LORD FLY-BYE: Scotland's courts in the slow lane as judges prefer law conferences, business & 'diplomatic' trips to life on the bench

Slow day in Court? Judges prefer international travel to dull legal hearings. AMID suspicions some of the wealthy, well connected members of Scotland’s judiciary who regularly fly around the world at taxpayers expense to attend ‘law related events’ have been using trips abroad to mix their official duties with private business, and apply a little soft power on behalf of Governments, the Scottish Court Service (SCS) are currently fighting a battle against publishing any further information in connection with the travels of Scotland’s elite, secretive judiciary.

The move by the SCS to stall the flow of information on what Scottish judges are up to outside of their role in court comes amid increased public debate on what judges actually do for the community and why, in spite of claims by Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill that the Civil Justice system is “failing society”, reforms which Gill himself proposed over five years ago never see the light of day while judges, lawyers and the justice system itself soak up billions more from clients, court users trapped in litigation hell, & taxpayers every year.

In previous information published by the media, it was discovered Scottish judges & sheriffs were also taking their wives on expensive trips abroad at public expense.

And in some expenses claims alongside the trips, members of the judiciary who are typically on salaries of over £140K a year with handsome pensions and numerous other ‘unspecified financial benefits’ also scooped up extra public funds for the hire of dinner suits, taxi expenses, and even malaria injections - while the rest of the country was being told to buckle down and public services including the National Health Service were being cut to the bone.

