Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Only a few days after the release of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's investigation into the claims process against solicitors, harsh evidence is beginning to emerge of the human cost to clients, where suicides, illness (some resulting in death), family break ups and huge financial losses are the horrific consequences sustained by members of the public who have tried to make claims against the Law Society of Scotland's 'Master Policy' insurance scheme, touted by the legal profession as protecting lawyers and clients but which the ground breaking report released by Manchester University School of Law on Monday reveals “is simply designed to allow lawyers to sleep at night.”

Suicides, illness, family breakdown, loss of homes, loss of livelihood were all identified by interviewees as being directly associated with members of the public’s dealings with the Law Society & Master Policy. During the research team's investigation of claims against the Master Policy, team members were told of suicides which had occurred due to the way in which clients of crooked lawyers had been treated by the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers who operate the Master Policy protection scheme for solicitors against negligence claims. Quoting the report : "Several claimants said that they had been diagnosed with depression; that they had high blood pressure; and several had their marriages fail due to their claim. Some had lost a lot of money, their homes, and we were told that one party litigant had committed suicide."

Law Society officials linked to suicide of client who claimed against the Master Policy. The suicide of one client who had dealings with the Master Policy, is apparently linked to senior officials at the Law Society of Scotland itself, who, when approached by the client to handle a complaint against his solicitor who had made major errors in handling legal business, recommended to the now deceased client he approach a well known firm of solicitors to sue his original solicitor and pursue a claim against the Master Policy for negligence. However, what the client did not know was the law firm which the now promoted Director of a department at the Law Society had recommended he approach, actually represented the Legal Defence Union, which exists to defend solicitors against both claims & complaints from clients, and who are involved in defending solicitors against over two thirds of the thousands of complaints made annually against lawyers by members of the public in Scotland.

The client, a farmer and co owner of a business, went onto unknowingly engage the law firm recommended to him by the still serving senior Law Society official, however, unsurprisingly, little or no progress was made over a lengthy period of time on the client's claim against the Master Policy, which in itself, caused severe stress and depression to the client and his family.

Matters reached the stage where the law firm, recommended to the client by the Law Society itself had done little on the case, and offered no hope of a just & fair resolution to the huge losses caused by the client's original solicitor, one evening, not long after yet another unsuccessful meeting with his solicitors, the client in question had reached a point of such depression, he committed suicide at home using a shotgun, leaving his widow & children. Several days after the client’s suicide, the same Law Society official who had recommended the law firm which had done nothing to proceed the deceased client's claim and take the original 'crooked lawyer' to court, wrote to the widow of the victim and callously informed her she had two weeks to make a complaint to the Law Society or she would be time barred.

The case itself, was investigated by the then Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman Linda Costello Baker, in 2001, who found the Law Society of Scotland had failed the deceased client and ordered they re-investigate the complaint. The Law Society then proceeded to investigate the complaints again, however reaching the same conclusions, which prompted the widow of the deceased client to return to the SLSO, Ms Costello Baker, who again investigated in 2003 and judged the Law Society had failed once more.

At least two other suicides directly associated with clients dealings with the Master Policy are known, where in both cases, clients appeared to have been put under intolerable pressure, delay, deceit and intimidation by lawyers, the Law Society itself, and the insurers to the Master Policy, that the result of the entire process was to cause the claimants to end their lives after breaking under the strain of dealings with the apparently deadly Master Policy insurance scheme.

Further excerpts from the Manchester University report into the Law Society's Master Policy & Guarantee Fund show the intolerable strain clients who attempt to claim against their 'crooked' solicitor have to endure : Claimants "described being intimidated, being forced to settle rather than try to run a hearing without legal support, and all felt that their claims’ outcomes were not fair. Some claimants felt that they should have received more support, and that this lack was further evidence of actors within the legal system being “against” Master Policy claimants. Judges were described as being “former solicitors”, members of the Law Society – and thus, against claimants. Some described judges and other judicial officers as being very hostile to party litigants."

One direct quote from the report, depicts a claimant, who was forced to become a party litigant : "I keep fighting cases, and they keep coming at me, and now I have become ill. But they still keep coming at me. They threw me out onto the street, I couldn’t get my medication, I’ve got nothing, I was homeless, ill, sleeping in the car. Now I am appealing. But I can’t get a solicitor. They are just shutting me down…. My health has been damaged, they kill you off. It's a proven fact. All of us have stress related problems after years and years of stress."

One client who had fought a nine year battle with the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers to the Master Policy over a multi million pound negligence claim which ultimately failed said : "The way that claims against crooked lawyers are handled in Scotland is criminal. The Law Society and the insurers will stop at nothing to ruin a client's life if they dare try and raise a claim for damages against their lawyer."

He went on : "I lost my business and then my house after the legal firm which was supposed to be acting on my behalf against my original solicitor, sued me for legal costs of over £72,000 after nine years of allegedly trying to take the case to court and then the whole thing coming to nothing. I found out that the law firm I took on to represent me against my original solicitor who ruined my business, had been working against me from the very start and to make matters worse, they are I hear going to merge with the law firm of my original solicitor now that my case is out of the way."

"My wife left me, took my children, and I now have little hope of ever working again. I am shattered and have been diagnosed with depression, but the solicitor I originally complained against has a good life, is an outwardly respectable member of the community, but in reality is a thief who embezzled tens of thousands of pounds from my business, and ruined my business just to make sure he could buy up the bankrupt parts for himself which is what he actually did."

