Legal Services Bill vote by MSPs will force all victims of 'crooked lawyers' to use Law Society's corrupt ‘claims dodging’ Guarantee Fund

Holyrood’s Justice Committee voted through latest Law Society edicts on Legal Services Bill. THE ROAD TO RUIN for Scots wider choice of access to justice provided by the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, took a step closer this week as the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee voted through the latest series of Law Society led re-writes of what is now becoming a decidedly consumer unfriendly piece of legislation, with MSPs voting through little publicised amendments put forward by the Law Society itself which will force any non-Law Society controlled legal service provider in the new expanded legal services market forced to contribute to, and access the existing Law Society controlled & administered Guarantee Fund, with any individual claim on the fund to be capped at £1.25 million.

Fergus Ewing, Minister for Community Safety & the Justice Dept couldn’t come up with independent ideas, was forced back to the Law Society Guarantee Fund. The Scottish Government’s Fergus Ewing proposed the Law Society wish to control & administer all claims by consumers against their legal representatives with the following amendment during this week’s Justice Committee session on the Legal Services Bill, saying : “Although there may be differences in nuance among us, the political view—indeed, the external view—is clearly that there must be a guarantee fund. In the absence of the ability to fund us in other directions, with insurance underwriters unable to provide some form of insurance cover—apart from anything else, the ability to insure against one's own fraud indicates a fairly novel approach to life—there is no apparent answer apart from the utilisation, to some extent, of the Law Society guarantee fund as it exists at the moment.”

Mr Ewing continued : “For its part, the Law Society has expressed some unease about the purpose behind amendment 210 and the related amendments. It seems that, if the Law Society fund must be utilised in providing what we all agree is necessary protection to the consumer, it should have some input to regulation of individuals who have the potential to have a negative impact on the operation of that fund.”

“I hope that the matter might be agreed further down the road. However, having considered the matter at considerable length, I do not see any way round it. We must have the appropriate protection in place, and I can come up with no reasonable solution other than the Law Society fund. At the same time, I recognise the Law Society's anxieties and concerns that we could have an influx into the profession, which could, in certain circumstances—although there is no need to exaggerate the argument—result in the fund being left vulnerable if the Law Society did not have the power to regulate in that respect.”

The Scottish Government - so much money, so many civil servants, still couldn’t come up with consumer protection measures for an independent Legal Services Guarantee Fund. So, the Scottish Government have basically admitted they are so stupid, have such lack of foresight, they cannot come up with an independent compensation scheme to protect consumers of legal services in Scotland under the new arrangements proposed in their own Legal Services Bill, and are therefore forced to run back to the oh-so-open arms of the Law Society of Scotland for help. Pathetic. Especially pathetic considering the Guarantee Fund is, as I reported earlier : Law Society's 'Guarantee Fund' for clients of crooked lawyers revealed as multi million pound masterpiece of claims dodging corruption. In fact, the Guarantee Fund, contrary to Mr Ewing’s understanding of reality, is in such poor state it has never guaranteed anything, and with so many reports coming into this blog of failed Guarantee Fund claims, I issued an ADVISORY for clients to protect their funds from their solicitor's dishonesty by immediately withdrawing any funds held by their solicitors.

You can read the Justice Committee’s debate on the Legal Services Bill, along with the vote to force all consumers through the Law Society controlled Guarantee Fund, here : Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Legal insiders & law reform campaigners have all criticised the Justice Committee’s vote, along with the Scottish Government’s failure to put in place non Law Society controlled consumer compensation arrangements, rather than forcing people though the notoriously corrupt Guarantee Fund operated by the Law Society which allegedly pays out if solicitors or their staff have been ‘dishonest’. Many of those clients who attempt to claim against the Guarantee Fund usually fail, ensuring total financial loss for clients when their solicitors misappropriate funds.

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations, who have made many recommendations on client protection against poor or dishonest solicitors called the Justice Committee’s vote on the Guarantee Fund issue “a poor day for consumer protection against dishonest lawyers” and also went onto accuse the Scottish Government of incompetence in not coming up with independently run compensation schemes to cover the ever rising levels of dishonesty & fraud in the Scottish legal services market.

She said : “For the Legal Services Bill to force consumers who fall victim to dishonesty by a legal services provider to have to claim against the Law Society controlled Guarantee Fund is a recipe for disaster. This move shows how little the Scottish Government has thought through what should have been reforms to access to justice for the benefit of consumers. For MSPs to vote through such a proposal, shows us how little they understand about the realities of attempting to make a claim against the Guarantee Fund.”

She continued : “It is well known clients who are forced to claim against the Guarantee Fund for dishonesty encounter just as many problems as those who attempt to claim against the Law Society’s Master policy for compensation due to solicitors negligence. With the Law Society in control of the Guarantee Fund, preferring to shift many claims which should fall into the category of dishonesty to the even more difficult category of negligence, there is in reality little chance of consumers ever seeing their money again, while the solicitor stood accused of dishonesty or negligence usually continues in business unaffected by what they have done.”

A Justice Department insider asked why the Government was not able to come up with an alternative independent solution for consumer compensation arrangements simply replied : “The Law Society don't want an independently operated or policed compensation scheme, so consumers wont get it.”

A client who has attempted to claim against the Guarantee Fund for the loss of £135,000 as a result of his solicitors ‘dishonesty’ which occurred four years ago said : “The Guarantee Fund is corrupt. The Law Society keep delaying my claim to make sure I don't get a penny. If any of these stupid msps at the Parliament had their money stolen by a lawyer and had tried to claim against the Guarantee Fund they would know exactly what goes on. They are just taking the Law Society’s orders passing this caper which will make sure no one gets a penny when their lawyer, non-lawyer or whoever is doing their legal work runs off with the money. I’m disgusted at them.”

Solicitor John G O’Donnell faced over 21 client claims for negligence & more of dishonesty – the Law Society worked to kill off all the claims. Don't think it could happen to you ? With solicitors & law firms running out of cash to keep their business afloat, embezzlement of client funds has become a common occurrence as the recession bites and legal business falters along with all other areas of the economy so be warned, your once friendly solicitor wont think twice about using any monies held on your behalf for their own ends and when clients eventually discover what happened to their money, a tear filled dash to the Law Society of Scotland or the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (who after two years are still not in a position to ‘monitor’ claims to the Guarantee Fund) will not secure one penny in repayment.

The Law Society are happy MSPs voted through continued Law Society control over compensation claims. Not surprisingly, the Law Society of Scotland are very happy the Scottish Government proposed their idea to force all non-lawyers & entrants into the Scottish legal services market to pay into the Society controlled Guarantee Fund, while also capping claims at a set limit of £1.25 million. The developments, have been ‘welcomed’ in the most recent media release from the Law Society of Scotland on the Legal Services Bill, where its latest President, Jamie Millar said :“We welcome the opportunity to work with the Justice Committee and the government to further discussions on the compensation fund arrangements. It’s an important and complicated issue and the Society is committed to help find a solution which will meet the needs of traditional law firms and new licensed providers and also protect consumers."

Clearly the Law Society is very good at pulling the strings of our gutless politicians … the Law Society speaks, and MSPs vote “Yes” – no consumers are safe with these kinds of arrangements in place …

John Swinney’s confrontation with former Law Society chief revealed the Law Society refuses to compensate victims of crooked lawyers and will target clients who dare. Perhaps if the Scottish Parliament had bothered asking people who had attempted to claim against the Guarantee Fund or Master Policy for their views, and granted victims an audience to appear before the Justice Committee to tell of their experiences & be questioned on what happened, MSPs would have been more wiser to the dangers of attaching any credibility to the Law Society’s policy on claims against its members, as was revealed by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney, who in opposition revealed a very different side to claims against dishonest & crooked lawyers when he confronted the now former Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill over the Law Society’s policy to defeat claims made against crooked lawyers. You can watch the video of John Swinney’s confrontation with Douglas Mill, which led to Mr Mill’s resignation as Law Society Chief Executive, here : John Swinney v Douglas Mill on corruption in claims at the Law Society

The Legal Services (Scotland) Bill originated from a ‘supercomplaint’ filed by consumer organisation Which? to the Office of Fair Trading in 2007, alleging lack of competition in Scotland’s solicitor only dominated legal services market. The Law Society of Scotland initially rejected the OFT’s call for an investigation into the Scottish lawyer monopolised legal services market.

