rooted on the SLCC’s board.

The lack of interest from advocates in joining the SLCC became such a humiliation, the Scottish Government were forced to ask for an exception to the code of public appointments. An email from the Scottish Government to OCPAS, obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information request read : “The panel interviewed the candidate and considered them suitable for appointment. The Lord President has now confirmed that he is content to accept the Panel’s assessment that the candidate is appointed.“We confirm that the current SLCC lawyer round resulted in there being a lack of choice to fill the lawyer member position on the Board. A low response was not unexpected as the applicants for this appointment must be a advocate practising in Scotland and therefore the pool of candidates is very small. The appointing Minister [Kenny MacAskill] was informed of the situation and gave his approval for the appointment round to continue. I therefore request an exception to the Code to allow us to proceed with the round on that basis.”

Humiliation for MacAskill as “no Ministerial choice being achieved” in SLCC’s lawyer-only board member recruitment process. The OCPAS assessor who sat in on the Scottish Government’s recruitment process reported to her superiors, stating : “This appointment was for a lawyer member with the person specification requiring applicants to be an Advocate practicing in Scotland. This appointment was part of an appointment round also appointing non lawyer members but it was able to proceed on a separate timetable resulting in a much shorter timescale being achieved. This was achieved primarily because of the limited field of potential applicants and the targeted advertising and short application form used.”

“Historically it has been difficult for the Commission to attract Advocates to these appointments. The targeted advertising and short application form may have contributed to the outcome of an appointable candidate being recommended albeit with no Ministerial choice being achieved.”

The Justice Secretary chose to omit any reference to the lack of interest in joining the SLCC, and simply, announced Mr O’Carroll’s appointment in a quietly issued press release, stating : “Mr O'Carroll has extensive and varied advocacy experience. His breadth of experience and professional standing will complement and strengthen the current Board. This appointment will run for five years from a date which has still to be confirmed but likely to be sometime around March. This post is part-time and attracts a remuneration of £212 per day for a time commitment of up to six days per month.”

A senior source within the Scottish Government’s Justice Department speaking earlier this week to Diary of Injustice said : “This has been a face saving exercise for the Justice Secretary. If Mr O’Carroll had not been parachuted into the appointments process, there would have been no takers for the poisoned chalice of a position on the board of the SLCC.”

The SLCC announced in November it was looking for four ‘Frequent Flyers” to join its board : High Salaries & little work as a sweetener. The latest recruitment round for adding four additional “frequent flyers” to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s board, where expenses claims are lavish, and work is minimal, were split into three positions earmarked for ‘non-lawyers’ with “consumer backgrounds” and one lawyer member’ who was “required to be a practising advocate”. I reported on the recruitment announcement in an earlier article of November 2010, here : Quangocrats wanted : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seek ‘non-lawyer’ board members with legal & ‘consumer’ backgrounds at £209+ a day

Solicitors were apparently excluded from the latest ‘lawyer-only’ board member position because the SLCC felt it looked like there were too many solicitors, former solicitors & even non-practicing solicitors on its board already, namely Professor Alan Paterson OBE, FRSE, David Smith, Margaret Scanlan OBE & David Chaplin.

It is also noteworthy that much of the SLCC’s current staff who actually handle the complaints work, migrated over from the Law Society of Scotland’s Client Relations Office, itself which has been the focus of well founded accusations of corrupt self-regulation of solicitors and regular cover ups to protect ‘crooked lawyers’ from complaints lodged by financially ruined clients.

It will be interesting to see exactly who qualifies for the SLCC’s three new ‘non-lawyer’ positions, as the current crop of ‘non-lawyer’ board members comprises two ex-senior Police Officers, a member of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and a Doctor with several other quango positions including one at the Accounts Commission for Scotland. More details on the SLCC’s board members and their numerous positions can be found in an earlier article, here : More ‘jobs for the boys’ than action on ‘crooked lawyers’ : What it takes to be a Board Member at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

A legal insider speaking to Diary of Injustice this morning indicated observers of the SLCC may not be in for too much of a surprise in who will be appointed by the Justice Secretary to the three ‘non-lawyer’ positions currently on offer at £209+ per day along with additional expenses, for as little as six days work per month and lasting five years.

