KEEN TO TALK: Advocate General with criminal conviction for firearms offence promotes ‘UK Legal Services are best’ campaign in Singapore - in effort to attract Asian customers to Brexit-hit UK legal market

Lord Keen of Elie in Singapore. A GOVERNMENT minister with a conviction for a firearms offence is currently in Singapore on a taxpayer funded bash - promoting a UK Legal Services are great campaign in the hope of attracting Asian customers to the UK’s dwindling legal services sector and courts.

Lord Keen – real name Richard Sanderson Keen - who joined the Lords on 8 June 2015 and was appointed Advocate General for Scotland – has flown to Singapore to promote the UK legal industry in a social media & twitter #LegalServicesAreGREAT campaign to promote the UK as a hub of legal excellence.

However, the same Lord Keen was convicted of a firearms related offence in March 2017.

The campaign, hosted at the UK High Commission and other venues in Singapore - brings together lobby groups such as the Law Society of England & Wales, the Law Society of Scotland, a host of legal firms, and so-called ‘independent’ legal regulators – the Legal Ombudsman, Bar Council and others.

Asian customers attending the Singapore conference are invited to “Discover what makes UK legal services great - The UK's legal system has inspired and influenced similar legal systems worldwide. Every year, we attract many international businesses who want to take advantage of the UK’s globally respected legal services.”

Attendees to the conference have listened to Lord Keen promoting UK legal services and the so-called world respected UK legal profession & industry.

However, in March 2017, Lord Keen – who also once held the post of Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - was fined £1,000 after admitting a firearms offence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

Earlier this year, Advocate General for Scotland Richard Keen QC pleaded guilty – by letter - to breaching section two of the Firearms Act 1968 by ‘failing to secure a shotgun’.

Police investigating a ‘break-in’ at one of Mr Keen’s properties – a house in Edinburgh - found that the weapon had been left outside a secure cabinet.

The weapon, a Stephen Grant 12 Gauge shotgun - was outside its required storage area and was in a position to have been made use of, should the need have arisen – observed one firearms expert.

The incident & related court hearings,-  which sources claim contained “incredulous assertions” prompted a media investigation revealing the extent of firearms ownership by top lawyers & judges, reported here:  SILENCERS IN COURT: ‘Guns & Ammo’ rife in Scotland’s legal elite - Police Scotland disclose firearms ownership of judges, sheriffs, lawyers, advocates, QCs & Crown Office prosecutors

The new Legal Services Are Great campaign, staged by the UK Government and funded by taxpayers cash – in which Lord Keen plays a role - comes amid fears Brexit could turn to Lexit – where legal firms & litigants may chose to conduct arbitration & court business in other jurisdictions.

A post by the Ministry of Justice on Medium.com titled “Why UK legal services are GREAT”  claims: The UK is home to the best legal services in the world. That is the message of our new global campaign to promote the UK’s legal services. With over 200 international law firms, the UK is a global hub of legal expertise

From nearly four decades in the legal profession and as a UK Government minister and Advocate General for Scotland, I have seen first-hand the exceptional talent and expertise within our legal services sector across the whole of the UK.

In a global and competitive marketplace, we know what international clients want when they’re looking for legal services.

Clients want to choose a law to govern their contracts that gives them the flexibility, confidence and certainty they need. They want legal firms that have a track record in and reputation for providing expert advice. They want judges that are not only experts but also incorruptible and fair when it comes to settling disputes. They want courts that are expeditious and that harness the latest technology. These qualities are all woven into the fabric of the UK’s legal services.

The Ministry of Justice campaign goes onto claim:

Experienced judges: Our judges are renowned for their independence, rigour and commercial expertise in all aspects of the law. As a result, UK court judgments carry a guarantee of excellence which is respected internationally.

Professional expertise: The UK’s regulated barristers and solicitors represent clients worldwide. From helping you close cross-border business deals and manage financial transactions to resolving international disputes, our lawyers have the global expertise to help you build your business.

Robust contract law: English law is the most popular choice of law for commercial contracts. Valued for its clarity, it’s the world’s most enduring common law system and can provide certainty and security for your business deals.

UK: the cradle of the rule of law: The UK is the cradle of the rule of law. The roots of English law are deep; its adoption and influence is wide. It is the product of hundreds of years of evolution — of gradual refinement, development and extension, precedent after precedent.

As a result, English common law is clear, predictable and familiar. It underpins over a quarter of the world’s jurisdictions. It is the most popular choice of law in the world for commercial contracts and governs about 40% of all global corporate arbitrations.

UK: home to great law firms, expert judges and modern courts: But it is not just the pedigree of English law that makes the UK attractive. Our law firms, our judges and our courts that administer, interpret and arbitrate on the law are world-renowned.

Take UK law firms. With four of the top ten law firms in the world and with over 16,000 barristers, the UK has a wealth of talent and top legal expertise and advocacy.

Take UK Judges. They are respected internationally for their intellect, independence and commercial expertise, with many having specialist knowledge and practical understanding of commercial matters they are judging.

Take the UK’s judicial processes and courts. They do not just have hundreds of years of history behind them, they are among the best in the world in terms of being digitally-enabled.

The UK’s legal heritage, together with its expertise and innovation, makes it a popular choice for clients around the world. London brings access to the world’s biggest specialist legal centre for dispute resolution and commercial litigation.

However, the carefully worded claims make no mention of the fact parts of the UK judiciary has been engaged in a five year fight against proposals to require the judiciary to declare their vast wealth, and business interests – which have resulted in countless conflicts of interest in case after case.

And, more recently it has been uncovered the Ministry of Justice has been concealing statistics on judicial recusals in England & Wales – despite the same information being published in Scotland as paret of the Register of Judicial Recusals - now made available after the work of journalists, Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali, and members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee.

The battle between members of the Judiciary of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament over a petition calling on judges to declare their interests has sparked ire among judges, amid concerns the judiciary are deliberately concealing significant conflicts of interest which has led to injustice across the spectrum of criminal, and civil cases in Scotland’s courts.

The Register of Recusals was created by Lord Brian Gill in April 2014 as a response to a probe by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee’s deliberations on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary.