The SNP controlled Scottish Government joined the Law Society and initially rejected any idea of legal services reform then, after the legal profession decided it would be better to take the issue and control it themselves, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill ‘changed his mind’ and the Legal Profession Bill was created, but was renamed as the Scottish Government felt it sounded more like a protectionist bill to maintain the Law Society of Scotland’s grip over access to legal services in Scotland, hence the change of title to what its present identity, the Legal Services Bill.

The Legal Services (Scotland) Bill has been re-written by the Law Society, through the Scottish Government to ensure the legal profession, represented by the Law Society retains its dominance in the Scottish legal services market. As things stand with the current amendments, and more to come, there will be little actual benefit to Scots with this bill, certainly with the Law Society remaining in charge, and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission being about as much help as a dead duck house, I see no gains for consumers of legal services, no gains for access to justice in Scotland, not at least, until someone has the decency to remove the Law Society’s power of regulation over Scotland’s increasingly dishonest legal profession …

Where are you, Which? and the OFT ? … Scots consumers are getting a raw deal here while the legal profession co opts the reforms you both asked for … how about speaking up rather than allowing the unelected Law Society of Scotland to dictate how Scots should access justice & legal services ….

Lawyers negligence insurance branded corrupt, anti-consumer as evidence reveals only one per cent of clients get chance of payout

Imagine your house has just been storm damaged. You have insurance so you call the insurers, inform them you need to make a claim, and the process begins of an assessor showing up at your house, estimates being made of the financial cost of the damage, and usually, work is then authorised to repair your home.

Sounds simple enough ? and while there may be some bumps along the way, generally, your home will be repaired under the insurance policy, if it covers the damage.

You would expect nothing less ... paying into an insurance scheme for years, meticulously making sure the policy covered such instances, and making sure you were satisfied with your insurance company and that your policy would be there for you when you needed to depend on it.

Translate this to making a claim for damages against a lawyer though, and the whole claims process turns into a nightmare of corruption, deceit & anti consumerism. In fact, trying to make a claim for damages against a crooked lawyer turns so bad that figures reveal only 1% of financial claims for damages against lawyers even get access to a courtroom, never mind the chance of an actual payout from the much vaunted but usually absent "Master Policy Insurance" for Scotland's legal profession.

Trevor Goddard of Royal Sun Alliance & Law Society Chief Exec. Douglas Mill - 'Only 1% of claims against crooked lawyers ever get a chance'

The "Master Policy", sometimes known as the "Master Fund" has been touted by the Law Society of Scotland as giving "unrivalled consumer protection" for Scotland's enormous solicitor's client base, but in reality, payouts are very few & far between, particularly when it comes to the question of 'negligence' - which is so prevalent in Scotland's vast army of 10,000 solicitors, it almost equates to that 'storm damage' on your home insurance ...

If you thought there was only a 1% chance of you getting 'storm damage' to your home paid for by your insurance policy, or indeed, any other type of damage covered by your insurance policy, would you remain with that Insurer and keep paying for such an insurance policy which would never pay out ? ... Probably not. I know I wouldn't ...

You would rightly go somewhere else and find another insurer, as there would probably be such a high level of bad publicity against your current insurers who never pay out, you would know that blindly handing over money each year for an insurance policy which has a 1% chance of payout, would be a total waste of your money so, why would you use a solicitor whose insurance policy only has a 1% chance of paying you out when you find out your solicitor has ripped you off, or acted negligently, or worse, made off with your family's assets, even your home ?

Well, currently of course, the Scots public has no choice at all in this. Basically, if you want access to legal services, access to the courts, or access to a solicitor, you have to use a solicitor who is insured by the "Master Policy Insurance" of the Law Society of Scotland and if you have any problems with your solicitor which requires you to make a claim for damages against their insurance, you need to hire another solicitor who is also a member of that same insurance scheme.

Alistair Sim, Director Marsh UK (Brokers to the Master Insurance Policy) - You need a lawyer to sue a lawyer

A party asserting a claim cannot pursue his or her claim directly with the insurers of the Master Policy. It is for the solicitor concerned to intimate any claim to the Master Policy insurers and to request the benefit of the cover. In simple terms, the Master Policy insurers cannot become involved until the matter is intimated by the practice.

In any claim for alleged negligence, the party asserting the claim [the client] will require to establish :

- Whether a duty of care was owed

- Whether the duty has been breached, and how

- What loss has arisen as a direct result of the breach

For that reason, those pursuing claims against solicitors are advised to seek legal representation in pursuing claims.

As you can see from Marsh's own statement, supported by the Law Society of Scotland, an individual cannot pursue a claim directly with the insurers of Scotland's legal profession. You have to go through a lawyer, spend some more money, and hope against reality, that your new lawyer - if you are even able to get another lawyer to sue a lawyer, will actually do the job properly, and without any outside interference.

Sadly, outside interference, particularly from Law Society officials, is indeed the order of the day, as previous articles I have reported on the lawyers insurance scheme show quite clearly ...

Law Society boss Douglas Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints.

Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

Even worse for you, as the poor client who may have been financially ruined by your solicitors actions, you cannot even being the claims process until the lawyer who ruined you actually tells the insurers he suspects you may make a claim against their actions, and even after that, all the steps you have to go through in the "Master Policy" insurance must be conducted, at significant financial cost, by another firm of solicitors you have to find willing to take on the case.

Using the Master Policy of the Law Society of Scotland to sue a negligent lawyer is impossible

Does any of this so far qualify for "unrivalled consumer protection" ? Probably not.

There is no doubt, the "Master Policy" insurance scheme for the Scottish legal profession is good at what it does best, which is - protecting crooked lawyers, keeping them in practice, and keeping payouts to wronged & ruined clients - you, to a minimum.

This is the sole aim of the "Master Policy" insurance - not to pay out when you need it, rather to ensure you don't get paid anything whatsoever - and there is a trail of thousands of ruined clients of crooked solicitors who have received not a penny from the "Master Policy" insurance, while their crooked lawyers have went on to remain in practice, even ripping off more clients.

Solicitor John O Donnell faces 21 separate negligence claims involving the same insurance scheme and he is still in practice - it could so easily be YOUR solicitor and you know nothing about it ...

Alistair Sim once said, there isn't a lawyer in Scotland who hasn't had a complaint & claim made against their insurance - and he would be correct.

You as the client don't get to know anything about that though .. . indeed, as the above link to an earlier story I covered shows, you could well find that your lawyer has as bad a record as Mr O'Donnell and is facing or has faced multiple claims by ruined clients made against his insurance, and no one has ever been paid out .. and there is no way you can truthfully find out whether that is the case or not ...

The way the "Master Policy" insurance scheme for Scotland's legal profession is sold to the public is under the guise of "unrivalled consumer protection" so let's take a brief look at what Marsh, the Brokers, and the Law Society of Scotland claim you get for your trust in your lawyer ...

Master Policy details - a crooked lawyer's charter, written by crooked lawyers, for the protection of crooked lawyers.

"The Master Policy provides cover for all practice units for the mandatory limit of indemnity - £1.5m. All claims attributable to the same act, error or omission or series of acts, errors or omissions consequently upon or attributable to the same original cause or source will be regarded as one claim., In the event of cover being required in excess of the mandatory limit of indemnity, additional Excess layer ("top-up") cover requires to be arranged which may be taken under the facility provided by the Society's Brokers.