It is also worth bearing in mind that work is not a problem at the SLCC, as there isn’t much to do, which I revealed last month, here : ‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report

The new quangocrats will have a chance to work with existing SLCC Board members already featured in newspapers for being ‘on the razzle’. The recruitment advertisement from the Scottish Government stated : “The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) requires 3 non lawyer members to become part of their Board with effect from February 2011. The successful candidates will be appointed by Scottish Ministers in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session.As a non lawyer member you will have the ability to apply objective and impartial judgement to the resolution of disputes, have the ability to offer guidance on one or more of the following Commission activities: regulation, consumer rights, consumer advocacy, consumer needs and have the ability to contribute to an effective team.”

The Scottish Government issued a statement in response to queries from Diary of Injustice about the latest failed SLCC appointments round. Their spokesperson said : "Mr O'Carroll was appointed following an open and transparent recruitment process regulated by the Scottish Commissioner for Public Appointments."

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a brief statement, saying : “All Members of the SLCC Board are Ministerial public appointments and are made in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland’s Code of Practice.”

Neither the SLCC nor the Scottish Government commented on allegations Mr O’Carroll ‘was volunteered for the appointment’, or revelations not one Advocate applied for the position other than one of the Government’s own lawyers.

Given the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has only upheld one single complaint against an unknown solicitor or law firm in the past three years, I doubt the level of work will be much of a problem for any of the new recruits to the SLCC’s Board. Readers can find out just how effective the SLCC has been since it came into being, in my coverage of its 2010 annual report, revealed last month, here : ‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report

My earlier coverage of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its much less than expected performance as a regulator of complaints against Scotland’s legal profession, can be read here : The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – The story so far

Background to new ‘lawyer board member’ of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission :

Maurice O’Carroll, appointed to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Mr O'Carroll is a graduate of the University of Edinburgh who was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1995. Prior to being called to the Bar Mr O'Carroll worked in Brussels for three years, initially with the European Commission and then with a commercial law firm specialising in international trade. Since 2002 he has been ad hoc Advocate Depute for the Crown Office and Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Government since 2003. He has a range of experience which includes planning inquiry work, public and administrative law, conducting employment tribunals and employment appeals tribunals, Inner House experience and providing opinions in relation to each of these areas.

Fresh appointments sleaze at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as FOIs reveal protests against independent oversight of board member recruitment

Fresh appointments row at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as legal establishment attempts to control selection process. Serious concerns on the independence of the scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have been expressed by both clients & consumer groups after the release of documents today showing that a Judge serving on the panel which appointed the SLCC's current board members protested to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, over the involvement of Scotland's independent appointments regulator OCPAS - The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland.

Lord Wheatley protested to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill over problems with the SLCC’s appointments process. The judge in question, Lord Wheatley, himself a member of the Judicial Appointments Board Judicial Appointments Board, and also a member of the Privy Council alleged in letters to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, released today under FOI, that the involvement of ‘outsiders’ on the SLCC’s appointments process “was constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy” and even went onto accuse the appointments regulator OCPAS as ‘being a judge in its own cause’ –something the legal establishment seems to have a habit of doing without too much concern !

Transparency is seemingly not a good thing when it comes to revealing the backgrounds of those appointed to ‘independently’ handle complaints against Scottish lawyers. Lord Wheatley felt that the role of Scotland's independent appointments Commissioner was improper during the appointment of the initial batch of board members to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, appointments which saw mostly lawyers, ex lawyers, and ex Police appointed to the new law complaints body which was promised to better handle complaints against 'crooked lawyers' but which has degenerated into farce, scandal and openly expressed prejudice against consumers who dare raise complaints against Scotland's legal profession.