He ended by saying : "If anyone asked me for advice on how to deal with a solicitor in Scotland, I'd say stay the hell away from them and even if you have to use one, do not get into a trusting relationship with them simply because if anything goes wrong, as it probably will, they will end up as your opponent in the blink of an eye and from then on your life will be made a living hell."

A solicitor I asked for comment today said :”While I must express my sympathies to the families of clients who have apparently committed suicide over their dealings with the Law Society and the bad apples among us, we as solicitors are as much a victim of the Master Policy and the Law Society as are the clients. Not one solicitor to my knowledge has even seen a copy of the Master Policy but I do know someone who once asked for a copy and was refused, then was given a sharp rebuke for even asking to see it yet we are forced to pay annually into the Master Policy if we want to continue practising law in Scotland.”

He ended by saying : “The Master Policy is all about giving the Law Society of Scotland control over the legal profession and the public. Get rid of the Master Policy and the Law Society while you’re at it, allow us as individual firms to arrange our own insurance cover, and you would see a very different, more positive legal services market in Scotland.”

Consumer Focus Scotland welcomed the findings of Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report. Today, Consumer Focus Scotland issued a statement welcoming the findings of the report into the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, saying : “We welcome this preliminary research into the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund. Although based on a small sample, it provides useful qualitative evidence that the current system lacks clarity for both consumers and the legal profession. We welcome the recommendation that additional research is required, which we hope can further explore and build upon the initial findings from this report.”

The Law Society of Scotland refused to work with the Scottish Consumer Council on an investigation into the Master Policy in 2003 & 2004. However, it transpires from this week’s report that Consumer Focus Scotland in its previous incantation as the Scottish Consumer Council, who carried out several large investigations into problems with the Scottish legal profession, wanted to carry out an investigation into the Master Policy in 2003, however attempts were thwarted when the Law Society of Scotland refused to take part. An excerpt from Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report reads : “Consumer Focus in 2003 and 2004 wished to carry out desk-based research on the Master Policy. They sought the co-operation of the LSS of Scotland which was refused. Consequently the research was not undertaken.”

One large scale report undertaken by the Scottish Consumer Council took place in 1999 when the SCC’s Complaints Against Solicitors report was released. This week’s Manchester University report refers to the earlier SCC investigation as follows : “Consumer Focus Scotland has not specifically considered either the Master Policy or the Guarantee Fund, although it did state that professional indemnity insurance arrangements and complaints procedures needed to be put in place in order to facilitate the alternative business structures within the legal market. In 1999, Consumer Focus Scotland conducted a study on Complaints about Solicitors, which surveyed over 1200 people who had used the Law Society of Scotland’s complaints procedure during a one year period. During this research, Consumer Focus Scotland was contacted by a number of claimants who raised concerns about the Master Policy.”

You can read the Scottish Consumer Council’s 1999 “Complaints Against Solicitors” report HERE and the Manchester University report on the Law Society’s Master Policy & Guarantee Fund HERE :

Which? also welcomed the research findings but expressed concern over the Insurers restrictions on the research team who were denied access to important data. Also today, a spokeswoman for Which? issued comment on the Manchester University report, and, while welcoming the findings of the research team, concern and criticism was expressed that the Law Society refused to hand over important data or a copy of the Master Policy itself to the research team. Which? said :“We welcome the research but are obviously disappointed that the Law Society did not provide the researchers with access to the Master Policy as part of their work. However hopefully what was gleaned will provide a platform for other work to come in this area.”

So, at the end of the day, as the Manchester University report of this week reveals, “Thus, the Master Policy is essentially an insurance scheme intended to provide professional indemnity insurance coverage for solicitors.The purpose of the Master Policy, the simple answer is to allow solicitors to sleep at night. It provides professional indemnity insurance cover for firms."

SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine. What therefore, is the SLCC going to do about this and just how many members of the public have to get ill, or even die to protect a ‘crooked lawyer’ and the Master Policy, before something is done ? Jane Irvine, when asked for comment on these matters, said : “As you are aware, the research was commissioned by the SLCC and carried out by Manchester University School of Law. One of their undertakings was to conduct key informant interviews and the people who came forward were assured their own details would be treated in confidence by the researchers. These conditions have not changed.”

Ms Irvine continued : ”The SLCC is unable to comment on the individual interviews. However, the independent research is central to defining how we develop our role of oversight of the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund. In terms of the report, the experiences of the people who came forward to be interviewed were significant to the quality of the research. The information given by all those who assisted the researchers is valued by the SLCC and it is essential to the development of our oversight role.”

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has so far not returned requests for comment on Monday’s report …

'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers

Consumer experiences in Master Policy report brands Law Society of Scotland & its insurers ‘rotten to the core’. The Law Society of Scotland and it’s insurers who handle claims against an ever growing number of 'crooked lawyers' have been branded corrupt and dishonest by clients who were interviewed for the completion of ground breaking research published today by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, on the role of the two client compensation schemes operated by the Law Society of Scotland, known as the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund. The report contains highly accurate accounts from victims of crooked lawyers of the torturous and often failed process of trying to make a compensation claim against a ‘crooked lawyer’ who have mishandled clients legal affairs or in a now almost daily event, embezzled clients money.