The cover is wide and provides indemnity in respect of claims or alleged claims in respect of "any civil liability (including liability for claimant's costs and expenses) incurred in connection with the Practice ..." The definition of "the Practice" refers to "all manner of business ... which is customarily (but not necessarily exclusively) carried on or transacted by Solicitors in Scotland"."

An amazing claim by the insurers and the legal profession, but one hardly consistent with reality given the fact that a paltry 1% of claims only ever make it to payout ...

The Brokers information then amazingly goes on to claim that "The Master Policy also provides cover for dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious acts or omissions involving clients funds on the part of a partner or member of the firm's staff. This cover in respect of clients funds does not apply if the act or omission was committed or condoned by a sole practitioner or by all principles of a partnership."

An equally further amazing claim by the Brokers, completely inconsistent with reality. Just try making a claim against the "Master Policy" for such things as dishonestly, fraud, criminal or malicious acts, and see if you get any further than the thousands of clients who have tried & failed over the years to make similar claims - only to be denied access to the very legal representation required to make such a claim - and thus denied access to justice.

Notification of Claims and Circumstances - or how to kill off a client's claim ...

Now we come to the real dirty tricks of the claims process ...

Notification of Claims and Circumstances

The Master Policy requires (General Condition 1 of the Certificate of Insurance) practice units to :-

"give written notice to the Brokers (regardless of any Self-Insured Amount) as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of circumstances which might reasonable be expected to produce a claim irrespective of the [practice unit's] views as to the validity of the claim or on receiving information of a claim for which there may be a liability under [the] Certificate."

There is no claim form which requires to be completed in order to intimate a claim or circumstance. All that is required initially is a letter to the Brokers, explaining the factual background. Copies of relevant correspondence should be submitted along with any Legal Aid Application, Writ, or Summons.

If the preparation of a detailed summary of the facts or a statement by those involved is likely to delay matters, the practice should simply write to the Brokers in the first instance with brief particulars of the available information rather than delaying their intimation until more detailed information is available.

Where a Writ, Summons, or notice of a Legal Aid Application has been received, clearly the matter should be intimated immediately, with these items, in order that the insurers may take whatever action is required within the appropriate time limits.

No claim form .. imagine that ... nothing like your house or car insurance now, is it .. preferring to keep everything as convoluted & complicated as possible, ensuring a bare minimum of input from the financially ruined client but obtaining the solicitor's point of view, who obviously will be pleading 'not guilty' to their financial crimes against clients ...

I particularly liked the part about "Where a Writ, Summons, or notice of a Legal Aid Application has been received, clearly the matter should be intimated immediately ... in order that the insurers may take whatever action is required within the appropriate time limits."

Yes, we all know what "the insurers may take whatever action is required" means, and it's not just the insurers who do that - the Law Society of Scotland joins in too, to make sure that anything, even a client's claim for legal aid to begin such an insurance claim against a crooked lawyer is stopped

Douglas Mill [regularly] intervenes with the Legal Aid Board to stop client negligence claims against crooked lawyers

oh .. but Douglas Mill testified before the Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament he never intervened in a legal aid claim against both the Law Society of Scotland and a crooked lawyer, which makes Mr Mill a liar in that case - and a liar which the Scottish Conservatives support in the Parliament via Bill Aitken, Convener of the Parliaments's only Justice Committee ...

Douglas Mill - 'I swear on my granny's grave I'm a liar'

So, not just having to be made do with the Law Society of Scotland's monopoly on the legal services market in Scotland, the Scots public are also forced to make do with a corrupt insurance compensation scheme which the lawyers claim is there to protect the public but which only protects lawyers from the public.

Surely such things are yet good arguments to open up the Scottish legal services market and come away from the hallmarks of monopoly, corruption, lack of accountability and anti client prejudice which have ruled the day for all these years ?

Wait a minute though ... the current Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill is a lawyer.

Mr MacAskill has paid for many years into the same "Master Policy" to protect himself from clients and ensure that if he did wrong, no one would get a penny so it's hardly surprising that Kenny MacAskill wants to preserve a large part of the Law Society's monopoly on legal services in Scotland and also the monopoly of the "Master Policy" insurance scheme which mandates that anyone who wants to practice legal services must pay into it ...

Kenny MacAskill - public can made do with second class rights - better to protect crooked lawyers monopoly on legal services & self regulation

Indeed, Mr MacAskill and the Lord President - another financial contributor to the same "Master Policy" insurance scheme, have been happily dismissing any & all applications for rights of legal representation, made by persons & organisations other than members of the Law Society of Scotland, under the 2006 implementation of Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which was designed eighteen years ago to open up the Scottish legal services market and break the Law Society of Scotland monopoly on the public's access to justice.

Mr MacAskill and the Lord President have cited among their reasons for their dismissal of all applications for rights of legal representation to-date the applicants are not members of the same "Master Policy" insurance scheme which only sees a 1% chance of the public ever getting financial redress for the negligent or crooked actions of their legal representatives. Isn't that a bit strange ?

Kenny MacAskill - If you don't pay into the "Master Policy" and aren't a member of the Law Society, we won't let you practice legal services.

It doesn't stop there though ... the same "Master Policy" insurance for crooked lawyers is also costing the Scottish public a pretty penny as each of you have to food the bill for all of the Scottish Government's GLSS lawyers, who have their "Master Policy" annual subscriptions paid as an 'expense freebie' ... and indeed, many Government departments within the Scottish Government also contract the services of Marsh and similar corrupt insurance schemes which do everything to ensure protection of their departments at any cost while any member of the public who has been wronged or financially affected by negligent decisions, never gets a chance of financial compensation.

Some articles I filed earlier on the Scottish Government's affiliation with Marsh UK and the insurers of the legal profession's anti consumer "Master Policy"

Corrupt Insurers of the Scottish legal profession linked to Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive budget on lawyers salaries revealed at over £5 million pounds while public face restrictions on legal representation

Government Legal Service for Scotland - 'no help to victims of injustice'

A good example of some of the public sector's insurers & lawyers dirty tricks may well be the Hepatitis C infected blood products victims, many of whom have died over the years, and are still battling the Government and these kinds of corrupt insurance schemes for compensation and in that case, where patients Health records were allegedly destroyed, it turns out that many think the order those Health records were destroyed, came from the lawyers and insurers of those Health Boards who infected their patients with the tainted blood products ...

What a coincidence that destroying solicitor & client records and faking up files is also one of the policies of the "Master Policy" insurance for crooked lawyers ... which has permeated Government to the highest level with even Ministerial backing from the Justice Secretary ... and a seemingly happy support from the rest of the SNP Government so far ...

Justice or injustice ? The rights and expectations of the public are certainly being trampled by such corrupt 'consumer protection' practices which in reality are 'consumer attack' practices we can all do without ...

Should it not be that our SNP Scottish Government will end such 'consumer attack' practices immediately and give Scots first class legal services instead of second class rights against Scotland's crooked lawyers ?

Scottish law back in the dock as Lockerbie appeal ruling expected and inquiry to follow

Scarcely a day goes by now it seems, where there isn't a scandal of some description involving the Scottish legal system .. could it be that someone is trying to tell us something those of us not in the legal profession or judiciary actually know ? that Justice in Scotland is only for a select few, and Injustice, rather than Justice, is the order of the day for many.

Indeed, it seems the Scottish Justice system has been fashioned into some contemptible weapon of unimaginable proportions, to be used by those who serve its ends or use it as a business model for profit against the fee paying client and Scottish public.

There are however, cases of injustice now returning to haunt Scots Law .. and one of those of course is the infamous Trial of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing over Lockerbie in Scotland, which to many, including myself, seems to have been a political fit up to blame one nation for another's involvement in that despicable terrorist crime which occurred over South Scotland in 1987 seeing the loss of 270 innocent lives.