I reported on the first round of appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry however, strangely, the letters released now under Freedom of Information legislation were not released at the time despite FOI requests … and when I went on to investigate further, the Justice Secretary tried to gag the appointments regulator from releasing information on the matter last year, which I reported here : Justice Secretary MacAskill fails in 'gag attempt' of Appointments Chief over quango jobs for lawyers sleaze

Lord Wheatley in his letter of protest to the Justice Secretary said : "I was astonished to find the OCPAS Assessor was to take part in the decision-making process itself. I considered that this was seriously inappropriate, but in the circumstances the only realistic course was to continue with the process on the basis that I could explain my concerns to you when it was completed. I believe that I discussed this issue thoroughly and openly with the other members of the panel at all times. He went on : “My Worry can be simply expressed. It is wholly inappropriate, and constitutionally unsound in a mature democracy, for an organisation such as OCPAS to validate a decision-making process in which it elects to take part. Among other things, OCPAS serves the invaluable role of overseeing that the exercise of making public appointments is properly carried out. it can hardly claim that it is in a position to make an independent assessment of such a process when the organisation involves itself in the making of such appointments. Being a judge in your own cause has long been regarded as inconsistent with, and alien to, fundamental democratic principles."

Appointments Commissioner's office replied to Lord Wheatley's protests, attempting to allay the judge's 'misgivings'. The sharp protests of Lord Wheatley to Justice Secretary MacAskill drew a response direct from the Appointments Commissioner's office, defending the role of independent assessors in the appointments process in their reply to Lord Wheatley stating : "It is the Commissioner's current view that there are sufficient checks and balances in the system, such as external audit of the process, to ensure that the nature and extent of that involvement continues to be recognised as appropriate and valuable to other participants in the process."

Lord Wheatley revealed in his reply to the Appointments Commissioner, that he had not been briefed on appointments code by the Scottish Government. The reply from the Appointments Commissioner's office led to a further reply from Lord Wheatley, who climbed down somewhat from his initial protests to the Justice Secretary, but the judge revealed he had amazingly not been briefed on the code of conduct for appointments nor supplied with a copy of it from the Scottish Government, despite Mr MacAskill appointing him to the selection panel for the SLCC’s first round of appointments !

Diary of Injustice reported on latest SLCC appointments scandal in early July. As I revealed a few weeks ago, the SLCC was hit with a new appointments scandal this year, after one of the current lay members on its board decided to step down, forcing a new appointments round, which was started in early February 2009. However, the new appointments round was quickly cancelled in April after reports in the media of scandals involving SLCC board members and officials who had sought to exclude consumer groups & law reform campaigners from consultations and investigations into issues such as the Law Society's infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy & the mired-in-fraud 'Guarantee Fund', two compensation schemes touted by the Law Society itself as being the "ultimate in consumer protection" but which in reality are little more than heavily corrupt schemes run by the Law Society itself to protect crooked lawyers rather than compensating clients.

I reported on the results of the research into the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund in the following two articles : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers & Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

SLCC's Chair Jane Irvine 'wanted independent appointments assessor off her interview panel' However, the protests against the independent assessors taking part in the SLCC’s appointments process di dnot stop with Lord Wheatley, as further documents released through Freedom of Information legislation today show amazingly the SLCC's Chairman, Jane Irvine, also protested against the involvement of independent assessors to the now cancelled 2009 round of appointments, citing apparent conflicts of interest in the role of independent assessors which seem rather mild compared to the conflicts of interests most of those currently working at the SLCC have themselves, coming mostly from backgrounds associated or linked with the legal profession in one way or another.

SLCC's Chair Jane Irvine 'keen on having senior member of the legal profession on appointments panel'. In emails released, Jane Irvine states to the Justice Department : "You asked me just to let you have a note of why we would prefer not to have an OCPAS representative on the interview panel. As we discussed the primary reason is that of conflict. I state immediately we recognize and respect OCPAS's oversight role. We no that our appointments will be subject to scrutiny. We think OCPAS can comment independently on the process, but not if they are part of it as part of the interview panel. Put simply either they are in oversight or participation mode. We do not think that they can do both and think their value here is in oversight mode.” Jane Irvine went on : "In addition as you know I am very keen we have a senior member of the legal profession on the panel and like your suggestion of a senior member from a consumer advice/representation body if we are aiming to recruit someone from a regulatory/consumer advice background."