The proposal, first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.

Of further note - all of the claims currently published by the Ministry of Justice in the #LegalServicesAreGREAT campaign - have been challenged by two successive Lord Justice Generals – the ranking top judge in Scotland -  where both Lord Presidents Lord Gill, and recently Lord Carloway - branding Scotland’s justice system as stuck in the “Victorian” era, and centuries behind the rest of the world.

Further studies by the EU have ranked Scotland’s justice system as one of the slowest, and most expensive in the world – with the most highly paid judges delivering the poorest results on civil and criminal justice – reported here: Scots Legal Aid ‘a £161Million public subsidy for legal profession’ as EU report reveals judges salaries & lawyers legal aid claims come before public's access to justice

While keen to promote legal services to the world, the Ministry of Justice could not offer any further comment on the campaign or answer questions on how much public cash was allocated to the project.

The Ministry of Justice have refused to confirm claims attendees first, & business class flights & travel to the Singapore conference, hotel stays & hospitality have been paid by taxpayers.

SILENCERS IN COURT: ‘Guns & Ammo’ rife in Scotland’s legal elite - Police Scotland disclose firearms ownership of judges, sheriffs, lawyers, advocates, QCs & Crown Office prosecutors

Scots legal elite firearms ownership revealed. AN INVESTIGATION into firearms ownership among Scotland’s legal fraternity - has revealed widespread firearms and weapons throughout the ranks of solicitors, advocates, prosecutors and the judiciary who run Scotland's legal system and the courts.

And, it can be revealed – 295 lawyers, advocates, judges, QCs & prosecutors collectively own more guns in their private collections than even Police Officers – as information now released by Police Scotland reveals 1,079 firearms, shotguns & air weapons in the hands of the legal fraternity - compared to 1,043 firearms and shotguns owned by 327 Police Officers.

The investigation was triggered by a recent case involving firearms offences committed by the Solicitor General For Scotland – Lord Keen of Elie (Richard Keen QC) who was convicted and find £1,000 for breaches of the Firearms Act 1968 after he pleaded guilty by letter to the charge at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 1 March 2017.

Keen, who once headed a failed legal challenge against the Scottish Government over legislation to speed up pay-outs to asbestos sufferers -  was charged after police investigating a break-in at his Edinburgh home found that a 12-bore shotgun had been ‘left outside a secure cabinet’ while Lord Keen and his wife ‘were away on holiday’.

Lord Keen’s conviction for firearms offences, and the widespread ownership of firearms – including handguns - by members of Scotland’s legal fraternity - has drawn interest in the use of guns by Scotland’s wealthy legal establishment - who are known to favour the hunting & shooting set lifestyle with participation at shooting events at home and abroad.

And these are no ordinary weapons owned by Scotland's legal elite.

Shotguns popular with Scotland’s legal eagles - range from the relatively inexpensive to more costly ‘over & under’ & ‘side by side’ barrelled Browning, Beretta, matched pairs of expensive Purdeys and other expensive brands such as Holland & Holland, Army & Navy, and in the case of the Solicitor General for Scotland – a Stephen Grant 12 bore shotgun – which can sell for over £6,000.

Data seen by journalists also reveal ornate ‘Damascus’ etched barrelled weapons, expensive side-lock action shotguns, semi automatic weapons, and presentation piece quality shotguns, well out of reach of most shooting enthusiasts.

In relation to firearms, the legal establishment is similarly tooled up in numbers and quality of guns – ranging from handguns - and smaller .22 and .243 calibre rifles to high calibre firearms purposely designed for deer stalking.

Among the more lethal stocks of weapons owned by the legal fraternity are – according to firearms insiders - double ‘express’ (two barrelled) rifles – primarily designed for ‘taking down’ much larger beasts such as lions, rhino and even elephants.

And, the ownership of silencers for firearms among Scotland’s legal elite - is much more widespread than originally thought.

However, it can be revealed members of the legal fraternity own only 57 silencers for their ‘registered’ firearms - compared with a staggering 216 silencers owned by Police Officers –  disclosed in part one of the firearms investigation revealing Police gun ownership.

Information obtained during the investigation has now been clarified by Police Scotland, who disclosed some details in response to a Freedom of Information request.

Police Scotland has revealed 8 Sheriffs and 8 Judges hold a selection of firearms, air weapons and shotguns.

Of the 8 certificates held by Sheriffs, 1 is for firearms, 5 are for shotguns and 2 are for air weapons are held by currently serving Sheriffs, totalling 2 firearms and 10 shotguns.

A further 8 senior ranking judges own a similar mixture of firearms, air weapons and shotguns.

In relation to the eight certificate held by judges, 1 is for firearms, 3 are for shotguns, and 3 are for air weapons, totalling 2 firearms and 5 shotguns.

Curiously - while Police Scotland readily disclosed information in relation to members of the judiciary owning firearms - the Judiciary of Scotland said in response to an FOI request that no member of the judiciary has declared any ownership of firearms or shotguns to either the Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service (SCTS) or the Judicial Office.

The Judicial Office also refused to answer questions on judges’ membership of any hunting or shooting clubs or associations, participation in hunting trips including deerstalking and other firearms related activities within the UK or overseas.

While the judiciary remained tight-lipped on their stack of firearms & shotguns, Police Scotland has also released details on the firearms ownership of Scotland’s legal profession, where paralegals, solicitors, barristers, advocates, QCs and even prosecutors own over a thousand firearms, shotguns and air weapons.

The SHOGUN firearms database used by Police Scotland revealed the following:

4 paralegal certificate holders - hold 3 shotgun certificates and 2 air weapons certificates, holding a total of 5 shotguns.

6 barrister certificate holders - hold 2 firearms certificates, 4 shotgun certificates and 2 Air weapons certificates – holding between them 9 firearms with a further 3 silencers (sound moderators) and a total of 23 shotguns.

8 QC certificate holders - hold 2 firearms certificates, 8 shotgun certificates and two air weapons certificates – holding 6 firearms along with 2 silencers, and a total of 31 shotguns.