The SCCRC, the Scottish Criminal Complaints Review Commission, tasked with reviewing cases of injustice in Criminal law, has completed it's report on the trial of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, which took place at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, under a cloak of Scots Law touted as being transparent & accountable at the time .. seemingly anything but as many have now come to realise though through the staggering levels of unresolved cases of injustice now plaguing the Scottish legal system - and awaiting concrete & effective action by our shiny new SNP led Scottish Executive which some expect to deliver, while others expect to fall on their own sword .. time will only tell on that one, and actions speak louder than words in most cases, as we all know ...

Next week, the SCCRC report will be published, and many expect the content of this report - which may well have had a few adjustments made to it, due to the recent change of leadership at the Scottish Executive, will show injustice in the trial & conviction of the Lockerbie bomber.

If this is the case, it may well assist the calls for a general inquiry with wide ranging remit into injustice in the Scottish legal system, given the actual trial at Camp Zeist had been hailed as one of the premier events of Scottish Law for many years .. something which may now turn out to be a big fraud, meddled in by political interests from more than one country to the point that justice itself was twisted beyond recognition in what has become something many of those who take issue with Scots Law and it's practices have become used to.

On the subject of those who serve the law & use it as a business model for profit, a few stories have surfaced in the media this week showing yet again how glorious our legal profession really is ... in one instance, Lord Osborne, a High Court judge decided to have a go at solicitor Spencer Kennedy of Balfour and Manson, one of Edinburgh's best-known law firms for wasting court time where, quoting the Herald newspaper, the solicitor, Mr Kennedy canceled a three-day hearing before a panel of three judges just two days before they were due to sit, leaving Lord Osborne, who was to chair the panel,with an empty courtroom and two judges with nothing to do.

Great work on the part of Mr Kennedy then .. although hasn't this sort of thing happened before, dare I say .. regularly ? .. but usually the client gets billed for it too ...

Referring to the Herald newspaper article once more, Lord Osborne was brave enough to critisise the legal profession in these actions, in a formally published opinion, said:

"We feel compelled to express our dismay at the waste of scarce public resources which has occurred in this case.

"In our view, those who are professionally involved in litigation in this court have an indisputable obligation to take reasonable care to avoid situations where court time will be wasted.

"Only by acceptance of the obligation to keep the Keeper of Rolls informed of relevant developments can the system of early disposal be operated effectively, without waste and in a way that is fair to litigants in general."

It's a pity some members of the judiciary wouldn't come out and tackle the way the Law Society has sunk the legal profession into the depths of public contempt for the decades it has caused injustice upon injustice towards clients who have dared complain against the poor, or even crooked services of many a crooked lawyer .. such comment & criticism from the bench would be most welcome, rather than a few open letters from the judiciary's ex members taking aim at our Parliament & Government over the prospect of any reform to centuries old practices which seem to have ... culminated in a sea of injustice and cases such as the Lockerbie trial, the McKie fingerprint scandal .. and indeed all our cases of injustice left to fester at the very feet of madam justice herself.

Going back to complaints against lawyers, as a deep rooted issue of injustice in Scotland, the cause of much suffering which the legal profession simply refuses to recognise or deal with, I see that lawyers still put forward such arguments as "the vast majority of complaints stem from fees, which the clients are made well aware of, and the outcome of cases"

An entirely false argument of course - Complaints are generally across a wide spectrum of services provided by the legal profession, as both lawyers & clients alike know full well - wills & probate, mis sold mortgages, investment work, case preparation & handling, you name it, there is a complaint to match it - Could anyone call 5000 complaints a year for over 10 years against less than 10,000 lawyers a positive reflection on the Scottish legal profession ?

How about another old chestnut - the one about "Everyone can make mistakes, not just lawyers - there are a lot of other crooked professionals out there too, including accountants, plumbers ..etc ..."

Yes, very true, there are most certainly a lot of other crooked professionals out there, and accountants are next on the list or equal to lawyers in their corrupt practices of self regulation .. but what separates the honest from the corrupt is who admits to making their mistakes and who has the decency to put them right. The legal profession, and most others, particularly those professions who enjoy the corrupt luxury of self regulation, are not putting their mistakes right in any way shape or form - particularly as far as lawyers go, that is simply against the policy of the nearly 17 year old regime of the Client Relations Office & leadership of the Law Society of Scotland which prefers client confrontation at all costs and any expense in preference to dealing properly with complaints.

Rather than bemoan & belittle the fee paying clients, or target & vilify those who take issue with the well known less-than-honest practices of the Law Society of Scotland which seems to have a vow to keep the very worst of the legal profession in practicing certificates, solicitors could vote themselves a new leadership of the profession & a new client friendly policy which would deal swiftly effectively, economically compassionately, and above all, honestly, with client complaints, perhaps reducing those thousands of hours of extra, unnecessary work - which are really down to the profession's policy of confrontation with clients rather than effective complaints resolution, or is it that lawyers prefer it that way ? confrontation at all costs ? Solicitors are certainly paying for that policy in subscriptions to the Law Society and the Master Insurance Policy...

Does the legal profession's view of complaining clients not look something more like : client given poor service or ruined, client complains, client gets nowhere, clients & their families should be targeted, victimised & hounded for the rest of their lives because they took issue with the almightily legal profession ? - this sadly is more the reality than what the legal profession would have us believe and that is why this injustice in Scotland, along with all the other injustice, must end.

Over to you Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond at the Scottish Executive ... it's within your power to end injustice - use the power and serve the country, not those who have thrived & profited on injustice & corruption against the Scottish public for so long.

A selection of articles from the Herald & Scotsman newspapers follow :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1490702.0.watchdog_to_rule_on_lockerbie_bomber_conviction.php

Watchdog to rule on Lockerbie bomber conviction
DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor June 22 2007

The conviction of the Lockerbie bomber reaches a crunch point next week when a detailed review of the evidence is published that could force a second appeal or even a retrial.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is to announce on Thursday whether it believes the conviction was unsafe or whether a miscarriage of justice took place, following speculation that it has serious concerns about the use of evidence.

The case could put immense pressure on the Scottish justice system, for which the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was a massive test of global interest. It was tried in a special court without a jury at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, which was designated Scottish territory for the purpose.

The Libyan intelligence officer was convicted in 2001 of the murder of 270 people after the bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. Eleven people were killed on the ground by falling wreckage and all 259 passengers and crew in the Boeing 747 died.

The SCCRC has the option either to refuse Megrahi's application or to refer it to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, where his conviction will be looked at again.

That would be the second appeal, after senior High Court judges dismissed a previous one in 2002 on a technical legal point. The report runs to 800 pages and will not be made public. A summary will, however, be published.

It was reported last Sunday that Megrahi's conviction will be declared unsafe and there will be a recommendation for the Appeal Court to reconsider the case.

Campaigners on Lockerbie have long had doubts about the case against Megrahi. Others have pointed the finger of blame instead at a Palestinian group backed by Iran.

The case of Megrahi, 55, sparked a political storm earlier this month between Tony Blair and Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond. Even before the SCCRC finding, Mr Salmond accused the Prime Minister of striking a deal with Libya that could see Megrahi transferred to a Libyan jail.

Tripoli's main motivation for the talks, it has been claimed, was to agree an exchange of specific prisoners: if Megrahi was allowed to serve the remainder of his life sentence in Libya then it would free five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor sentenced to death for deliberately infecting children with HIV at Benghazi Hospital.

If Megrahi is cleared, the Libyans may claim back US$2.7bn (£1.4bn) in compensation paid to families of the Lockerbie victims - a bill that could fall to the Scottish Executive as being responsible for the justice system.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing, said at the weekend: "I entered the court at Zeist at the beginning of the trial believing that this guy was responsible for killing my daughter. Having listened to the evidence, I came away convinced that Megrahi was a scapegoat and should never have been convicted."

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1490549.0.0.php

Judge attacks solicitor for waste of time
DAVID LEASK June 22 2007

A High Court judge yesterday made a rare and blistering attack on a top solicitor for wasting court time.