A spokesman for a consumer organisation expressed shock after reading the released papers from the SLCC. She said : "Clearly there is a strong indication in the papers released under FOI that the appointments process for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is a mess. I do not see any benefit to transparency in throwing off the independent assessors who are there to safeguard the public interest in appointments to public bodies such as the SLCC."

She went on : "Clearly there has been an organised attempt from the very beginning to undermine the independence of the SLCC as it was initially promised in the LPLA Act by what can only be described as resistance from the legal establishment to the concept of any outside scrutiny of the SLCC’s operations, even it seems in the appointments stage of placing people onto the SLCC whom the legal profession clearly want to have there without too much fuss."

Appointments Commissioner’s office warned the Justice Department the independent assessor would still intervene if appointments code not complied with. In a round of further correspondence released through FOI, the Appointments Commissioner's office reported it had discussed the matter with the SLCC's Chair, Ms Irvine, but while agreeing that the assigned OCPAS appointments assessor "would play the usual role in the appointments process, with the assessor contributing as a selection panel member to the panel's collective decision", OCPAS apparently conceded to the wishes of the SLCC and the Law Society, saying the assessor "will not ask questions at the interview but will instead observe and take notes on the interview process." However, the Appointments Commissioner's office warned the Justice Department that "If the OA believes during interviews that the code is not being complied with, for example if they believe that a candidate has not been questioned on the same areas as other candidates or a candidate is questioned inappropriately, our expectation is that the OA will intervene immediately."

You can read the complete FOI releases from the Office of the Commissioner for Appointments in Scotland HERE and the Scottish Government’s FOI release on the SLCC’s now cancelled appointments round HERE

A legal insider after reading the latest Freedom of Information releases on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission branded the commission “worthless” and “a fit up for consumers with problem solicitors”.

So we are left with the feeling that little changes in the legal world, when it comes to regulating the legal profession and handling clients complaints against crooked solicitors. The Law Society have always stated they wish to retain full control of regulation, and that wish is certainly evident in every facet of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, from the appointment of its board members, to senior staff, to its policy on complaints from members of the public, which for the main seem in their results to be little more than a reflection of the Law Society’s policies of whitewashing complaints against solicitors, no matter how bad they are.

While the SLCC Chair, and senior judges are quick to protest over alleged conflicts of interest relating to the independent appointments regulators, where it seems a little transparency is unwelcomed if it doesn’t come from within the legal world itself, there is not one protest in sight from those very same people over the level of injustice their colleagues in the legal profession are causing to members of the public, some of whom have committed suicide over the way they have been treated by the likes of the Law Society and thoroughly corrupt lawyers.

In the circumstances, one can easily conclude the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is unfit for purpose, and is definitely not to be trusted by the public in its current format.

SLCC appointments scandal 'humiliation' for Justice Secretary as MacAskill forced to abandon new lay member recruitment

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was forced to cancel appointments round after media reports of scandals at the SLCC. Amid denials from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission that at least one of it's lay members who were personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill last year wished to 'step down', revelations from Scotland's independent appointments regulator and sources now confirm the incident did take place and that the new appointments round, had to be abruptly cancelled by the Justice Secretary just one month later after reports appeared in the media of scandals involving the SLCC's lawyer members.

SLCC delayed publication of meetings details for 5 months to hide secret recruitment drive. The Legal Complaints Commission's requirement for new lay members only emerged this week, in the five month late publication of their meetings minutes, which insiders allege was a deliberate delay to cover up the fact that at least one commission lay member had asked to step down, as I reported earlier, here : Justice Secretary forced into new appointments round at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after lay member ‘steps down’

Media reports showed extreme anti-public bitterness at SLCC. However, revelations from documents obtained under the Freedom of Information act which I reported on, and were also reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper, portrayed board members & staff of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as anti-consumer, anti-reform, and having the same closed shop mentality as the Law Society of Scotland, where papers showed that board members had engaged in bitter hate fuelled rants against victims of crooked lawyers, had also attacked individuals who were claiming compensation against 'crooked lawyers' and were seemingly more interested in being out on the town than performing their public duties.