18 Advocate certificate holders - hold 4 firearms certificates, 18 shotgun certificates and 7 air weapons certificates – holding 9 firearms along with 3 silencers, and a total of 26 shotguns.

40 lawyer certificate holders - hold 12 firearms certificates, 25 shotgun certificates and 18 air weapons certificates – holding 55 firearms with 18 silencers and a total of 96 shotguns.

199 solicitor certificate holders - hold 51 firearms certificates, 146 shotgun certificates and 60 air weapons certificates – holding 100 firearms with 31 silencers, and a total of 393 shotguns.

Two court officer certificate holders - hold one firearms certificate and one shotgun certificate. Only one single firearm held is listed in this category.

Police Scotland also disclosed two Crown Office prosecutors of Procurator Fiscal rank hold 2 shotgun certificates, holding three shotguns in total.

It was not possible for Police Scotland to disclose further details of COPFS employees firearms, shotgun or air weapons usage, however it is known COPFS employees ownership of, and involvement with firearms shotguns and other weapons does exist = and to a more significant level than quoted in the Police Scotland FOI response.

Police Scotland also disclosed firearms ownership among Scotland’s political classes at Holyrood.

3 MSP certificate holders - hold 3 firearms certificates, 2 shotgun certificates and 1 air weapon certificates – holding 9 firearms with 3 silencers, and – Police Scotland claim – a total of 24 shotguns according to the FOI disclosure.

One Scottish Government Minister holds 1 shotgun certificate – and is in possession of 3 shotguns.

A further 3 “Members of Parliament” certificate holders - hold 2 shotgun certificates and 1 air weapon certificate, holding a total of 5 shotguns.

And one “Parliamentarian” holds a single shotgun certificate, and is in possession of 8 shotguns.

Police Scotland said it could not provide details of Scottish Government employees due to deficiencies in the SHOGUN database which allows some firearms owners to dodge having their ownership of weapons included in national statistics.

Police Scotland said “SHOGUN does not hold the individual employer details related to an individual certificate holder. The application form 201 requires a work address and contact but work address details are not searchable on the SHOGUN system. Searching occupations which include the word ‘government’ includes local government employees, government inspectors, government officers and investigators. The parameters of the search therefore cannot provide the details required.”

While the figures released by Police Scotland pertain only to numbers of weapons – rather than types and their potency by way of calibre - enquiries by journalists have since established Scotland’s legal elite enjoy generous permissions to hold, and purchase - significant quantities of ammunition for firearms and shotguns – with figures of thousands of rounds kept by certain members of the legal fraternity being commonplace.

Commenting on the information released by Police Scotland, a firearms specialist who did not wish to be named said that while some of the certificate holders may be members of gun clubs and ‘shoot at paper targets’ , it was his understanding most of the weapons held by persons he knew to be members of the legal fraternity - are used for hunting purposes.

There are also claims the figures of firearms and gun ownership among Scotland’s legal establishment may be much higher than stated in the Police Scotland Freedom of Information disclosure - as various weapons such as antique powder propellant type pistols, muskets and rifles are among items thought to be owned by lawyers and others in the legal fraternity – and are often not registered despite some requirements to do so.

The sometimes murky origins of the firearms & shotguns owned by the legal fraternity in Scotland are also drawing curiosity - after a legal source gave an account to journalists in relation to how two expensive shotguns including their leather cases and a set of valuable fishing rods & equipment ended up in the hands of a solicitor after he allegedly took the items from the estate of a deceased client to be valued.

The items were never handed back to the family of the deceased nor were they included in any account of assets of the deceased’s estate.

The Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates and Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) could not be reached for a statement on their members ownership and usage of firearms and shotguns.

‘KEEN SHOT’ TOP LAW OFFICER CAUGHT WITH HIS GUNS OUT:

IN March 2017, Lord Keen of Elie - the UK government's most senior adviser on Scots law - was fined £1,000 after admitting a firearms offence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

Advocate General for Scotland Richard Keen QC pleaded guilty – by letter - to breaching section two of the Firearms Act 1968 by ‘failing to secure a shotgun’.

Police investigating a ‘break-in’ at one of Mr Keen’s properties – a house in Edinburgh - found that the weapon had been left outside a secure cabinet.

Lord Keen, a former chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, was made a life peer in 2015. He did not appear when the case called at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in March 2017, choosing to plead guilty by letter – thus avoiding a court appearance.

The presiding judge - Sheriff Frank Crowe said: "I do take into account Mr Keen's previous good record and the fact that he admitted his guilt at the outset.

"Nevertheless to hold a firearms certificate is a privilege and there are very strict conditions which have to be adhered to to prevent such weapons falling into the wrong hands.

"There was a potential risk with the shotgun not in the secure cabinet as laid down by the regulations."

The court heard the offence came to light when Police Officers were called to a break-in at one of Lord Keen's properties – an address on Ann Street in Edinburgh - on Hogmanay last year. The court was told Lord Keen and his wife were away on holiday.

Officers searching the property ‘found’ a 12 bore Stephen Grant shotgun in a basement out of its secure cabinet.

Solicitor advocate Simon Catto, representing Lord Keen – told Edinburgh Sheriff Court his client had been out shooting on 27 December.

Mr Catto added on returning home his client had taken the gun to the basement intending to clean it, but had then "forgotten about it through his own carelessness" before leaving on holiday the following day.

Mr Catto said Lord Keen had contacted Police himself on Hogmanay after receiving a mobile phone alert that his alarm system had been triggered.

While the upper floors of the property had been ransacked, the burglars had not entered the basement area, he said.

Mr Catto said: "He's a keen shot, he shoots approximately 10 times per year.

"He has been a shotgun enthusiast for around 25 years and has held a firearms certificate. He is therefore fully aware of what's expected and required of him in terms of the certificate.

"He accepts on this occasion he fell below that."