Lord Osborne effectively "named and shamed" Spencer Kennedy of Balfour and Manson, one of Edinburgh's best-known law firms.

The solicitor cancelled a three-day hearing before a panel of three judges just two days before they were due to sit.

Lord Osborne, who was to chair the panel, was left with an empty courtroom and two judges with nothing to do because two days is far too short notice to arrange a different hearing.

Lord Osborne, in a formally published opinion, said: "We feel compelled to express our dismay at the waste of scarce public resources which has occurred in this case.

"In our view, those who are professionally involved in litigation in this court have an indisputable obligation to take reasonable care to avoid situations where court time will be wasted.

"Only by acceptance of the obligation to keep the Keeper of Rolls informed of relevant developments can the system of early disposal be operated effectively, without waste and in a way that is fair to litigants in general."

‘We feel compelled to express our dismay at the waste of resources’

It can take months or even years to get a case through the Court of Session, where the case, an appeal, was due to be heard.

Litigants often complain of expensive delays, and the Scottish Courts Service is desperate to reduce wasted time.

A day in court can cost thousands of pounds. Judges alone are understood to earn around £170,000 a year and are in high demand.

It is extremely unusual for them to make public their displeasure with solicitors. Lord Osborne, who is one of the country's most distinguished judges, sat on the Lockerbie appeal panel.

He said he had been prompted to make public his view by the waste of "scarce resources".

Mr Kennedy is representing a dissolved firm of solicitors, Sutherland and Company, which is being sued by a client for negligence.

The action had been allowed to go ahead back in June 2005 by another High Court judge, Lord Dawson, who has since died.

Mr Kennedy sought to appeal Lord Dawson's decision and had initially asked for a single day of court time to do so.

That was granted for March 22 of this year but Mr Kennedy then asked for a three-day hearing, which was set for May 30.

It was that appeal hearing that Mr Kennedy pulled out of two days before it was due to be called.

Now the case, brought by client Marylin McDonald-Grant, will go to a full eight-day proof before the Court of Session.

Lord Dawson, a former solicitor-general, was no stranger to controversy. Several of his decisions as a judge were later overturned before he died this year after years of poor health.

Mr Kennedy, a solicitor advocate, was on holiday yesterday and unavailable for comment. His company, Balfour and Manson, would not comment either.

However, Mr Kennedy told the court that the waste of its time was "regretted".

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=983592007

Developer wins £400,000 from law firm over property offer
JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT

A SCOTTISH law firm was yesterday ordered to pay more than £400,000 in compensation after it sent a client's offer for a property to the wrong fax number.

Alex Watts, 33, missed out on a substantial Georgian property in Edinburgh's New Town because his lawyers faxed his offer to the wrong place. His had been the highest bid by some distance, and would have been accepted.

A judge heard that the mistake by Bell & Scott WS had been "black-and-white negligence", and he ruled that Mr Watts - a property developer - was entitled to the profit he would have made by converting the building, the former Caledonian Club in Abercromby Place, into flats.

The Court of Session was told that Mr Watts ran a property development company concentrating on the New Town. He had undertaken projects in Nelson Street, Heriot Row and Abercromby Place. In mid-2002, his attention turned to the Caledonian Club.

The judge, Colin MacAulay, QC, said: "It was clear to me that he had had a successful track record in the property development business. He was plainly someone who possessed business acumen. He was in the process of moving up the scale of values for development."

Mr Watts put in a written offer, through Bell & Scott, of £1.05 million for the club. The selling agents, DM Hall, fixed a closing date of noon, 21 June. That morning, Mr Watts instructed the offer to be increased to £1.1 million. The selling agents agreed to accept a faxed offer if it was followed by a "proper" offer.

The court heard that, by mistake, the fax was sent to Mr Watts's fax number and not to that of DM Hall.

"At that time, Mr Watts was on holiday and unaware of the error. The faxed offer was therefore not received by DM Hall prior to the stipulated closing time," said the judge.

"Although seven other offers for the premises were received, Mr Watts's offer of £1.1 million would have been the highest offer by about £43,000. The premises were sold to Plum Developments, the highest bidder who had made a timeous offer. As a matter of principle, the club refused to consider Mr Watts's late offer."

The court heard that Caroline Docherty, a partner in Bell & Scott, was Mr Watts's solicitor at the time, and she bore direct responsibility for the error.

Mr Watts had planned to convert the building into flats, aiming at the upper end of the property market. He had expected the project to raise £2.37 million, and his lawyers claimed that his profit would have been £614,066..

Mr MacAulay said the mistake had been described by Mr Watts's QC as "black-and-white negligence."

Mr MacAulay considered that the method used by Mr Watts to calculate the lost profit was "too speculative." His timetable was likely to have been delayed and other factors, such as going over budget and sales prices being lower than anticipated, could also have impacted on the figure.

He preferred the approach urged by Bell & Scott, of looking at the profitability of previous developments by Mr Watts. That gave a figure of £412,380, which he awarded to Mr Watts.

Law Society of Scotland covers up history of crooked lawyer as new President indicates little change on pro lawyer anti client policies

Last week, the Law Society of Scotland gained a new President in the annual appointment of what is mostly an honorary position. This year sees John MacKinnon, a partner in Brown & McRae in Fraserburgh become the latest President of the Law Society.

So, all change then ? Not much of a chance of that it seems, from reading Mr MacKinnon's soft interview in the Scotsman earlier this week .. so soft, and so glowing, I wondered if Douglas Mill, the real power behind the Law Society of Scotland was lurking in the background, dictating terms on how the article should be worded ...

When reading Mr MacKinnon's interview, one should spare a moment to read the excellent Sunday Mail's exposure of corruption in the legal profession which has seen the Law Society cover up the details of a solicitor who the Sunday Mail exposed as being the subject of 21 complaints ! .. and there's probably more clients dissatisfied with solicitor John O'Donnell, based in Cathcart, Glasgow - who blames his behaviour on a "mental illness" between 2000 and 2002.

So the Law Society are allowing solicitors with mental illnesses to practice ? or is it just another of the good excuses generated to get crooked lawyers off the hook from complaints ? You can read the Sunday Mail exposure on solicitor John O'Donnell here :

EXCLUSIVE : LAWYER SUED FOR £1MILLION and I covered last year's Sunday Mail coverage of Mr O'Donnell here : Peter Cherbi comments on top Scottish Lawyer revealed by the Sunday Mail newspaper to be at centre of 12 Negligence Claims by clients

There are many O'Donnells in the Scottish legal profession though, helped on by the policy of the Law Society of Scotland as self regulator all these years to ensure complaints against lawyers are covered up and the consumer doesn't know the record of who & what their lawyer really is ... time to fix that one then Mr MacKinnon ? and bring in full regulatory disclosure on lawyers so that clients know who they are dealing with before they employ their services ?

If you don't do it, Mr MacKinnon, perhaps the new Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill should force the issue of regulatory disclosure ? in the public interest perhaps ?

Mr MacKinnon does come clean over two important issues in the largely sympathetic-to-lawyers article, those being the Law Society's attitude towards the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which comes into action next year as a result of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 .. and also, the Law Society's concern over the long needed break up of the legal profession's monopoly of the legal services market - which lawyers have used for years to arbitrarily decide who gets access to justice & who does not.

To quote the article directly :

"One of my main priorities is to ensure that, when the commission opens its doors in October 2008 or earlier, the profession is well-informed and educated about its workings and expectations, and are ready and able to deal with it," he says.

"My priority is that we set up standards. The standards already exist in the form of guidelines, so I think it's a question of defining those standards, so that not only the profession knows the standards that are expected of them but also the public."

That will be a change of resistance, threat & blackmail then, previously heard as policy statements from Douglas Mill, the Law Society Chief Executive, who even went so far to threaten the Parliament & Executive over the passage of the LPLA Bill ? How contradictory indeed !