Scottish appointments regulator OCPAS confirmed they were involved in now cancelled recruitment of SLCC lay members. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland have now confirmed they were involved in an abruptly cancelled round of lay member appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, initiated in February by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill who was then forced to cancel the appointments round after only a month, in April.

A spokesman for OCPAS said : "We did assign an OCPAS Assessor to oversee a new appointments round for the SLCC in February of this year. The Scottish Government cancelled the round in April before it got beyond the planning stage. This is the prerogative of the Scottish Ministers."

He continued : "It is not possible for the Scottish Ministers to recruit ministerial appointees for the Commission without our regulatory oversight. When we do have regulatory oversight over appointments the vacancies always have to be publicised appropriately. As a minimum they must be publicised on the Scottish Government’s public appointments website"

SLCC Board members – Who wants to step down now ? However, this is not the first time board members have wanted to 'step down' at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has received over £2 million pounds of public money so far, where board members earn up to £350 a day in expenses, and some salaries of particular members of staff are hitting up to £1350 a week.

I reported earlier that the entire board of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission threatened to resign over a lack of insurance cover and increased perks, which itself could have also provoked another costly round of appointments by the Justice Secretary. On that occasion, the Scottish Government were forced to give in, and bow to the demands of the SLCC board members.

Scottish Government ‘were humiliated’ by lawyers complaints quango the SLCC. A Scottish Government insider talking about the scandal at the SLCC claimed today the whole episode "had made a fool out of the Justice Secretary" after Mr MacAskill instituted a new appointments round for lay members in February of this year, but was then forced to cancel it just a few weeks later.

Media focus on booze culture & secret goings on at SLCC derailed the latest shoe-in appointments. The insider claimed : "The SLCC's failure to competently handle their lay member issue ended up causing a lot of problems for the Justice Secretary and Justice Department officials, who, after the media reports on Margaret Scanlan and Eileen Masterman, had to cancel the new recruitment round the commission itself had requested."

"Secrecy on the issue was viewed as important as the SLCC was presenting its budget to Parliament and no one wanted awkward questions on the conduct of ministerial appointees and the fact some suspected there would have been shoe-in appointments if there had been no press attention."

He went on : "I understand the whole episode was very humiliating for MacAskill and the justice team. They were and still are very angry over the whole thing but many are thinking the SLCC is just not up to the job they are supposed to be doing."

A spokesman for a consumer organisation today also expressed concern over the SLCC's handling of the appointments affair. He said : "If the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission always choose the secrecy route in trying to hide their problems then I don't see how the public can have any confidence in them at all."

He continued : "This latest affair, which seems to show the Government and the commission were trying to hide their need for new lay members raises questions over the whole appointments process, especially where lay members are supposed to be independent of the legal profession and are there to balance the complement of lawyers already sitting on the SLCC."

A member of the public, who read my earlier report this week on the lay member scandal at the SLCC decided to call in and ask for an explanation.

He said : "After reading your report on Monday, I called the SLCC to ask why lay members were resigning but the person I spoke to denied there were any resignations or anyone wanted to step down, despite the fact it says in their own minutes a lay member was going to step down which you also published. How can anyone trust an organisation like that ?"

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine – greater clarity needed at SLCC for new lay members. To end the theme of secret resignations & secret appointments for now, the SLCC managed a two line reference in their April minutes to the ‘delay’ of the lay appointments round. The SLCC’s Chairman, Jane Irvine is quoted in the briefest terms as saying : “The Chair also advised that SGvt have agreed to defer the additional appointment of Lay Members to the Board until there is greater clarity over need by the SLCC.”

However the April minutes have only now been released, months after the events took place which you read by clicking on the following thumbnails :

SLCC April’s minutes – published 5 months late, hopefully not for public eyes ?

So, it seems, secrecy and outright lies are the order of the day at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where news of internal scandals and the failures of its board members to live up to their expected duties towards the public are concealed, just in the same way the Law Society of Scotland conceals all its dirty operations. Is this what we expected from the hard work put in on the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 ? I think not.