Insurers Marsh & Law Society imposed conditions on SLCC’s research team. However, in a startling revelation which gives an insight into the difficulties the research team faced in compiling the report, legal insiders allege that corruption is so rife in the legal services sector, the Law Society refused to hand over actual copies of the Master Policy to the research team, fearing disclosure of the highly secretive & sensitive documents would cause a rush of bad publicity to the Scots legal profession for its consistent cover up of claims & complaints against highly corrupt law firms and individual solicitors. In response to enquiries, Dr Angela Melville, who interviewed many clients for her final report, confirmed the research team did not receive a copy of the Master Policy, despite requesting it. Instead, a letter from Alistair J Sim, Director of the US Insurer Marsh, who had executives convicted of criminal offences in the United States , attached strict conditions to what little information was disclosed : “Please note that the consent of Marsh and Royal & Sun Alliance plc to the production of the enclosed documents is condition on the research team agreeing not to quote from the documents, or any part of them, whether text or figures, in the report to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.”

“The documents which are produced are confidential and are commercially sensitive. They are provided to the research team only and neither the documents nor copies should be provided to any other party nor should the content of the documents be disclosed to anyone outside the research team. At the conclusion of the research project, the documents should be returned with confirmation that foregoing conditions have been complied with and that no copies have been retained. If the research team is unable to agree to the foregoing conditions, the documents should be returned along with confirmation that no copies have been retained.”

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine attacked 'conditions imposed by Law Society on research'. Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC condemned the Law Society's insurance brokers, Marsh for not handing over necessary documents which the SLCC itself will need for its 'monitoring role' if that is to be achieved successfully under its legislative powers. Jane Irvine said : “The research is unique as it is the first to examine how the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund function but we are very disappointed that conditions imposed on the data delivered by the Law Society of Scotland’s broker, proved unacceptable and the transparency of operation, which is key for all users, is not apparent."

The Law Society of Scotland today issued a statement confirming the conditions of secrecy imposed on the independent research team, claiming “During the course of this research, representatives of the Law Society were interviewed and various Master Policy documents were supplied to the researchers. Some of the information was commercially sensitive and confidential so the researchers were asked not to share it with other parties and that copies were not made or kept.". Surely such levels of secrecy imposed on independent investigations only serve to preserve the corruption which necessitated the investigation in the first place.

A legal insider who was briefed on the interviews taking place alleged the Law Society attempted to control what was said by the solicitors to the research team, claiming : "Anything to do with the Master Policy or the Guarantee Fund, the Law Society wants to control, to the point of rigging the results. Because this was an independent research team they couldn't control what was being reported by way of interviews from members of the public, but they did ensure they had a firm grip on what solicitors said and what information was released from the Law Society itself."

You can read Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report on the Master Policy & Guarantee Fund, HERE :

Report reveals Law Society Chief Kenneth Pritchard, now a Sheriff blocked a client's access to justice. The highly controversial research report contains direct references to evidence revealed by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney in the Scottish Parliament’s debating chamber, showing the most senior officials of the Law Society of Scotland, including a serving Sheriff, Kenneth Pritchard, intervened in claims against corrupt lawyers, ordering solicitors & legal firms to drop courtroom litigation against colleagues in the legal profession who had negligently handled clients affairs, in some cases losing (or taking) millions of pounds of clients money for themselves. John Swinney said in Parliament : “I can also cite to you extracts from a petition that was made to the Court of Session for Judicial Review, in which there is a quote from a letter from a Mr Pritchard who was the Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland in which he writes to a firm of solicitors: “I am anxious that you should protect your back in this matter, because every solicitor who has acted for this particular person has ended up with a claim against them.’ You will appreciate that this is a private and confidential letter, not to be shown to Mr Macintyre, the sole purpose of which is to give what I hope is helpful advice to protect both you and your firm”.

John Swinney’s revelations broke open the corruption at the Law Society of Scotland and insurance companies connected with the Master Policy. Mr Swinney concluded his statement by saying “So really quite active encouragement from an official of the Law Society of Scotland for a practitioner not to act and deliver legal representation to an individual concerned.”. Mr Swinney said he had no comment to make on the matter today, but Government insiders said the Cabinet Secretary “was satisfied the information he had revealed was accurate and that it clearly contradicted the Law Society’s version of events on Master Policy claims to the Justice 2 Committee & the Scottish Parliament.”

Former Law Chief Kenneth Pritchard claimed Master Policy protected solicitors & clients alike. While the ex Law Society chief, now Sheriff Kenneth Pritchard claimed that Master Policy protected both clients & solicitors, as I reported earlier HERE , the SLCC’s report issued today makes a nonsense of Mr Pritchard’s claims and the Law Society of Scotland’s continued policy of promoting the Master Policy as the “ultimate in consumer protection”. Dr Melville & Professor Stephen’s report reveals a much different picture of the motives of the Master Policy, clearly showing it exists to protect solicitors, no matter how corrupt they have become or what damage they have done to unsuspecting and overly trusting clients. An excerpt from the report issued today reads : "What is striking is that there is no mention of protection of interests of solicitors’ clients in Section 44 of the Solicitors Scotland Act 1980. Thus, the Master Policy is essentially an insurance scheme intended to provide professional indemnity insurance coverage for solicitors.The purpose of the Master Policy, the simple answer is to allow solicitors to sleep at night. It provides professional indemnity insurance cover for firms."