An investigation of gun ownership in the ranks of Police Officers can be found here: GUNS OF THE LAW: Police Scotland files release details of officers private gun ownership – shotguns, rifles & silencers, Cops also declare recovery of 30 handguns

Lawyers FOI secrecy feud with regulator wrecks £10K ‘Complaints Handling Research’ as 75% of solicitors, advocates refuse to disclose client complaint statistics

Lawyers survey boycott & unverifiable data ruins complaints research. COSTLY RESEARCH undertaken by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) into how lawyers & advocates ‘handle’ complaints from their clients has today been labelled “an expensive failure & time wasting exercise” after results revealed a staggering 75% of all Scottish law firms & advocates either “refused”, were “not available” or “terminated” their participation in the research which sought disclosure of key details on how complaints from dissatisfied clients are handled made to them before clients are forced to approach regulators such as the SLCC or Law Society of Scotland.

And while the lack of participation effectively rendered the ‘independent’ SLCC’s research unusable, insiders at the regulator now also believe many law firms fiddled the numbers and simply LIED in what little data was actually handed over by the legal profession, as none of what was submitted can be independently verified or subject to public inspection.

Figures released in the two reports published by the SLCC show that of the total numbers of questionnaires & letters sent out to every law firm & advocate in Scotland by research firm TNS-BMRB who were commissioned by the SLCC to carry out the research, 850 law firms and 350 advocates either refused or for a variety of other reasons, failed to disclose any details on how complaints made by dissatisfied clients are handled.

Although TNS BMRB had undertaken the research in May & June 2012, both reports had curiously remained secret until the SLCC responded to a Freedom of Information request from Diary of Injustice, which can be viewed online in its entirety, here : FOI Release - SLCC Research into complaint numbers & complaints handling by practitioners

Later that same day (31st January) after the documentation was released to Diary of Injustice journalists, the SLCC issued a press release with a short comment from Richard Keen, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. There has so far been no comment from the Law Society of Scotland on the survey or the lack of participation of its members.

Both reports can be viewed on the SLCC’s website HERE & HERE or online here : SLCC Final Report on Complaints Numbers & Complaints Handling amongst Scottish Advocates & here : SLCC Final Report on Complaints Numbers & Complaints Handling amongst Scottish Legal Firms

The mass non-participation of Scotland’s legal profession in the ‘independent’ regulator’s complaints survey comes as no surprise after Diary of Injustice earlier reported on calls by various sections of Scotland’s legal profession to boycott the survey after lawyers groups such as the Scottish Law Agents Society (SLAS) voiced fears that any information handed over to the SLCC would be released to the media via Freedom of Information Requests.

To allay the lawyers concerns over complaints data being released to the public, the ‘independent’ SLCC brokered a sinister deal of secrecy, and ordered research firm TNS BMRB not to hand over any data to the SLCC directly, thus avoiding Freedom of Information and its requirements. The SLCC issued a public statement to the legal profession saying : “While it is the case that the SLCC is subject to Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), it should be noted that information is being ingathered on a confidential basis by the researchers purely for the purpose of statistical analysis by them. Information from individual legal firms, or data that could identify any legal firms or individual practitioners, will not be passed on to the SLCC.”

DOI reported on this highly questionable move on the ‘independent’ SLCC’s deal with lawyers to avoid FOI disclosure of complaints information, here : Law regulator SLCC responds to lawyers call to boycott complaints research : ‘We will AVOID Freedom of Information by stashing data with researchers'

TNS BMRB were tasked with securing the following information for their research :

Statistical Information
1. To establish number and type of transactions by practice area, since 2008;
2. To establish number of complaints dealt with since 2008, by practice area;
3. To identify from where complaints originate;
4. To establish the outcome and disposal of complaints.

Complaints handling
1. To identify management information systems in place for complaint record keeping;
2. To establish how lessons learned about complaints handling are captured and cascaded through the firm;
3. To assess how clients and others are informed about how to make a complaint;
4. To determine the type and provider of any training/guidance received on complaint handling;
5. To ascertain the appeal of different options for further support on complaint handling

The SLCC claimed that the research, the first of its kind in Scotland, was intended as an initial fact-finding exercise. As such, it has highlighted scope for further work which the SLCC will undertake as part of its on-going oversight role.

However, the information which made it into the research and the conclusions of both reports unsurprisingly reveal complaints records within the Scottish legal profession are at best, a mess.

More worryingly, if unsurprisingly, analysis of the reports by consumer campaigners reveal a deliberate act of deception on the part of lawyers to avoid accurate reporting of client dissatisfaction with Scottish solicitors & law firms, now rated as among the worst & most expensive in the entire European Union.

Critics who have viewed & studied both the report into law firms & advocates have raised serious doubts over the accuracy of information handed over to the research firm by Scottish lawyers & advocates, highlighting the fact there is absolutely no way to authenticate any of the data handed over to the researchers in interviews or questionnaires.

One senior spokesperson for a Scottish consumer group said she believed “much of the material was probably fabricated by law firms who were told not to reveal accurate complaints data to the SLCC or their researchers.”

Speaking about its piece of expensive, unverifiable research, David Buchanan Cook, the SLCC’s Head of Oversight issued a vague public statement claiming: “While the reports show that complaint levels are low, they are increasing. Complaints have a direct impact on any business, so it's surprising that more practitioners don't take simple steps to listen and to put matters right. The reports show that in a quarter of complaints resolved a simple apology was all that was needed yet a large number of practitioners faced with a complaint do nothing at all. In these cases both the complainer and the practitioner lose out.”

Mr Buchanan Cook continued “The reports do highlight that it can be more challenging for smaller firms and sole practitioners to deal with complaints in terms of resources, processes and experience. We will be working with both the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates to draw up best practice guidance later this year to help. We will also be using the reports to identify where we can help the profession to improve complaint handling. The public has a right to expect complaints to be listened to and where something has gone wrong, the practitioner should put it right. It's not just a question of fairness- it's good business sense too.”

The SLCC refused to answer questions on the low participation rate of the survey and offered no comment on the legal profession’s call to boycott the SLCC’s research, which will be met out of its 2011-2012 budget. However, a legal insider at the SLCC admitted “lawyers had been expected to lie in their responses to the research”, now branded “an expensive failure & time wasting exercise”.