Justice Secretary MacAskill fails in 'gag attempt' of Appointments Chief over quango jobs for lawyers sleaze

Papers just released show the Scottish Government’s Justice Department, acting on the authority of its Minister, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill attempted to impose a blanket of secrecy and lies to protect the legal profession over their release of inaccurate details of lawyers and their regulatory or service histories, who the Justice Secretary personally appointed to the 'independent' but now discredited Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Scottish Government attempted to gag independent Appointments Commissioner over lawyers service details :

Amazingly, not only did the Scottish Government attempt to gag the Commissioner over disclosing the truth about the lawyer appointments, the Government also demanded that OCPAS swap their disclosure of the actual material for an entirely false statement which was to read as follows :

Kenny MacAskill’s Justice Dept ordered OCPAS issue the public a misleading statement : "It is in our view that in this case the information in its present form should not be released without the consent of the individuals concerned. However, a general statement that no appointees had findings of professional misconduct recorded against them would be acceptable"

It is of little surprise the Scottish Government's Justice Department were so desperate to gag the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland (OCPAS) over the release of documents, which now conclusively prove there were no proper disclosures from the legal profession over Kenny MacAskill's sleaze appointments of lawyers and former Law Society Committee members to the 'independent' but now discredited Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland thankfully refused to be drawn into the Scottish Government’s web of secrecy, and promptly released the documents, which I covered in an earlier report here: Legal Complaints Commission discredited after revelations Law Society lied during ‘stage managed’ appointments process

All this may cause some to wonder why the Justice Secretary is so determined to protect the Law Society of Scotland and his own appointees to the discredited legal complaints commission.

Kenny MacAskill – I will always defend lawyers …

Well .. there isn't much need to wonder, because not only does the release of the Law Society documents make the Justice Secretary look at best, misleading, the released documents now also contradict responses given by the First Minister, Alex Salmond, who was asked in January to conduct a full investigation into the appointments to the SLCC after revelations of sleaze.

First Minister's letter now contradicted by Law Society disclosure ".. we must abide by the OCPAS Code of Practice which ensures that selection is based on merit and individuals selected will be those who have demonstrated that they best match the skills, knowledge and personal qualities requiredfor the appointment in question.Candidates were also probed on probity and potential conflicts of interest.As you may be aware from the recruitment literature shortlisted lawyer candidates were subject to checks on their disciplinary records”

however, from my earlier report here :

Philip Yelland only gave limited information on the lawyer applicants : "I should point out to you that in terms of upheld complaints the only issues which it seems to be would be relevant would be if there were findings of professional misconduct against any of the individuals. Service complaints run against firms rather than individuals."

So, clearly the First Minister was misinformed by the Law Society and his Justice Secretary over the state of the checks on the appointees disciplinary records, because there were none – only the Law Society’s say so, which has now been revealed to be inaccurate in its content.

It does stretch the bounds of credibility Mr Salmond wasn't able to find out for himself what really happened .. and make no mistake - what really happened was that the legal profession, along with elements of the Justice Department of the Scottish Government stitched up what was to be an 'independent' complaints commission which has now been turned into just another rubber stamp quango for 'crooked lawyers', as many of you are attesting to yourselves in comments and emails.

Scottish Government feared stories of impropriety on MacAskill’s jobs for lawyers and ex-cops on law complaints quango appointments : “Chief Superintendent Douglas Watson is facing an internal inquiry after he walked out on his wife to be with an officer he hand-picked for a specialist squad.Watson, the former head of CID, was picked by Chief Constable Paddy Tomkins to head up the Capital Project, which will completely change the way Edinburgh is policed and create a single 1,000-officer super-division….”

Apparently OCPAS were denied access to material relating to the internal investigations into SLCC appointee and former Police Chief & Law Society Committee member Douglas Watson, nor were details of those investigations made public, raising questions on why the Justice Department covered it up.

Its a pity that our own fellow Scots in the current Scottish Government are going along with this, protecting crooked lawyers and an ever corrupt Scots legal system from reform and genuine change. Is that what 'Scottish Government' is all about these days ?, bending over to the professions, promoting injustice, and protecting the dishonest and crooked at any cost ?