My own case, involving the complaint against crooked lawyer Andrew Penman, is reported in the research as follows : "Not content with slowing my case and claim against the solicitor, the Law Society of Scotland… directly intervened in my claim by letter and instructed my solicitor… not to take instructions from me… The Law Society, not content with intervening with my solicitors directly, proceeded to obstruct and cancel my Civil Legal Aid I had been trying to obtain for my case." You can read more on that HERE.

The findings concluded that clients of lawyers are left out in the cold, despite the Law Society of Scotland today continuing its claims that the Master Policy and the Guarantee Fund offers "unrivalled consumer protection. Clients of solicitors would now do well to consider their positions where what may appear to be a trusting relationship with their legal agent could break down in a calamitous manner at any second, From the report : "The overall impression given to the public seems to be that the Master Policy protects the interests of legal services clients, when, in fact, it protects the interests of solicitors."

Also contained in the report are fairly typical experiences of clients who find out they have been the victim of a 'crooked lawyer' but who then find it difficult to gain fair hearings of their complaints or claims : "The first step for most claimants was to try and resolve the case by speaking to the most senior partner in the firm. None of the claimants that we spoke to felt that the firm made any effort to address their concerns. Instead, they all described being met by partners who were aggressive, and this attitude also appeared to add to their sense of shock.”

One reported experience of a client who made a complaint against their solicitor : "So I phoned up the senior partner of the firm. He then started up investigations, and I made an appointment to see the senior partner. When I went in to see the senior partner, after having a brief conversation with him, he looked at me across the desk, and he sat back in his chair, and he folded his arms, and he said “I’m now your opponent.”

Clients of solicitors would now do well to consider their positions where what may appear to be a trusting relationship with their legal agent could break down in a calamitous manner at any second, rendering the one trusted solicitor an opponent who will stop at nothing to ruin their once so admiring client.

Another report of a client who found the Law Society constantly delaying their claim against a crooked lawyer, in an experience common to many clients, is highlighted in the following manner : "Additionally, from the time my claim was made, the Law Society of Scotland, who were still considering complaints made against the solicitor… constantly halted their investigations, putting forward excuses they could not investigate matters while I was raising a claim for negligence against the Master Policy. This stop-start investigation policy continued for well over a year and it was obvious there was an intentional go-slow on the part of the Law Society of Scotland in their investigations to prevent me from obtaining evidence from their investigations to put into my claim to the Master Policy against the solicitor."

MSPs at the Scottish Parliament are also accused of failing to help constituents who get into difficulties with the legal profession. Members of the public interviewed by the research team also criticised politicians and consumer groups for not doing enough against a very strong legal profession, when even the most horrific cases of client abuse by lawyers went unresolved : "These claimants explained that after discovering that the legal system was not necessarily going to provide a route to justice, that they had attempted to try other avenues to get their cases resolved. They had campaigned for their cause to various consumer interest groups, had approached their MSPs, participated in Government inquiries, turned to the newspaper, and yet they felt that these efforts had met with little avail. For some, this failure provided further evidence of the deep ‘corruption’ and influence of the Law Society."

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was condemned by members of the public in the report as just another Law Society. Unsurprisingly, people who were interviewed by the research team felt the SLCC was of no help to them, reported in an excerpt here : "The SLCC is made up of people with jobs connected to the ‘Law Society Inc.’. It is not independent. That is what we wanted. The Law Society is a law unto their own, they are protected. And the SLCC is part of that. The new SLCC won’t help me… From October to now, how they exercise their remit, there is a cosy relationship between the SLCC and the Law Society… They are supposed to be at arm’s length. But documents released under FOI, these documents show that they aren’t."

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman. The SLCC’s Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, commented on the research saying : “The research is very much exploratory and this is due to the short time-span and the small number of claimants and solicitors it was possible to interview. The research is a useful first step in providing the SLCC with a meaningful insight into the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund and how it can affect complainers. Members of the SLCC Board will now benefit from this important first-stage research which will develop our role overseeing the Master Policy and Guarantee Fund.”

The research team conclude their report by stating : “ What has clearly come through these interviews has been the very divergent views of solicitors and claimants/consumer groups as to the primary function of the Master Policy. The former tend to see it as simply a professional negligence insurance designed to protect individual members of the profession. The latter see that its primary purpose should be to protect the public against incompetent members of the profession. Whilst these are not incompatible aims we have come to the view that the rhetoric of the Law Society of Scotland encourages the latter perception but practice is more inclined to the former. In other jurisdictions there is a more explicit statement that it is the former.”

“Those claimants to whom we spoke were very much of the opinion that it was difficult to establish liability of a solicitor for professional negligence. It would be desirable to test this claim by looking at the record of the Master Policy in terms of claims and compensation paid. Data which would have allowed us to do this was requested from the Law Society of Scotland but was only made available the day before this Report was due to be submitted. Furthermore the Law Society of Scotland and Marsh put conditions on the use of the data in this Report which were unacceptable to us and to the Chief Executive of SLCC.”

“We would recommend that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission undertake a longer term research project which will allow researchers to examine the experiences of a representative sample of claimants and solicitors as well as analyse data on claims provided by the Master Policy’s broker under reasonable conditions of use.”

So, now what ? Will the SLCC actually do something for people who have had their claims destroyed by the Master Policy ‘protection racket’ ? Will SLCC members such as Margaret Scanlan who it was revealed, tagged claimants to the Guarantee Fund as “chancers” learn that just because victims of ‘crooked lawyers’ try to claim compensation for their stolen funds does not necessarily make everyone a chancer ?