I covered Douglas Mill's threat of legal action against the LPLA Bill here :

Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

I would of course, have to take issue with Mr MacKinnon's comment on 'standards'.

What on earth makes anyone think or believe the Law Society of Scotland can set up standards now, when it hasn't been able to do so for the existence of it's lifetime to date ?

Haven't we seen rampant corruption in the legal profession for years ? complaints at all time high levels of up to 5000 complaints a year against less than 10,000 solicitors .. and that going on for nearly a decade ?

Indeed, the Law Society of Scotland has been performing it's self regulatory function admirably in terms of letting armies of crooked lawyers off the hook while the numbers of their financially ruined clients mount up over negligence, embezzlement, theft, mis-sold mortgages, bad investment deals, fiddled property transactions ... so Mr MacKinnon has a great task ahead of him indeed, if he thinks he will be able to "set up standards" in the legal profession now, after all those decades of lawyers being used to covering up for lawyers and avoiding to pay out any compensation to clients they ripped off to feather their own nests, buy big houses, a few extra cars and the rest of their family perks - all on the backs of poor unsuspecting clients who have been robbed blind by Scotland's legal profession over the years.

However, in another part of the rather soft interview, rather embarrassing to read in a newspaper one must admit as a 'news item' ... John MacKinnon reveals one of the main fears of the Law Society currently .. the fact that if the monopoly on legal services currently held by lawyers & advocates is broken up, they won't be able to regulate those people who are able to step into the shoes of lawyers, and perhaps offer the consumer a much greater choice in legal services, cheaper services (no more of the £100+VAT for 3 lines of text on a lawyers letter perhaps) - and more importantly, access to justice which has more often than not usually been access denied by lawyers & their legal profession who didn't want particular cases or people proceeding to court on particular issues .. such as of course, pursuing a crooked lawyer or even perhaps establishing a ruling in law on an issue which the legal profession did not want.

To quote Mr MacKinnon again from the article :

"What is being suggested is solicitors should be able to go into business with non-solicitors, and solicitors' firms could be owned and funded by non-solicitors," says MacKinnon. "My problem with this is I have still to see a method of regulation of that scenario. We can regulate solicitors, but who is going to regulate the non-solicitors?"

Indeed, Mr MacKinnon - who will regulate the non solicitors ? Not you or your colleagues I hope - or for sure, we will end up with another crooked self regulatory framework which will cause thousands of problems a year for the public just as your current self regulation of the legal profession has caused for decades.

What we really need, is a new fully independent regulatory system, to regulate the opened up legal services market in Scotland, and solicitors are not the best placed people to be doing that, as after all, they will be in direct competition to those new faces & companies allowed to represent people in the courts and handle legal work which has been the fiefdom of lawyers & advocates for so long ...

Lastly today, I manage a laugh at Donald Reid's rant in the Scotsman earlier this week, on his visit to Iona and that he came across a small museum there which happily stated there were "no lawyers" around in 1791. It must have been bliss then for the Iona Community ! - not to be troubled by legal sharks out to raid people for every penny.

Mr Reid, your understanding of how clients perceive or blame their lawyers for wrongdoing is completely out of touch with reality.

While as a member of the Scottish legal profession, you may hate my guts as one of the 'malcontent' clients, who successfully campaigned for changes in the law to help the public against crooked lawyers & self regulation, you should take off your LLB and walk among us to see & understand the financial ruin, lost property, hurt, pain, violence, even, abuse, your legal colleagues have inflicted on their victims, rather than spout the Law Society's professional doctrine, which has been consistently anti client, anti consumer, anti reform, and certainly lacking honesty, transparency & accountability for all these years.

To answer your "wee sermon" Mr Reid, quoting your "lighten up on lawyers and we'll listen more sympathetically. Right now, we are so used to being castigated for what we didn't do that we are tempted to fight back even when we ought to apologise and face our critics honestly. "

Mr Reid - lighten up on the public, and take a dose of honesty, transparency & accountability as a profession. Tackle your own problems as a profession, your own contradictions & claims of representing the public interest when you do anything but, and tackle the 17 year old regime at the Law Society of Scotland which has seen complaints figures explode, as well as the numbers of crooked lawyers getting away with their crimes, as the oh so common actions of Mr O'Donnell illustrates.

You want us to lighten up on you, after our colleagues, have hounded us, hunted us down, vilified us, intimidated us, obstructed, interdicted & ruined our lives ... how dare you ask that before confronting your own demons & actions which have led to our suffering as victims of the very people who claim to serve the law, but use it as nothing more than a business model for making money at the expense of honesty and life itself.

Look inside your own house before preaching to us, the victims of your crooked corrupt colleagues and the many more out there whose cases go buried by the Law Society of Scotland.

Articles from the Sunday Mail and Scotsman to follow :

EXCLUSIVE: LAWYER SUED FOR £1MILLION

3 June 2007
EXCLUSIVE: LAWYER SUED FOR £1MILLION
By Russell Findlay

A LAWYER finally faces action from legal watchdogs after compensation claims against him passed the £1million mark.

John O'Donnell is being probed by the Law Society of Scotland.

Since we first exposed him a year ago there have been nine new complaints - bringing the total to 21.

They include Frank Gallagher, who was injured at work in 1990. He only received compensation after lawyer Simon Di Rollo stepped in.QC Di Rollo has now complained to the Law Society about O'Donnell's delays and excuses.

Last year we revealed O'Donnell, 55, was the subject of 12 negligence claims.

New complaints since bring the total being claimed to just under £1.1million, with £446,000 paid out so far.

Gerald McLean accuses O'Donnell of bungling his injury claim.

He said: "I've fought him for 11 years and he has ledme up the garden path."

O'Donnell, based in Cathcart, Glasgow, has blamed his behaviour on mental illness between 2000 and 2002, when only a handful of claims were made.

His record of negligence is kept secret by the Law Society.

The most recent claim against O'Donnell is by mortgage giants Halifax who loaned his client Catherine Sweeney more than £100,000. But the lawyer failed to carry out the basic task of registering the loan against the property in Dingwall, Ross-shire.

When Sweeney then sold it, the money she was loaned by the Halifax was not returned to them.

Next year the independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will start handling complaints about lawyers.

Peter Cherbi of Injustice Scotland said: "Mr O'Donnell's record is astonishing. It's even worse that were it not for the Sunday Mail then the public would know nothing about it.

"It suits the Law Society to keep it under wraps.

"Clients won't be safe until they get full disclosure on their lawyers otherwise the O'Donnell effect will continue."

The Law Society refused to discuss complaints against O'Donnell.

Last night, O'Donnell said: "I had a breakdown five years ago. I was not aware there had been 21 claims."

and now the new Law Society of Scotland's President interview in the Scotsman ...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=869812007

Standard-bearer voices concerns over key issues

JENNIFER VEITCH

IT IS beginning to seem that each new president of the Law Society of Scotland is faced with new and more intricate challenges than the last. While the dust may have settled on the recent battles fought by Caroline Flanagan and Ruthven Gemmell over regulation and complaints, it will be up to the new incumbent, John MacKinnon, to get to grips with the new order, and a new Scottish Executive.

Over the next 12 months, this quietly-spoken Skye-born solicitor will have to steer the society through profound changes in the way complaints about legal services are handled. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission may be operational as the new gateway as early as next spring, and the society has already been challenged by the commission's interim chief executive to set standards for the profession - or face having them imposed by the new commissioners.

The society is also keeping a watchful eye on developments at the Office for Fair Trading (OFT), which recently received a "super-complaint" from the consumer watchdog Which?, which has called for deregulation of the Scottish legal services market and an independent Scottish Legal Services Board to take regulation out of the hands of the society and the Faculty of Advocates.

MacKinnon is also taking over at a time when the biggest changes in legal education for a generation are likely to take place. At the same time, the society is reviewing its own structure, including the council and committees, to ensure it is providing members with a service that reflects the modern profession. Even the current location of the society is up for review.