Justice Secretary MacAskill misused Government appointments regulator in ‘jobs for lawyers’ scandal

Emerging evidence after my article last week reporting the Justice Secretary Mr MacAskill’s appointment of a lawyer identified in a claims & complaints fixing scandal at the Law Society of Scotland , now indicates the Justice Secretary may have deliberately misused references to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland, or OCPAS as it is generally known, which performs its duties according to legislation to independently regulate Ministerial appointments.

It seems the Justice Secretary felt, due to the nature of the tricky appointments of Martin McAllister and Lady Smith to the Judicial Appointments Board, his Department had to bring in an OCPAS Assessor to justify a series of appointments which now look increasingly like 'jobs for the boys’ .. or at least, jobs for lawyers ….

The problem for Mr MacAskill in that endeavour was that according to OCPAS itself who issued a statement : “Appointments to the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland are not currently regulated by the Commissioner. We are not in a position to assign OCPAS Assessors to oversee appointments to the board of this body until such time as those appointments are statutorily brought within our remit. We did not assign an OCPAS Assessor to oversee these appointments.”

In my article of last week I revealed that :

*Martin McAllister who was appointed to the Judicial Appointments Board by Kenny MacAskill, was identified by Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney in a claims & complaints fixing scandal at the Law Society of Scotland, which sought to delay and destroy claims from clients & members of the public against well known crooked lawyers.

*Lady Smith, who was also appointed to the Judicial Appointments Board by Kenny MacAskill, saw her husband, David Smith only a few weeks earlier appointed, to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission , also by Kenny MacAskill, giving Scotland a legal first in an unprecedented 'husband and wife team' on key judicial and legal regulation reforms.

Since my article of last week, it has emerged through an investigation with OCPAS, the Justice Secretary and Justice Department may have knowingly and falsely claimed the OCPAS assessor had acted in her professional capacity as an OCPAS assessor and had followed and passed Mr MacAskill’s appointments to the Judicial Appointments Board.

A ‘legal insider’ on the scandal claimed today “There is no way the Justice Department can claim ignorance over OCPAS rules which have been well known in Government for years.”

This therefore, seems to have been a clear and deliberate attempt by the Justice Minister and Scottish Government Justice Department to mislead the public and Parliament on the nature of key legal appointments.

Justice Secretary MacAskill commented last week : "The Judicial Appointments Board currently operates on an administrative basis and is therefore not subject to OCPAS regulations. However, the selection panel included an OCPAS assessor and followed good recruitment practice in making the recommendations for appointment."

When asked about the Justice Secretary's statement, OCPAS angrily denied they had been contacted by Scottish Ministers over the Judicial Appointments or that their their Assessor, identified as Anja Amsel, was acting in her professional capacity as an appointments assessor :

OCPAS "We were not contacted by Scottish Government to assign an OCPAS Assessor to this appointments round. As these are not regulated appointments at the current time we would not have, in any case, been able to provide an OCPAS Assessor to oversee the round.

The relevant Scottish Government sponsor team for appointments to this body will have entered into a private agreement with the individual [Anja Amsel] who oversaw the round."

Late last week, after my report had been published, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland upon a brief investigation, ordered the Justice Department to re-write Kenny MacAskill's Press Release, ordering no reference be made to OCPAS under the circumstances, which then ended up as the following “However, the selection panel included an OCPAS assessor acting in an independent capacity and followed good recruitment practice in making the recommendations for appointment."

It seems however, the Justice Secretary was determined to keep in the OCPAS reference, albeit tentatively, to justify his appointment of colleagues in the legal profession to key areas of recent reforms to judicial and legal regulation.

While there is no suggestion at this stage that Ms Amsel did anything wrong, it remains questionable of Mr MacAskill why the Justice Department have been so reluctant to remove reference to her involvement despite requests from OCPAS to remove references to their department.