Well, for now, it appears the SLCC will do nothing .. and wont even seek a copy of the Master Policy itself, so there is much more campaigning to be done on these issues to ensure that cases involving claims, and also complaints against crooked lawyers, are considered and regulated properly by a wholly independent organisation free of any involvement with the legal profession .. and that is most certainly not, the SLCC.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission branded ‘costly rubber stamp for crooked lawyers’ after leaks show backing for Law Society’s cover ups

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission lacks will to tackle complaints against lawyers despite huge public funding. The release of results of investigations carried out by the £4.5million joint taxpayer-lawyer funded Scottish Legal Complaints Commission into complaints raised by members of the public against law firms & individual solicitors, show that what was hailed as a ‘new broom’ in the world of regulating complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’ is in actuality, little more than a weak willed rubber stamp for corruption in the world of self regulation of the Scots legal profession.

Today for the first time, the results of investigations carried out by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal the astonishing lack of detail in their case handling procedures, and lack of will to even document the specific terms of complaints made against legal firms by clients whose cases ended up becoming victims of the legal firms they had approached to deal with difficult legal issues.

In the papers recently released, the client had been completely unaware they had a right to go to the Law Society of Scotland and contest the work of their legal representatives .. but the Law Society used their ‘time bar’ limitations to refuse to investigate the issues, which the SLCC itself backed.

Investigation #1 : SLCC said Law Society of Scotland did nothing wrong …

Investigation #2 : SLCC claimed Law Society did nothing wrong (again)

However, while the Law Society claimed the above complaints were outwith time bar, it is a fact the Law Society have on several occasions, investigated complaints made against law firms in cases where discovery of evidence was made many years later … making this case, and the SLCC’s refusal to do anything, rather questionable.

A spokesman for a consumer organisation who viewed the ‘results’ of the SLCC’s investigations into the way the Law Society had handled complaints against two Glasgow law firms, branded the contents '”lacklustre” and “a farce”, going onto condemn the organisation as a raw deal for Scotland.

He said : “I see little point in allowing the SLCC to continue its role if this amount of detail is all that is going to come out of investigations carried out by the SLCC into consumer complaints against solicitors. I’m sorry our organisation supported the SLCC now I’ve seen this … it’s a raw deal for the public after all the effort put in to get an improvement in consumer protection in the legal services market we badly need in Scotland.”

“There isn’t even any detail in the papers as to what the complaint was all about in the first place and the events surrounding it. Even the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman used to give a complete account of the original complaint and the stages it went through at the Law Society of Scotland, amounting usually to some 30 pages plus of details. Here we have as little detail as possible which is not what the public expects of a regulator appointed to clean up the severe problems of self regulation of the legal profession.”

Well …after two Scottish Parliamentary inquiries into regulation of the legal profession, and the passing of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 which created the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to clean up corruption in the world of complaints regulation against crooked lawyers … one would think that clients deserve a little more than this .. especially after well over £2 million of taxpayers money has been soaked up by the quango and a further £2.4 million from the legal profession itself.

You can read my earlier articles on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - a failure from the start

SLCC engages in website window dressing but still reluctant to investigate crooked lawyers. The SLCC, apparently anxious that its public image is now much less than trustworthy, is embarking on a reluctant media campaign ‘to promote itself to the community at large’ .. where leaflets and ‘road shows’ will inform the public of its existence and the services it provides consumers and solicitors. The plans may prove somewhat rocky as campaign groups and critics have pledged to attend the road shows and ask difficult questions of the way the SLCC operates and deals with the public, particularly in the wake of recent scandals which have seen SLCC board members appear in the press, apparently content to attack consumers & clients of ‘crooked lawyers’ while performing their costly regulatory roles.

Its fairly obvious the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s heart just isn’t in their work from the documents I’ve seen today, some published, some not.

As far as investigations of complaints against lawyers go, reports must be much more substantive in their account of matters and go into the complete detail of the issues which have caused the client to go to the SLCC or the Law Society of Scotland in the first place, otherwise no lessons will be learned by anyone, the client will never get a fair hearing, and justice will never be seen to be done (again) when it comes to dealing with crooked lawyers.

As one client put it tonight “No matter what this lawyer’s protection racket will do, they will never be trusted by the public who have been lied to too many times over complaints against crooked lawyers”.

Freedom of Information campaign : Make the Law Society of Scotland comply with FOI

Law Society members are shielded by secrecy from FOI. When the law is twisted against people by those in the legal profession who use the law as a business model to make profit, and conceal activities that would be regarded as criminal activity if a member of the public did the same, the law itself is discredited.

This is currently the case in the Scottish legal services market, where many solicitors & law firms are milking the public and their clients for vast sums of money for poor services, even fleecing clients at-will, and getting away with it due to the influence of the Law Society of Scotland in closing down any public interest reforms to regulation, access to justice, or attempts to consider cases of the past. Indeed things are currently so bad, you don't even have a right to know if your own lawyer has a criminal record !

The situation is, one could say, a mirror image of the battle which Westminster fought to keep everyone from finding out as we have now, that our politicians have been paying their expenses with our money and if it had not been for Freedom of Information, and the intervention of the national press, we would have been none the wiser because secrecy, can conceal anything.