With the Law Society of Scotland apparently refusing to issue a press statement on the research, Richard Keen QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates was wheeled out to provide some backup to the beleaguered SLCC. Mr Keen said : “The Faculty of Advocates takes its responsibility for complaints handling extremely seriously and notes from the report that the level of complaints to new cases is "undoubtedly low." The Faculty will study the report and engage with the SLCC in taking forward a number of broad themes that have been identified.”

It should be noted that clients & consumers were completely shut out of this SLCC research project, as Diary of Injustice earlier reported here : Consumers ‘locked out of debate’ as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission carries out yet more research on how solicitors handle complaints

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.

Lord Emslie defeats legal challenge over pleural plaques as Insurers ‘big name’ legal team fail to overturn Holyrood’s Asbestos compensation law

Insurers legal team was headed by Richard Keen QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Some good news to start 2010 as Scottish judge Lord Emslie yesterday threw out the Insurance companies legal challenge against the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act, which was voted through by MSPs in 2009 after Law Lords in England & Wales ruled against compensating people who had developed ‘pleural plaques’, as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Avira, AXA Insurance, Zurich and the infamous Royal Sun Alliance (who also insure all Scottish solicitors via the Master Policy) were represented by the Dean of Faculty himself, Richard Keen, and Scots law firm Brodies LLP, but the big name legal team proved the big failure most people hoped for.

In a 150-page judgment issued at the Court of Session, which can be read online here : OPINION OF LORD EMSLIE in the petition of AXA GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED and OTHERS Petitioners; for Judicial Review of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009, Lord Emslie stated: "Not surprisingly, individuals diagnosed with pleural plaques are liable to become alarmed and anxious for the future, and this may severely reduce their enjoyment and quality of life. The diagnosis confirms significant asbestos exposure in the past, of which they may or may not previously have been aware; it underlines the much higher risk which they now face, many hundreds of times greater than for members of the population at large, of contracting lung cancer, mesothelioma or asbestosis; and in some cases it may bring to mind the suffering and perhaps death of friends, colleagues and relatives from these serious asbestos-related diseases.”

Lord Emslie concluded : “There is clearly room for differences of opinion as to whether the Parliament was right to legislate in the way it did, and it remains to be seen whether the 2009 Act will prove to have adverse legal or political consequences in years to come. But for all of the foregoing reasons I am unable to accept that the petitioners' complaints, either individually or collectively, come anywhere near the standard of "irrationality" which would be necessary in order to invalidate a primary Act of the Scottish Parliament. Whether that standard is, on comparative lines, to be derived from the Nottinghamshire and Hammersmith decisions in the House of Lords (as suggested in chapter IV of this opinion), or simply from traditional concepts of Wednesbury unreasonableness as judicially explained, is to my mind immaterial for present purposes. The petitioners plainly fail on either approach, and their common law challenge to the 2009 Act is therefore rejected.

I have previously reported on the Insurers legal challenge, where initially, they hoped the threat alone of a legal challenge against the Scottish Government’s proposed Asbestos Damages Bill would have been enough to scupper its success : Insurance firms with links to Scottish Government threaten legal challenge against Holyrood on asbestos claims reforms.

However, after the Bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament and became law, the threat became a legal challenge, which I reported on earlier, here : 'Money must come before life' as insurers & lawyers launch legal challenge against Scotland's asbestos compensation law

Let us remind ourselves again just how low some people in the legal profession will go to argue against a person’s health & wellbeing, where indeed, pleural plaques from asbestos exposure are most certainly NOT good for you, despite some lawyers feeling they are (presumably because their big moneyed insurance clients said so).

Dr Pamela Abernethy (lawyer, Simpson & Marwick WS, Edinburgh) - Asbestos related Pleural Plaques 'are good'

and the rest of that shocking episode here :

For further coverage, the Herald newspaper as always, excellently reports Lord Emslie’s commendable ruling :

Insurance giants defeated over asbestos damages law

heraldscotland staff

Insurance firms have lost a legal bid to overturn a new law which allows victims of an asbestos-related condition to claim damages.

Some of the biggest names in the insurance industry had challenged the law which came into force in Scotland last June.

But Court of Session judge Lord Emslie rejected their legal challenge.

His written ruling concluded: "There is clearly room for differences of opinion as to whether the Parliament was right to legislate in the way it did, and it remains to be seen whether the 2009 Act will prove to have adverse legal or political consequences in years to come."

But the judge said he does not accept that the insurers' complaints come anywhere near the standard of "irrationality" needed to invalidate an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

The legal battle centred on a condition known as “pleural plaques”, which are changes in the layers of tissue which lie between the lungs.

The changes can be caused by past exposure to asbestos but have no symptoms or ill-effects and are not considered a disease in their own right.

The new law in Scotland was intended to reverse the effect of a landmark House of Lords ruling that people with pleural plaques could not seek compensation.

But insurers opposed the move, and the action to overturn the new law was raised by Axa, Norwich Union, Royal & Sun Alliance and Zurich Insurance.

When the legislation was going through Holyrood insurers argued that the new law ignored medical opinion and underestimated the cost of potential claims.

At the start of the court battle in May last year they argued the new law broke the essential legal principle of “proof of damage” and resulted from an “unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary” exercise by legislators.

The insurance companies argued that the law breaks European Convention on Human Rights provisions on property rights and unreasonable legal interference, that it will benefit a small group of people who had suffered no legal harm and that it will cost insurers hundreds of millions of pounds, or more, by retrospectively changing insurance contracts.

But their challenge was contested by Scottish ministers and by some people with pleural plaques.

They argued the insurers’ challenge was wrong in law, and that it did not fall within the permitted grounds of challenge to Holyrood legislation set out in the Scotland Act.

They also argued that it was the place of insurers to launch the challenge, as the damages claims would actually be brought against negligent former employers and the insurers would be affected only indirectly.

In his ruling Lord Emslie upheld two of the insurers’ legal arguments: on whether they had a close enough connection to mount a legal challenge, and on whether to challenge an Act of the Scottish Parliament on common law grounds of “irrationality” is valid.

But he still rejected the overall challenge.

Labour MSPs welcomed the ruling.

Member for North East Scotland Richard Baker said: “This is the right judgment and reflects the fact that this move by insurance companies to overturn the will of the Scottish Parliament was both unfounded and unjust.