However, yesterday, OCPAS again ordered the Government to rewrite Kenny MacAskill's release an unprecedented second time seeing that any reference to OCPAS was removed :

OCPAS Statement “[OCPAS] have … written to the relevant sponsor team this afternoon asking for a second change to the press release such that reference to OCPAS is removed”

As of this afternoon, no effort had yet been made by the Government to correct Mr MacAskill’s failing claims of transparency for the Judicial Appointments Board selection …

The roots of Mr MacAskill's determination to involve OCPAS in the tricky appointments of colleagues from the legal establishment to these key areas of regulation appear to lie in the fact that OCPAS is carrying out an investigation into related appointments by Mr MacAskill of senior lawyers & Law Society Committee members, widely seen as sleazy in nature to what was to be the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which you can read more about here :

Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

A source within the Government who did not wish to be identified said today that "Mr MacAskill and the Justice Department seem to have felt that dragging OCPAS into the appointments to the Judicial Appointments Board would be advantageous to the Government, weakening the independence of OCPAS and any possibility of a further investigation by anyone into Mr McAllister & Lady Smith's appointment to the Judicial Appointment Board."

So, while the Justice Department claimed an honest mistake had been made, it seems the Scottish Government deliberately set out to undermine any potential investigation into Mr MacAskills appointments to the Judicial Appointments Board, by involving a ministerial regulator already involved in an investigation related to one of the appointees, namely Lady Smith, but which OCPAS, in this case, had no remit to regulate ...

Guidance from the Office of Public Appointments for Scotland is fairly straightforward :

“Use of the Code as guidance

The Commissioner recognises that unregulated bodies may use the Code as guidance. In such instances, the OCPAS regulated logo may not appear in publicity or other materials relating to the appointment round. Leaflets and other information about OCPAS may not be included in the application pack.”

I understand that when bodies choose to do so they may refer to Government for a list of individuals who are willing to work on unregulated rounds on a freelance basis. Under no circumstances are such individuals permitted to advise that they are doing so in the capacity of OCPAS Assessor"

That seems fairly clear, and Mr MacAskill was well aware of those terms, so why did he choose to use OCPAS to justify what now appears to be a questionable appointments process to panel which appoints Scotland's judges ?

The Office of Public Appointments for Scotland were having none of Mr MacAskill's excuses, their statement continued to contradict the Justice Secretary's claims of an innocent muddle .. :

OCPAS Statement : "[OCPAS has...] discussed the press release with the relevant Scottish Government sponsor team and explained our expectation that no reference should be made to the use of OCPAS Assessors (OAs) unless they are working in that capacity. OAs may only work in that capacity on appointment rounds regulated by the Commissioner. As advised previously, appointments to JABS are not currently regulated by the Commissioner"

In a startling rebuff to the Justice Secretary amid a sense of sleaze in recent Ministerial appointments to the likes of the Judicial Appointments Board, the Office of Public Appointments for Scotland has now changed the rules under which their assessors work, and issued the following stern statement :

"The Commissioner has already changed OCPAS policy on the type of work that OCPAS Assessors may do such that in future no acting OCPAS Assessor may work as an independent assessor on unregulated appointments rounds. Revised service level agreements have been issued to all OAs to reflect that change in policy."

So it looks like Ministers trying to appoint professional colleagues and husband & wife teams to key regulatory positions wont be able any longer to drag in the Office of Public Appointments for Scotland to justify jobs for the boys. Well .. that surely is a good development .. and a little more scrutiny wont hurt anyone who doesn't have something to hide ...

A source within OCPAS then went on to confirm that Ms Amsel who was asked by the Justice Department to sit in on Kenny MacAskill's appointments selection is to leave OCPAS this year : "Anja Amsel and one other assessor, who are working notice on the old service level agreements which allowed this practice, are ceasing to work for OCPAS this year."

OCPAS have now been asked to investigate why their office has been misused in this way in an apparent attempt to justify the appointments to the Judicial Appointments Board.

Well done Mr MacAskill. How many more organisations and people will you rope in to smooth over courtesy appointments from the legal establishment to keep business, expenses claims, salaries and regulation among themselves ?

Mr MacAskill, how about some showing some Ministerial responsibility towards the Scottish public instead of putting the legal profession above ordinary people’s rights and consumer protection ?

Is it not about time we had a truly independent regulator of Scotland’s legal profession, instead of Law Society of Scotland string pulling and your acquiescence to it ?