So. If you want to stop these people (who received £2.5million from the taxpayer)

getting away with this level of secrecy :

and if you want to stop the Law Society of Scotland from using their immunity from Freedom of Information to protect lawyers from complaints, criminal investigations and fully independent regulation

email or write to this man, Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill :

at : scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or Kenny.MacAskill.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

or write to him at : Kenny MacAskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice,The Scottish Government,St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG.

… and ask him to do his job to see Scots get a fairer deal in access to justice and transparency in legal services, which can be achieved in some part by removing the legal profession’s exemption from Freedom of Information legislation and making them more accountable to us.

Law Society's 'Guarantee Fund' for clients of crooked lawyers revealed as multi million pound masterpiece of claims dodging corruption

Revelations from the Law Society’s briefing to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on claims against crooked lawyers, show that the"Guarantee Fund" - a compensation fund which the legal profession's regulator maintains to 'compensate clients' who are ripped off by their lawyers, is actually little more than a masterpiece of claims dodging corruption, where money paid in annually from each solicitor is held by the profession's regulator and used for anything other than actually compensating the victims of crooked lawyers who swindle their clients.

Documents show money pouring into Law Society which never returns to clients. Staggering figures from documents obtained from the SLCC show that claims against the Guarantee Fund have leapt by millions of pounds in the past year to £4.3 million and are expected to go much higher as the rising tide of fraud committed by lawyers against their clients hits spectacular proportions. "Claims received or earlier claims assigned a value in the current year totalled £4,286,000 (2005/6 £35,000). As a result of this dramatic increase and stock market volatility, the Fund's investments were realised and the decision taken to increase the 2007/8 subscriptions. Depending on the eventual level of settlements, additional subscriptions may be required in the future."

A senior legal figure I spoke to this morning wasn't surprised by the figures.

He said "The current poor financial climate does not bode well for honesty in any profession, and sadly we will see a lot more claims to the Guarantee Fund and probably the Master Policy from clients who suffer at the hands of the fraudulent element of the profession"

He went on : "I feel the situation on client fraud has spun out of control and the Law Society simply do not know how to control it, other than continue to plug holes in the wall to keep the situation quiet, otherwise clients may begin to panic over the security of their funds held by solicitors offices across Scotland."

The Guarantee Fund and Master Policy are both reportedly going to be subject to huge increases in compensation claims due to incidents such as the rising levels of mortgage fraud claims, where an ever increasing number of solicitors in Scotland are facing criminal charges or already have appeared quietly in court.

Recently, Richard Keen QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, broke ranks with the Law Society and admitted there would be soaring claims against crooked lawyers this year and in years to come. I reported the story in an earlier article here : Dean of faculty hints at rising fraud claims against solicitors as 'Penman Levy' bites hard into Scots law firms

The Law Society now admits that (for the last recorded year figures available : "The total of claims intimated but not admitted at 30 October 2007 is £3,777,000, representing 42 separate claims made against 13 firms. This sum can be reduced by £771,000 on the basis of "stop loss" insurance cover in place (compared to £850,000, 42 claims, 13 firms in 2005/6). There is accordingly a need to build reserves to meet claims.”

While the staggering rises in claims against solicitors indicate a huge level of ever increasing fraud by solicitors against their clients, the Law Society controlled "Guarantee Fund" has been busy trying to kill off as many claims to the fund, to preserve the amounts of money remaining in the fund,

One client who has lodged a claim to the Guarantee Fund spoke to me this morning, calling the Law Society run compensation scheme as “something like a giant slush fund of dirty money that drug barons might keep to launder their ill gotten gains”.

Various tactics have been employed by the Law Society and legal firms in attempts to square off against client who make financial claims to the Guarantee fund.

In one seedy case, where a solicitor had stolen money from clients accounts to pay for an extension to his own home and a new car for his wife, the Law Society were reported to have engaged a firm of Private Detectives based in Edinburgh to spy on the crooked lawyer's client, in an attempt to find out compromising information on the client and his family which could be used to barter for the claim to the Guarantee Fund to be dismissed.

A retired accountant, who looked at the Guarantee Fund papers said "There appears to be a lot of money going into it, but not much coming out. I would have to suspect there is a great deal of money simply sloshing around which could be used for anything. It doesn't seem to be much of a protection scheme for solicitors clients.".

He went on : "If I had handed money over to my solicitor recently for some kind of transaction like a house purchase or sale, an investment, or even dealing with a deceased's estate, I think its fair to say I may have significant cause to worry about the security of the funds."

"In the present financial climate, I would advise clients who have concerns about their solicitor holding onto their money or having control of it, to immediately take steps to transfer their funds to a more secure location, because there are little or no guarantees in this "Guarantee Fund" the Law Society claims will protect clients."

The Guarantee Fund as it currently stands is not monitored by any external organisation, although the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has said it will fulfil its monitoring role within the commission's first year of operation.

SLCC members jibes against consumers. However, recent verbal spats between the SLCC's board members over the way in which the commission will monitor the Guarantee Fund, along with bitter rants by officials against claimants to the fund, where one commission member, lawyer Margaret Scanlan dubbed claimants as “chancers”, indicate the SLCC has a long way to go in developing any reliable method of monitoring the claims made against crooked lawyers by financially ruined clients.