“Most importantly this is good news for all those in Scotland who have had to suffer the trauma of being told they have pleural plaques and will now be able to pursue damages as they were previously able to do so.”

Asbestos campaigners welcomed the ruling.

Their lawyers called on the insurance industry to accept defeat and pay up.

Solicitor-advocate Frank Maguire said: “This judgment states categorically that the Scottish Parliament was perfectly within its rights to pass this law and that is tremendous news for pleural plaques sufferers.

“We have almost 1,000 pleural plaques cases which have been in limbo while the insurance industry pursued this ill-fated legal action.

“I now call on them to stop obstructing justice and not to try and put any more barriers in the way of victims seeking compensation.”

Mr Maguire said many insurance companies not involved in the court battle, as well as the Ministry of Defence and British Shipbuilders, had been holding back on settling pleural plaques cases.

“They also should now meet their obligations and pay up,” he said.

“The Westminster Government should now enact similar legislation for the rest of the UK.”

Harold McCluskey, chairman of Clydebank Action On Asbestos, said: “This is great news for the victims of pleural plaques.

“It is absolute rubbish to say that pleural plaques doesn’t affect victims. It’s as dangerous as any other asbestos-related disease.

“Most sufferers have some form of breathlessness but the biggest strain is the worry of developing into fatal conditions like mesothelioma which happens with frightening regularity.”

Former shipyard worker Dan O’Malley, 71, from Paisley, said: “I’m delighted the judge has ruled that the Scottish Parliament was right to pass this law.

“I was diagnosed with pleural plaques after suffering breathlessness and a persistent cough. I had all sorts of x-rays and finally a CT scan before pleural plaques was confirmed.

“Now it preys on my mind all the time especially since a very close friend of mine who had pleural plaques died of mesothelioma last year.”

Holyrood’s Justice Committee hears of doubts & criticisms from Law Professor & Faculty of Advocates on Legal Services Bill reforms

Holyrood’s Justice Committee continues to hear evidence from legal profession luminaries. REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION was further discussed at the Scottish Parliament’s hearings in to the Legal Services Bill where leading figures of the legal profession itself appeared to give evidence before the Justice Committee after the initial round of testimony from the consumer organisation Which? and the Office of Fair Trading, previously reported HERE.

Professor Alan Paterson declared he was against alternative business structures. Professor Paterson told the Justice Committee that in his position on the Council of the Law Society of Scotland, he had voted against alternative business structures along with others resistant to the so-called reforms of solicitors business practices, although the vote was eventually carried through, with large law firms making their views clear they wanted abs to succeed, and the Law Society ultimately had to support it.

Professor Paterson said : “I was on the council of the Law Society when it happened, but I cannot answer your question. Being on the council of the Law Society does not mean that one is privy to all the internal debates that go on at the upper reaches of the society. I suspect that the large law firms made their views very clear and that that had an influence, but I must also report to you—I do not think that this information is private—that the vote in the council on alternative business structures was very clear. Those of us who were in the minority were clearly in the minority and those who were in favour had a strong, solid majority. Those in favour were not individuals from large law firms; they were from high street firms, rural firms and so on. I was surprised by the degree of support that the ABSs attained. It must be the case that many of those individuals see opportunities in them.”

Bill Aitken MSP (Scottish Conservative), Justice Committee Convener. In response to a question from Bill Aitken, the Justice Committee’s Convener on the current ‘status quo’ of law firms & business, Professor Paterson replied that he felt the current rules already allowed some of the proposals contained in the Legal Services Bill. He said : “I am not sure that the status quo has been fully understood or developed. The status quo allows multidisciplinary practices, and there is no problem with multidisciplinary practices with different professionals working in the same firm, provided that one professional grouping—for legal services, it would be the lawyers—are in charge of the firm, are regulated to be in charge of the firm and have the responsibilities of running the firm and complying with the professional standards and the regulatory objectives. To me, that does not pose problems.”

Professor Paterson continued : “There can be disciplinary problems for the non-lawyer professionals in the practice, but that can be dealt with by holding the lawyer partners responsible for their non-lawyer colleagues. That is how it works and it is an effective mechanism. A multidisciplinary practice has all the advantages of a multidisciplinary partnership, except that the non-lawyer members cannot take a share of the profits. However, with a bit of imagination, ways of doing that, which are quite legal, can be found.”

Professor Alan Paterson’s evidence to the Justice Committee can be viewed at the following links from InjusticeTV :

Prof.Paterson Pt 1 Prof.Paterson Pt 2

Prof.Paterson Pt 3 Prof. Paterson Pt 4

Richard Keen, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates appeared before the Justice Committee. The final evidence session of the day saw Richard Keen QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Iain Armstrong QC, vice-dean of the faculty, Tom Marshall, vice-president, civil, of the Society of Solicitor Advocates and Paul Motion, secretary of the society put in an appearance to be questioned by the Justice Committee on their views on the Legal Services Bill

Among the highlights of this particular session, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Richard Keen, appeared to defeat his own arguments with regard to points raised by the SNP’s MSP Mr Stewart Maxwell on the involvement of non-lawyers in the regulation of advocates.

Stewart Maxwell MSP (SNP). Mr Maxwell questioned Mr Keen, saying : “I have no argument with the maintenance of the independence of the Scottish legal system or of those who practise within it. However I think that, in passing, you accepted that to move the regulation of that system to an independent body would not necessarily change that. Do you accept that involving non-lawyers in the regulation of advocates would not alter the independence of the legal profession? If not, what is the problem with non-lawyers being involved in the regulation of advocates ?”

Richard Keen replied, comparing regulation & independence of the courts to that of regulation of advocates and leaving the Committee members in no doubt he was against further regulation of the Faculty.

Mr Keen : “It is a question of how and why as much as anything else. If we want to maintain the independence of the courts—which is fundamental—and of the legal profession, there must be a dividing line between the courts and the executive. That is already recognised by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which provides for the position of the courts and the Lord President.”