Meanwhile however, its headquarters remains at Drumsheugh Gardens in Edinburgh, which MacKinnon will no doubt come to regard as his second home during frequent trips south from Fraserburgh over the next 12 months. Sitting in the society's library, he reflects on the challenges ahead, and cites the birth of the new commission as being at the top of his agenda.

"One of my main priorities is to ensure that, when the commission opens its doors in October 2008 or earlier, the profession is well-informed and educated about its workings and expectations, and are ready and able to deal with it," he says.

"My priority is that we set up standards. The standards already exist in the form of guidelines, so I think it's a question of defining those standards, so that not only the profession knows the standards that are expected of them but also the public."

When the commission may open as early as next April, MacKinnon knows there is limited time for the society to get up to speed. A working group is set to make recommendations at the next AGM in March.

This timescale may be tight if the commission does open early. MacKinnon hopes the commissioners, who are set to be appointed in the autumn, will recognise the importance of ensuring the profession and the public are up to speed before introducing the new gateway for service complaints.

"The commission is very important, and it is very important they get it right, and everything is in place," he says carefully. "On the other hand, I suppose there is uncertainty for the profession, and there is the uncertainty for the society's employees. If everything is in place earlier than October 2008, then I'd have no difficulty with that."

The society was vocal in its concerns about the proposals for the new commission, unveiled early last year. But now the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 has been passed, MacKinnon says the focus is to work with partners on the steering group tasked with setting up the new commission to ensure any concerns are addressed.

MacKinnon says the focus on the commission may have overshadowed the work done by the Research Working Group on the Legal Services Market in Scotland, which reported to the Executive last year.

The working group, which included the OFT, concluded that the "evidence probably pointed to a case for non-intervention, assuming that market forces would keep supply and demand in alignment".

Despite post-Clementi moves to open up the market in England, MacKinnon remains confident the group will conclude that the existing business structures for law firms are still the best option, despite the call for deregulation by Which? on the grounds that the current system is failing consumers.

"What is being suggested is solicitors should be able to go into business with non-solicitors, and solicitors' firms could be owned and funded by non-solicitors," says MacKinnon. "My problem with this is I have still to see a method of regulation of that scenario. We can regulate solicitors, but who is going to regulate the non-solicitors?"

But he adds he can appreciate why some firms may also want to see the market opened up. "Our difficulty is that, on the one hand, I can appreciate the concerns of the big firms who want to have a level playing field with their counterparts down in England. On the other hand, I have concern about the effect on the core values of independence and confidentiality.

"I have particular concerns for high-street practices. I have concern that the multinational providers of legal services will cherry-pick the most profitable areas of work and leave the rest to high street practices. That will not be to the benefit of the public."

As a partner with Brown & McRae in Fraserburgh, the future of small high-street firms and access to justice are issues that are understandably close to MacKinnon's heart.

While it is not unprecedented, it is still unusual for a solicitor from a rural firm to become president of the Law Society and, after 37 years in the North-East, MacKinnon's grassroots perspective of problems with rates of legal aid and recruitment and retention of lawyers will bring a fresh perspective to the helm.

"I am acutely aware of the difficulties of recruiting young solicitors and the situation certainly hasn't improved," he says. "Some firms in rural areas do have trainees and are able to keep them but quite a lot of them will say, we train them and then they leave.

"On the question of access to justice, I am very concerned about it, and I think the Scottish Executive should be as well.

"It's to do with legal aid, but also simply there being enough solicitors to provide legal services."

and finally - Donald Reid's opinion on why lawyers are hated so much - because they promote hatred themselves, Donald .. that's why ..

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=869732007

Weavers, millers,a wheelwright - 'but no lawyers'

DONALD REID

I PAID a weekend visit to Iona last week, an annual pleasure for me. Each time I go there I wonder why I ever come back to the mainland.

But, at morning worship in the fine old Abbey church, we were exhorted by the preacher, on behalf of the Iona Community, to resist the wish to retreat into peace and tranquillity, but rather to "go back out" with the message of the Gospel.

This piece today is my response. A missionary lawyer - whatever next?

Close to the Abbey is a little museum of the island's history. I learned there that in 1791 an astonishing 3,002 people were living and working on Iona and the nearby Ross of Mull.

The exhibit stated that these included brogue makers, shoemakers, boat carpenters, a wheelwright, smiths, millers, merchants, weavers, tailors, houses for retailing spirits, two surgeons... "but no lawyers", it triumphantly concluded.

What, I wondered, caused the historian to conclude his narration of positive facts with that apparently gratuitous negative one?

Clearly, back in the 18th century lawyers were already getting a bad press (Shakespeare having a character wanting to "kill all the lawyers" much earlier).

Didn't they have estate agents, accountants or politicians back then, to share the hatred, as these lesser professions do today?

I accept we may bask in this a little as the princes of opprobrium, but not surely as the sole offenders.

I suspect the legal profession back then was associated closely, in the minds of ordinary folks, with privilege and oppression. Lawyers were the lackeys of lairds and landowners, who alone needed their services or could afford their fees.

Lawyers frequently served as estate factors and had the job of putting up rents and evicting defaulters. Indeed the same Iona museum contains an account of just such events in the 19th century.

Ordinary people did not own property and, when they died, their estates were too humble and non-contentious to be worth winding up in any formal way. Divorce was unheard of, and litigation entirely the preserve of the urban rich. For a community to be free of lawyers altogether was therefore indeed a cause for pride and boasting, or so it would seem.

What of today? The dislike of lawyers is still with us but the social reasons have changed completely. Prosperity is no longer the preserve of a small minority. Lawyers do serve ordinary folks, in their house transactions, wills and finances, family breakdowns and litigious confrontations.

So why is the anger still out there? Why are lawyer jokes the best and funniest of the genre?

My guess is that much of it has to do with shooting the messenger. When things go well, people tend to give credit to themselves.

When they go wrong, they look for someone else to blame: "You lost me that house"; "Why did you let my husband off the hook?" And so on...

There is a well-known legal case that I quote frequently when giving seminars. One day by chance I met the pursuer in that case and asked him about it. He vividly described the stress, uncertainty and expense and then summed up, eyes ablaze, in two words: "See lawyers..." I beat a retreat.

So here's my wee sermon: lighten up on lawyers and we'll listen more sympathetically. Right now, we are so used to being castigated for what we didn't do that we are tempted to fight back even when we ought to apologise and face our critics honestly.

More decency from clients. More humility from lawyers. The community spirit.

Crooked lawyers want to say "Sorry" to ruined clients - so they can go ruin some more clients

An exchange between a crooked lawyer & a client who has been brave enough to question their poor service, making a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland, usually goes something like the following ...

I (crooked lawyer) ruined your life, ruined your health, ruined your business, embezzled your money, stole your house from under you & left you homeless - and we got away with it - so too bad, there's nothing you can do about it, and if you try, we, as a profession, will ground you into the dirt and make you regret the day you ever used a lawyer ...

A common enough experience which thousands of 'disgruntled clients' have faced over the years when making a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland against their oh-so-nice lawyer who then turned out to be nothing less than a big rogue out to milk them for every penny .. and then, of course, the Law Society turned their vast resources against the client too ... making their lives a living hell.

Well, there are some in the legal profession who want to patch that up, by saying "Sorry" before they say the rest of the line ... without of course, any thoughts of proper and just compensation for their actions in the first place.

Simply, the legal profession wants to be able to say sorry, and then just get away with what they did to their clients without punishment. Great stuff, isn't it ... almost one could say, the lawyers equivalent of the confessional, but without penance or repentance.

Many clients of crooked lawyers I know who have made complaints to the Law Society of Scotland over some of the most heinous conduct by their solicitors towards them, would want a lot more than a "sorry" or an expression of regret, as John Sturrock puts forward in the Scotsman earlier this week.