Legal Complaints Chief Jane Irvine. Staggeringly, it also turns out the SLCC has not even began its role of monitoring the Master Policy, let alone keeping an eye on the Guarantee Fund. Jane Irvine, the SLCC’s Chairman was asked about the commission’s role in monitoring the Master Policy and asked whether the SLCC had actually asked for a copy of the Master Policy which they are supposed to be monitoring. Irvine however said the SLCC had still not requested sight of the actual Master Policy but “were doing the research”.

Researching an insurance scheme they haven’t even asked for sight of the actual insurance policy …now that’s a new one ! Who is pulling the wool over whose eyes there ?

Officials pull FOI disclosures as Guarantee Fund "chancer" emails show Law Society anti-client bias has migrated to Legal Complaints Commission

Pressure is mounting from all quarters for believable explanations from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission after the publication of a series of emails obtained under FOI laws, depicted commission members & senior officials condemning consumer groups, law reformers and clients of solicitors who have submitted claims for compensation against 'crooked lawyers'.

Consumer groups and some inside the legal profession itself are angry that such anti-client sentiments are still so virulent at the SLCC, created in 2007 and intended to be a new beginning for regulating complaints against the legal profession, after the Law Society of Scotland's total failure in complaints role which has caused record levels of cronyism in covering up complaints against crooked lawyers.

Diary of Injustice : anti-client feelings run deep at the SLCC. While officials at the Scottish Government's Justice Department have privately expressed anger at the conduct of several SLCC board members over 'bile' expressed against consumer groups, and rants over boozed fuelled nights, some officials are now worried the comments made by Margaret Scanlan which apparently are ‘personal opinions’ made against the personal characters of claimants to the Law Society of Scotland's "Guarantee Fund", may amount to the same type of conduct & intervention which eventually ended the career of ex Law Society Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, who himself was brought down after appearing before the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee, Mill openly arguing with John Swinney about the content of his own memos - which also detailed clients claims against crooked lawyers.

Memos of a feather flock together ? SLCC’s Margaret Scanlan's email echoes Douglas Mill's policy against Master Policy client claims :

One official who did not wish to be named said "People who read these emails may have good reason for thinking the same client bashing closed ranks sentiment which came out at J2 from Douglas Mill has now crossed over to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Some here feel the way that members have acted at the Commission has badly damaged its reputation & credibility."

He went on : "There has been a briefing about the weekend media coverage in the Sunday Mail and on 'A Diary of Injustice in Scotland' and I heard that orders have been given out to the SLCC to prevent such embarrassing documents from being disclosed in the future."

Coincidentally, a Freedom of Information request which was due to be delivered to me on Monday 16 March, was pulled at the last minute by the SLCC's office Manager, after the blaze of publicity in the weekend press & online media of board members booze fuelled antics & personal enmity expressed towards consumers. Suspicious are high that orders have been given to prevent documents being disclosed which could further embarrass the beleaguered law complaints body.

The SLCC official, when asked why the FOI disclosure had been pulled said : "The contents of the FOI request I am dealing with … are being pulled for scrutiny by me alone no other agencies have been involved."

A legal insider this morning however said that if the SLCC were removing documents considered controversial simply because problems had been exposed in the organisation, they could well be in breach of the Freedom of Information Act, and should be investigated by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

He said : "Just because a public body finds itself at the heart of a scandal of its own making, doesn't mean it can go around removing or destroying evidence of what its people are up to in order to avoid further damaging disclosures in response to Freedom of Information requests.I think the Information Commissioner should be looking into this as a matter of urgency."

Jane Irvine, Chairman, SLCC. Jane Irvine, the SLCC Chairman was asked for comment on the Scanlan email which took issue with the personal character of a claimant to the Guarantee Fund. She said : ”The remark you refer to in the email sent by Margaret Scanlan to Eileen Masterman has been taken out of context. If you read it again you will see that Mrs Scanlan was referring to Lending Institutions. Her remark was a personal opinion regarding one individual who has not been involved with either the SLCC or SLSO.”

However, if the individual has not been involved with the SLCC or SLSO, it begs the question why details of the claim have been brought up and why Scanlan apparently has detailed information on the claim in the first place and felt it necessary to apply personal opinions on claimants characters to the SLCC’s discussion on its monitoring role of the Law Society’s Guarantee Fund & Master Policy insurance schemes designed to compensate clients for the actions of rogue solicitors.

Jane Irvine was then asked if the SLCC is now prepared to identify the individual concerned in Margaret Scanlan's email to Eileen Masterman and inform them of matters regarding Mrs Scanlan's personal opinion on their claim to the Guarantee Fund, which has now been made public in the media. No response has yet been received to that request.

Kenny MacAskill – distancing himself from scandal mired SLCC. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was asked for reaction to the scandal, however his spokesman issued a terse statement on his behalf, seeking to distance the Justice Secretary who had himself, personally appointed the SLCC board members who have now brought the law complaints body into disrepute.

A Scottish Government spokesman said on MacAskill’s behalf : “The SLCC has been established as an independent body to oversee complaints against the legal profession. Having established the SLCC as an independent body, it would be wholly inappropriate for Ministers to provide a running commentary on issues concerning it.”