“If you are looking to future regulation, you can address various models of regulation. Scotland has maintained the model of regulation by the court over a long period. That model is not unique to Scotland—it is employed in many of the states of the United States and elsewhere in the Commonwealth—but it is effective in ensuring direct regulation.”

“Regulation by the court does not exclude the interest of the public or the consumer because, under section 86 of the bill, the Lord President and the Court of Session in general are bound to proceed in accordance with the regulatory objectives when looking to the regulation of the legal profession. Those objectives are set out in section 1. Professor Paterson asked whether the Lord President would consult and receive the opinions of certain parties, but he is bound to because only by doing so can he adhere to the regulatory objectives. He must know what is in the public interest.”

Stewart Maxwell pressed his point on the involvement on non lawyers in regulation of advocates once again, asking the Dean : “…Why would there be a problem if non-lawyers were to become involved in regulation? Would that, of itself, cause difficulties? I think that you accept the public perception that self-regulation is an issue. I am talking not only about lawyers: members of Parliament have come up against the problem in recent times. Do you accept the analogy ?”

Richard Keen replied, claiming the Faculty of Advocates are not self regulating : “We are not self-regulating. I like to think that we might be, but I know as a matter of fact that we are not. Not everything that I suggest to the Lord President is adhered to or agreed to; I can assure you of that.”

“There is also the issue of proportionality. The 17,000 barristers in England and Wales make for a formidable regulatory issue. In Scotland, we have a bar of 460 people. We could think up a complex model for Scotland such as the bar standards board that is in place in England. However, if we were to impose that on the relatively small bar in Scotland, we would be imposing an enormous overhead in relative terms on the delivery of legal services. At the end of the day, the customer—the consumer—pays the overheads.”

Bill Butler MSP (Labour). The important theme of regulation of advocates continued at the evidence session, with a question from Bill Butler, who asked : “Issues of professional misconduct by an advocate will continue to be referred to the faculty for investigation. What safeguards are required to ensure that the system of self-regulation is patently fair and equitable ?”

Richard Keen replied : “One has to take a step back from the point at which a matter is referred to the faculty. Any such complaint goes first to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission—all complaints go to the commission, without exception. The commission then determines whether it is dealing with a service complaint or a conduct complaint. If it decides that it is a conduct complaint, it will refer the matter back to the faculty. If the faculty did not then deal with the matter, the commission would come back very quickly and ask what was going on.”

“Inevitably, if a conduct complaint is referred back from the commission, it is dealt with through the faculty's system, on which, as you know, there is lay representation. Thereafter, if a complainer is not satisfied, the case may be appealed or referred back to the commission. However, whether it be a service complaint or a conduct complaint, it always goes back to a lay commission. There was a time when judges might have dealt with complaints informally. However, that is what happened in the past; nowadays, if we receive complaints, they go to the commission.”

Bill Butler later questioned the Dean on when was the last time that a complaint was dealt with informally, which led to a reply from Mr Keen, stating : “When a judge is concerned about the conduct of an advocate, he may write me a letter. If that letter involves a complaint about the conduct of that advocate, I make the complaint to ensure that it goes to the commission.”

Also, the subject of consumers direct access to advocates was raised by Justice Committee member James Kelly MSP, who asked what would be wrong with such a system to be put in place.”

Richard Keen replied, claiming consumers already had direct access to advocates although we all know from anyone who has actually tried to secure direct contact with an advocate, this is an almost impossible task.

Mr Keen said : “There is a system of direct access to advocates, but it is generally limited to professionals who are seeking opinion work. A firm of accountants or surveyors can instruct an advocate directly when it wants an opinion. For example, we are currently dealing with the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys. Other bodies of that ilk have rights of direct access to advocates.”

“Why should the general public not have direct access to advocates? That simply could not happen under the existing model. Let us take, for example, a criminal case. If someone has been charged on indictment, they go to a solicitor. If, in due course, they need to be represented in court, that solicitor may instruct counsel. If, however, the person who is charged with an offence goes directly to counsel, counsel is not equipped to make the inquiries and undertake the preparation that is always essential in such a case. Counsel is not in a position to go out and take statements or liaise with police officers—that is not our business model. We simply cannot function in that way; we are a referral bar.”

The Dean ended by claiming the Faculty does not prohibit consumer’s direct access to advocates, although no statistics were offered up to support the position : “However, we do not prohibit direct access. In circumstances in which opinion work or similar work is sought, we will accept direct access. It goes further than that—for example, we have recently considered changes in our regulations to allow direct access for things such as employment tribunal work.”

One onlooker commented the Dean’s claims with regards to direct access were “without foundation and very far from reality”

Coverage of the Faculty of Advocates & Society of Solicitor Advocates evidence to the Justice Committee can be viewed on LawyerTV , here :

FoA & SSA Part 1 FoA & SSA Part 2

FoA & SSA Part 3 FoA & SSA Part 4

The official report of the Justice Committee’s meeting can be read here : Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

More coverage of the evidence on the Legal Services Bill will be reported in the next few days, including the Law Society of Scotland’s appearance before the Justice Committee earlier this week.

Lawyers argue over ‘delaying tactic’ review calls to MacAskill as Dean of Faculty condemns Law Society’s failure of regulation

Richard Keen, Dean of Faculty of Advocates. The Law Society of Scotland has been attacked by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Richard Keen QC, who claims the Law Society has yet again abdicated its responsibility for regulation of the Scots legal profession, specifically in this instance, the Society’s role in regulating solicitor-advocates, who are lawyers specially qualified to represent clients in the higher courts without the need to engage a fully qualified advocate from the Faculty.

Richard Keen, the dean of the faculty said to newspapers : "Lord Gill's opinion … highlighted failures concerned with the operation of the way in which solicitor advocates are regulated. The faculty had hoped for a constructive response from the Law Society. "It did not expect the Law Society to abdicate its responsibility as regulator in the face of the Lord Justice Clerk's criticisms.”

He went on : "It is not appropriate for the Law Society to kick this into the long grass by asking for an independent inquiry or investigation. If the Law Society is to prove itself the regulator it claims to be it should demonstrate that by regulating.”

"What there obviously has been is a failure of regulation in respect of solicitor advocates, and the faculty hopes that this will be dealt with sooner rather than later.”