Some people over the years have asked me if I would have accepted an apology from Scotland's most famous crooked lawyer - Andrew Penman. No I would not such an apology - because I know he wouldn't mean it, and he would go on to do the same to others, just as he has actually done - and got away with that too.

Andrew Penman, of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso knew full well what he was doing, and deliberately embarked on a scheme to ruin my family, along with notorious Scottish Borders accountant Norman J Howitt, of Welch & Co, Accountants. Hawick & Galashiels

We are talking about people who delighted at my mothers death, and hoped for mine too .. people who also falsified reports to the Police to cover up their own vast frauds & fiddles, people who deliberately set out to deceive Banks, financial institutions, and even the Inland Revenue, in a well planned scheme to ruin my family and take what was there for themselves.

So, would anyone really accept an apology from such people ? I doubt it - and the same has happened to countless clients of crooked lawyers & other crooked professionals over the years, so Mr Sturrock, and your friends in the Law Society of Scotland - "Sorry" will simply not do.

Rather, a full review of the prejudice, discrimination, corruption & twisted practices which the Law Society of Scotland have mounted against clients who dared make complaints against their corrupt legal representatives, needs to be put into motion by the Scottish Executive & Scottish Parliament - and proper & just compensation paid out to all those victims of crooked lawyers dirty tricks, frauds, embezzlement & other dirty money grabbing schemes which have been implemented against clients wholesale over the years while the Law Society of Scotland have proudly & corruptly self regulated Scotland's legal profession - making sure the cream of the crooked get off at every turn.

Save your "Sorry" for after all of that, Mr Lawyer ...

A reminder to you all ... If you have experienced poor treatment from the Law Society of Scotland in a complaint or lost money to a crooked lawyer and nothing was done about it, Please sign Petition PE1033 and begin the campaign for redress and resolution to the way clients have been discriminated against by crooked lawyers & the Law Society of Scotland under their decades old prejudiced self regulatory complaints system ..

Earlier articles covering the aims of Petition PE1033 can be found here :

Experienced poor treatment at the hands of the Law Society of Scotland ? &
A time for truth, reconciliation, & settlement of injustice between the Scottish legal profession and the public

Article to follow, with link, from the Scotsman :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=620592007

Mon 23 Apr 2007

'Sorry' can be worth its weight in gold...

JOHN STURROCK

"I NOW understand the human side and the hurt you felt. It's a people business and we need to work together... I am truly sorry that this happened."

These were the words of the senior partner of a professional services firm to a client. In a face-to-face meeting, he had listened to the strong concerns expressed by the client about a transaction that had not worked out as the client had expected.

The client blamed his advisers. The firm did not accept that they were at fault. Nevertheless, by addressing the sense of frustration directly, the senior partner brought to an end what would have become a long-running and expensive dispute - both monetarily and in reputation.

We hear a lot these days about the giving of apologies at national and international level for events that have occurred generations ago.

As a mediator, however, my interest is in the frequency of occasions in which apologies can play a vital role in commercial disputes. Often, people say "It's only about the money" or "Let's cut through this and get straight to the figures".

Nearly always, even in an apparently hard-nosed commercial transaction, there is a further dimension. At a human level, someone feels slighted, offended, angry, deceived or hurt by what someone else on the other side has said or done.

If this is not addressed, the prospects of achieving a sensible negotiation and a satisfactory resolution can be greatly diminished, because the sense of being hard done by will resurface and plague discussions about the commercial aspects.

On the other hand, I have seen notional claims reduce by hundreds of thousands of pounds when a claimant has feelings of anger or hurt acknowledged. We often do not fully appreciate the value of self esteem - and the cost of ignoring it.

Take, for example, a contractor who had invested money, time and effort in a project. He felt that the beneficiaries of this, with whom he had a number of contracts, had deliberately tried to put him out of business. There were claims and counter-claims. In reality, however, until the sense of injustice had been explored and understood, recognised and acknowledged, no progress could be made.

Or take a long-serving and dedicated employee who felt that she had been bullied and harassed by a superior. Internal grievance procedures had found no evidence of wrongdoing but the sense of hurt at the treatment she perceived she had received at the hands of her employer was deep-seated.

She became ill and clinically depressed. She made a large claim against her employer. The matter dragged on for many months. It took a series of face-to-face meetings for the scale of the impact on all concerned to be appreciated.

When her employer expressly recognised her feelings, acknowledged the impact on her family, and apologised for the effect that events had had on her, the lifting of a heavy burden was palpable.

This did not constitute an acceptance by the employer of liability for what had happened but it created an environment for constructive conversations about how to move on.

There are distinctions between apologies, acknowledgements and expressions of regret.

Saying "I am sorry that this happened to you" is different from saying "I am sorry for what we did that day".

Different again is saying "I understand what you have said and appreciate what you have been through".

Each may have its place according to the circumstances.

It is important that whatever is said is expressed thoughtfully, clearly, unequivocally and sincerely - and face-to-face if at all possible. A follow-up letter reinforcing the points made can be helpful, as people often don't absorb everything in the anxiety of the moment. Consistency is critical.

They say that "sorry seems to be the hardest word" but it can be worth its weight in gold.

Not content with giving us the laughable, if pathetic idea of saying "Sorry" to avoid punishment for ruining lives or paying out compensation .. there was also this other interesting article which reports on a legal firm hiring a 'focus group' to tell them what people think of them ... and the final report sounds about as believable as the unemployment figures for the entire UK .. seasonally adjusted of course ... ! oh .. and the article was of course, written, by .. a lawyer !

Further article from the Scotsman, with link :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=620882007

Focus groups give law firm the power to 'see themselves as others see them'

PETER DUFF

ROBERT Burns wrote: "O' wad some Power the giftie gie us tae see oursels as ithers see us." Firms in the modern world now have that power. Few large business would consider making decisions without bringing in professionals who can judge what the public think. From governments assessing policy to Cadbury launching a new chocolate bar, it's all done with focus groups and market research to test the public's attitude.

Such research is not normally associated with lawyers - but our law firm decided to find out exactly what clients and non-clients thought of us and what people were looking for in a firm of solicitors.

Like many professional firms having to meet the demands of modern business, we at Maxwell MacLaurin solicitors in Glasgow and Edinburgh are continually assessing where we are in the market and updating our business plan to reflect that assessment. At the end of last year, we decided to break new ground and follow the example of politics and big business in seeking the opinions of individuals who were not clients, as well as the opinions of some of our own clients.

This was to be so much more than just a satisfaction survey, so we employed Scotinform, an Edinburgh-based market research company, to find out how Maxwell MacLaurin is perceived by clients and non-clients alike.

We now have a valuable 14-page document telling us exactly what people think of our firm, all based on direct answers to questions that were given to our clients and non-clients in focus groups held in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

My partners and I are delighted with the report, not only because it includes findings of a very high level of satisfaction with the firm and its people but also because it gives us a very clear indication of what marketing strategy we should undertake in the future. We are now in active discussion with One O'Clock Gun, an Edinburgh-based design company, to implement that strategy.

What the survey has also done is help us to recognise the importance of existing client retention. Sheila Muncie, of Scotinform summed up how some clients feel about Maxwell Maclaurin as follows: "Clients in Glasgow and Edinburgh highlighted the very good personal relationship they have with Maxwell Maclaurin and their property department. They frequently used the work 'caring'.

"In Glasgow, where the company has been established for a long time, loyalty was incredibly high. The clients almost thought of Maxwell Maclaurin as 'part of the family'."

We have a very strong client base and we were aware the majority of our business comes from client referrals. Some of our clients are third or fourth generation and nearly every new client will drop a name of an existing one during their first meeting.

Through One O'Clock Gun, we are now also going to reach out from that strong base to new contacts and clients.

It was just as well Burns himself wasn't in the focus groups, as his views on the legal profession have already been well documented. Mind you, as a client, he would have kept the family law division of Maxwell Maclaurin very busy!

• Peter Duff is the managing partner at Maxwell Maclaurin.