It might well be the Justice Secretary wants to distance himself from the goings on at the SLCC, but its his responsibility as Justice Secretary to clean up the mess his own appointed members have caused both the organisation and the further damage to public respect in the legal profession, which obviously cannot police itself or even be involved in any matters of regulation of legal services in Scotland …

MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members 'booze culture conduct' reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has lost credibility. Stunning revelations in the weekend media coming on top of my article of last Thursday on further scandals at the SLCC show that senior law figures within the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who were personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, appeared to have taken the ‘booze culture’ into their duties at the multi million pound joint taxpayer & lawyer funded independent’ SLCC which is supposed to deal with complaints against lawyers.

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

Margaret Scanlan : “Was out on the razzle, again, last night so bit cross-eyed this morning. Please excuse any consequent gibberish. Here are my comments on Master Policy and Guarantee Fund…. The consultation should be viewed with some caution. It provides very little by way of a sound evidential basis for us to do anything…. One unidentified responded … reports complaints about difficulty in finding solicitors to pursue a claim under MP (Master Policy). Apart from fundamental misunderstandings about MP which is for benefit of practitioner and in respect of which consumer has no rights ..”

So, despite suffering from a hangover after ‘being on the razzle’, there was still time for SLCC board members to throw the public out the door once again on rights against crooked lawyers … but even worse was to come as new emails reveal a more serious scandal :

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

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

Margaret Scanlan's comments, directed against a claimant to the Guarantee Fund, appear to reflect a level of feeling many at the Law Society of Scotland are known to have against members of the public who dare to either complain or make a claim for damages against their rogue lawyer. More seriously, Scanlan's email comments in her capacity as an SLCC board member may have potentially damaged claims to the Guarantee Fund, and sources say today, she could face the possibility of legal action over her comments disparaging the individual involved in the claim she was referring to.

A legal insider hit out at Scanlan's comments against claimants to the Guarantee Fund, claiming her words "were wholly out of place and since the SLCC hadn't even began its monitoring role of the Guarantee Fund & Master Policy, the comments against an actual claim should not have been made."

He went on "There is an all-out attempt by the Law Society of Scotland and the insurers to block any substantial monitoring by the 'independent' commission of the Guarantee Fund & Master Insurance Policy. Many meetings have taken place already between the senior members of the SLCC, the insurers, and the Law Society, who have put the profession’s own views forward on how the fund & insurance operates "perfectly well" in their own eyes."

"People who have actually tried to make a claim against the Master Policy or the Guarantee Fund have been blocked from attending the SLCC to give their actual real life experiences on what happened to their claims, probably because most financial claims against solicitors fail due to Law Society meddling with clients legal teams and court access which obviously no one wants to hear about at the commission."

The legal profession’s ‘point of view’ on how the Master Insurance Policy actually operates, is as you know, slightly askew from the truth of the matter, which I have reported previously in articles such as the following : Law Society boss Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints.

Eileen Masterman, SLCC Chief Exec. Insiders to the SLCC reported over the weekend that Eileen Masterman, the SLCC’s Chief Executive apparently did not reprimand the poor conduct of board members, and rather than keeping above the bitter exchanges, agreed with lawyers hostile sentiments towards consumer groups. It is worth noting Eileen Masterman had a long history of involvement with the Law Society of Scotland prior to her joining the SLCC as Chief Executive, having actually served on Law Society committees on the flawed regulator which the SLCC was designed to replace.

Justice Secretary MacAskill appointed ‘on the razzle’ hung-over lawyers to the SLCC. Given the state the SLCC currently finds itself, where decisions taken by Mr MacAskill's appointees have restricted its investigations of consumer complaints against crooked lawyers to issues which occur only after 1st October 2008, millions of pounds of taxpayers money has evidently been wasted on a commission which is self serving, and has no obvious intention to deal with the sins of the legal profession, which the Law Society of Scotland has so far failed to clear up after decades of being the self regulator of all Scottish lawyers.

A client of a solicitor the Law Society is currently investigating over complaints of poor service & severe misconduct agreed the SLCC needs to be reformed in the wake of recent scandals and said “This SLCC is just another version of the Law Society and is full of lawyers and others who just want to close ranks with their legal world friends no matter how crooked they are.This commission needs to be cleaned up and made to do what it is supposed to be doing, not what the Law Society and crooked lawyers want it to do.”

One solicitor today who did not wish to be named said the comments against the Guarantee Fund claimant made by Scanlan in her capacity as an SLCC board member may amount to possible defamation of the so-far unidentified claimant, who now faces the prospect their claim against the Guarantee Fund will not be met.

He said “There may be cause for the claimant to sue the SLCC for damages over the Board members accusations. At the very least the matter merits a full investigation and an apology to whoever Margaret felt strongly enough to refer to in this way in her emails.”

While recent news leaks show SLCC board members engaged in some kind of free for all party-on approach to their duties & mission to offer increased consumer protection against crooked lawyers, I would remind you all from two previous articles the same board members were quick enough to threaten resignation if they didn’t secure greater perks from the taxpayer, such as personal insurance cover and increased pensions, which you can read here :

Legal Complaints Commission in crisis amid funds shortage & resignation threats over lack of insurance protection &

Complaints Commission 'unfit for purpose' as secret meetings with insurers & pensions take focus over consumer protection against crooked lawyers

I’d say the conduct of the SLCC to-date is evidence enough if more were needed the SLCC needs a clean up of its present structure which appears biased towards the legal profession it was put there to regulate, and a representative element from consumer organisations & actual users of legal services added to its staff & board.

The Sunday Mail reports :

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

Mar 15 2009 By David Taylor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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