The issues of regulatory failure which have prompted the row between the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates was recently brought into the spotlight by Lord Gill who found significant failures in the work of solicitor-advocates, who were failing their clients best interests, where in one instance, a member of a defence team who represented convicted killer Alexander Woodside’s appeal relating to the conduct of his defence at his trial at the High Court in Glasgow in 1998, absented himself from the trial for a day to go to London as part of a Law Society delectation to lobby on legal aid fees.

Lord Gill, commenting on matters, branded the solicitor’s act in the Woodside appeal, “a dereliction of duty”, and found that among other things, solicitors were failing to advise their clients (contrary to Law Society rules), that they have the right to be represented by an advocate from the Faculty of Advocates, which may have been more in their client's best interests.

Lord President Lord Hamilton supports the Law Society’s call for rights of audience review. However, the Law Society of Scotland, seeking to defuse the situation, has resorted to its tried & trusted approach to such criticism .. by doing nothing itself, and asking for a Government review of the issue, a review with the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, has hurriedly signed up to and which the Law Society itself is seeking to take control of, by way of the various legal 'steering groups' the Scottish Government relies on for such 'studies', steering groups which are themselves made up mostly of members of the legal profession who can be trusted to steer things the way of the Law Society's wishes.

I doubt there will be much change in the way solicitor-advocates are regulated with any study which comes from Kenny MacAskill's Justice Department, simply because it appears the Law Society has a 'free hand' to do as it pleases under MacAskill, who is far too cosy with his 'former' colleagues in the legal profession, to the point his own Ministerial negligence has allowed the newly created 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to be co-opted by the legal profession in a most brutal way against consumer interests.

Here follows the Herald newspaper's report on the story, and following that, the Law Society of Scotland's own Press Release .. pleading innocence as ever ...

Law Society attacked over review request

BRIAN DONNELLY March 13 2009

Scotland's legal elite have clashed publicly over plans to review the regulation of solicitor advocates after concerns about the system were raised by the country's second most senior judge.

The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates has called on the Law Society of Scotland to face up to its responsibility for regulating solicitor advocates.

The society this week wrote to the Scottish Government requesting an independent review of the system. The faculty believes the society should carry out its own overhaul.

Solicitor advocates are lawyers qualified to represent clients as an advocate in higher courts in England, Wales and in Scotland, the Supreme Court and High Court.

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, expressed concern during a recent murder case about the regulation of the group of solicitors.

He found that some solicitors were failing to advise their clients, contrary to Law Society rules, that they have the right to be represented by an advocate, which may be in their best interests.

He added that some solicitor advocates were doing advocacy work beyond their competence and they had a lack of awareness of their professional duties.

He revealed some of the senior solicitors had accepted instructions from their own law firms without advising clients of the availability of counsel, and were "self-certifying" themselves as the lead solicitor in serious criminal cases.

Lord Justice Clerk said: "From the standpoint of the administration of justice the idea that any solicitor advocate can accept instructions, perhaps from his own employee, as leader in a serious trial regardless of his experience and skill, is matter for concern.

"The concept of seniority is in my view conducive to the interests of justice. It does not apply in the case of solicitor advocates ... in practice there is no concept of seniority other than for the purpose of charging fees."

The society asked Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to report back next year on an independent review of all aspects of the rights of audience in the Supreme Courts.

Richard Keen, QC, the Dean of the Faculty, said the society had abdicated its responsibility for regulation after Lord Gill "highlighted failures".

He said: "The Faculty had hoped for a constructive response from the Law Society of Scotland, which is the regulatory authority for solicitor advocates.

"It is not appropriate for the Law Society to kick this into the long grass by asking for an independent inquiry or investigation. If the Law Society is to prove itself the regulator it claims to be it should demonstrate that by regulating.

"There is no call and none certainly from the Lord Justice Clerk, for an investigation into rights of audience in general.

"What there obviously has been is a failure of regulation in respect of solicitor advocates, and the faculty hopes that this will be dealt with sooner rather than later.

"If the Law Society feels that as regulator it is not able to investigate and deal with that matter, no doubt another way can be found to do this on their behalf - although why the public purse should have to incur expense on something which the Law Society is already paid to do is not immediately obvious."

Lorna Jack, chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "We believe that after almost 20 years it is time for an independent, comprehensive review of rights of audience in the higher courts."

She added that the society has a "rigorous" regulatory system to ensure the public interest is protected and standards maintained.

… and now the Law Society’s own version of events, choosing to smokescreen the entire episode with a call for a review by the Justice Secretary .. a review which will inevitably be kicked back for the Law Society to handle itself …

LAW SOCIETY COMMENTS ON CALL FOR REVIEW OF RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE IN SCOTLAND’S HIGH COURTS

Lorna Jack, chief executive of the Law Society, said:

“Following on from Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill’s call for a review, the Lord President Lord Hamilton had written to Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to add his support for a review and we are in favour of this. We believe that after almost 20 years it is time for an independent, comprehensive review of rights of audience in the higher courts.

“Qualified solicitor advocates were given rights of audience in the High Courts and Court of Session in 1990, with the first appearing in the higher courts in 1993, giving clients an extended choice of well trained, experienced and regulated legal professionals to represent them.

“The Society is the regulatory body for all solicitors. This includes solicitor advocates. All of our members are expected to adhere to the professional standards set out in law and the Society’s rules. The Society has a rigorous regulatory system in place to ensure that the public interest is protected and high standards are maintained.

“Solicitor advocates must also comply with Supreme Court Rules. These rules were first approved by the Lord President Lord Hope in 1992 and then in 2002 by Lord Roger when they were reissued.

“To date the Society has never had to prosecute a member for professional misconduct arising from them acting as a solicitor advocate.

“Any complaints about solicitor advocates should be made to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). The SLCC would deal with any service complaints while issues of conduct would be passed by them to the Society.

Lorna Jack added: “We would welcome a wide ranging review and the opportunity for ongoing discussion of the various issues with the government and the Faculty. We are currently in a time of significant change and this is an important issue for the future of the legal profession.”