Judicial trips & extra expenses claims 2010-2013

17/06/10  Lord Hamilton Meeting European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg £100.90
17/06/10 Lord Reed Meeting European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg £103.53
24/06/10 Lord Hodge European Commercial Judges Conference Rome £765.39
25/06/2010  Lord Pentland Reform of criminal law event, Lisbon £1083.34
08/09/2010  Sheriff MacNeill Anglophone conference Berlin £382.57
12/09/2010  Sheriff Normand European Network of Councils of the Judiciary Meeting Brussels £136.72
12/09/2010  Lord Hodge European Network of Councils of the Judiciary Meeting Brussels £46.08
16/09/2010  Sheriff Baird  OPG Conference Dublin  £367.84
16/09/2010  Nikola Milne  OPG Conference Dublin  £245.77
03/10/2010  Lord Gill Opening of Legal year Dublin £362.16
07/10/2010  Lord Reed Meeting of UK judges Conseil d'Etat Paris £376.66
11/10/2010 Sheriff Normand European Network of Councils of the Judiciary Brussels £314.21
15/10/2010  Lord Gill Commonwealth Law Conference India  £3724.66
06/11/2010  Sheriff Ireland International Association of Judges Conference Senegal  £1331.02
06/11/2010  Lord Eassie International Association of Judges Conference Senegal  £1223
12/12/2010  Lord Woolman Judicial Conference cross-border protection of children & families in Morocco  £1158.78
12/12/2010       Sheriff Normand European Network of Councils of the Judiciary Meeting Brussels £224.61
16-19/09/2010  Sheriff Welsh  OPG Conference Dublin  £349.48
23-27/06/2010 Lord Glennie European Commercial Judges Conference Rome  £621.17
24-29/06/2010 Sheriff Normand Reform of criminal law event, Lisbon  £992
31/01-12/02/2011  Lord Tyre  ERA Academy I & II Trier £177.90
8-10/12/2010   Sheriff Noble EU Seminar on Mutual Recognition and Trust in Amsterdam  £178.84
8-10/12/2010   Sheriff McColl EU Seminar on Mutual Recognition and Trust in Amsterdam  £163.84
10/04/2011      Lord Hodge  ENCJ Bucharest £181.17
12-14/5/2011 Sheriff M  Neilson Franco/British/Irish Colloque Dublin £367.89
12-15/5/2011 Sheriff T Welsh Franco/British/Irish Colloque Dublin £391.85
12-14/5/2011 Sheriff C Cunninghame Franco/British/Irish Colloque Dublin £493.79
12-14/5/2011 Sheriff K Ross Franco/British/Irish Colloque Dublin £770.91
10-12 April 2011     Sheriff A Normand ENCJ working Group - Barcelona £176
6-7/7/2011           Lord Woolman Hague Conference on PIL £284.67
7-11 June 2011    Lord Hodge General Assembly of the ENCJ Vilnius, Lithuania £295.59
7&11/6/2011      Sheriff Normand General Assembly of the ENCJ Vilnius, Lithuania £806.53
7-11 August 2011  Lord Gill ISRCL Conference, Ottawa, Canada £1053.39
14-22 July 2011 Sheriff Fletcher  CMJA Kuala Lumpur £4659.41
4-8 Sept 2011  Sheriff L Wood International Association of Judges, Istanbul £1815.08
15-16 Sept 2011  Lord Hodge ENCJ, Hague, Amsterdam £733.85
25 - 27 Sept 2011  Lord Reed European Court of Justice, Conference £380.74
6-12Aug 2011 UKIJSC Sheriff McFadyen ISRCL Conference, Ottawa, Canada £4010.29
12-15May2011  Lord Uist Franco-British-Irish Judicial Cooperation Conference 0
9-10 Oct11     Lord Hodge ENCJ Steering Committee meeting £80.34
30 Sept-3Oct11 Lord Hardie Opening of the Legal Year: Dublin £677.29
9-10Oct11       Sheriff A Normand ENCJ Steering Committee meeting, Brussels £830.50
20-23Nov11      Sheriff A McCulloch European Court of Justice, Luxemburg £37.90
20-23Nov11    Lord Hodge European Court of Justice, Luxemburg £1342.99
17-22July11  Sheriff N Morrison  CMJA Kuala Lumpur £4850.07
25-28Jan 2012   Lord Woolman Scottish Hague Network Judge, The Hague, Netherlands £1100.65
22-23Jan 2012   Lord Hodge ENCJ Steering Committee, Brussels £296.25
6-7May 2011      Lord Eassie European Association of Judges, Malta £996.31
4-8 Sept 2011   Lord Eassie International Association of Judges, Istanbul £1996.11
15-16 Jan 2012   Sheriff A Normand ENCJ Project Group meeting, Brussels £397.55 
22-23 Jan 2012    Sheriff A Normand ENCJ Steering Group meeting, Brussels £148.30
3-7March 2012    Sheriff A Normand ENCJ Project Group meeting, Palma Majorca £553.60
31Oct-3Nov 2011  Lord Malcolm Bordeaux to attend IOJT Conference £1245.58
31Oct-3Nov 2011  Sheriff Duff Bordeaux to attend IOJT Conference £1289.07
31Oct-3Nov 2011  Sheriff Welsh Bordeaux to attend IOJT Conference £1163.22
23-27Nov 2011     Lord Gill Ljubljana on official business £251.50
21-22June 2011  Sheriff Welsh QC non funded delegate EJTN General Assembly, Budapest  £672.56
25-26 Oct 2011  Lord Brodie  UKRIJSC Meeting £221.13
25-26 Oct 2011  Sheriff Duff  UKRIJSC Meeting  £240.43
9-13 May 2012   Sheriff A Normand ENCJ General Assembly, Dublin  £399.20
9-11 May 2012   Lord Hodge ENCJ General Assembly, Dublin £394.59
10-16Nov2012  Sheriff G Liddle IAJ Conference, Washington (USA) £3953.32
29-31 May 2012  Lord Brodie EJTN General Assembly, Copenhagen  £44.50
18/07/2012  Sheriff David Mackie Commonwealth Magistrates & Judges Association Conference Kampala  £2182.38
27-29June 2012           Sheriff K Maciver Extradition Seminar, Madrid £121.88
22-26 Nov 2012  Sheriff N McFadyen ISRCL Conference, Washington DC £2173.44
8-16 Sept 2012     Lord Gill CMJA Conference, Kampala Uganda £3519.97
7-16 Sept 2012     Sheriff Fletcher CMJA Conference, Kampala Uganda  £3781.14
17-18 Sept 12  Sheriff Normand  ENCJ - Brussels £120.00
18-20 Oct 2012  Lord Tyre ERA Conference in Trier £505.45
9-16 Nov 2012  Lord Eassie IAJ Conference, Washington (USA)  £2695.56  
17-Sep-2012          Sheriff A Normand ENCJ project meeting in Brussels £360.24
29Sep-1Oct 2012   Lord and Lady Brodie Opening of Legal Year Dublin £561.96
23-Sep-2012          Lord Doherty European Courts of Justice -Luxembourg  £114.96
29-Sep-12          Lord Doherty Opening of Legal Year - Dublin  £81.00
18 20 Oct 2012  Lord Tyre ERA Conference in Luxembourg  £72.77
26-29 Sept2012 Lord Malcolm Attending the European Forum of Commercial Judges, Warsaw £483.75
9-10Dec 2012   Lord Hodge attend working group of ENCJ in Vilnius £1070.02
29-30Sept 2012  Lord and Lady Doherty attend opening of the Legal year in Dublin (in place of LP and LJC) £721.48
12-20 April2013  Lord Carloway Attendance at Commonwealth Law Conference £5541.37
Apr-13                 Lord Gill Attendance at Commonwealth Law Conference £3233.31
8-12 Feb 2013     Lord Hodge Attendance at ENCJ working group Rome 10 & 11 Feb £556.91
Jan to Aug 2012 reimbursement by ENCJ -£320.59
Sept to Dec 2012 reimbursement by ENCJ -£166.47
29-May 2012           Lord P Brodie EJTN General Assembly, Copenhagen £391.50
15 & 22 June 12  Sheriff T Welsh EJTN Conference, Rome £584.99
17-21 Oct 2012      Sheriff T Welsh ERA 20th anniversary, Trier  £476.28
26-28 Nov 2012      Sheriff T Welsh EJTN meeting, £0
31Jan- 1Feb 2013   Sheriff  T Welsh UKIJSC Meeting, £407.21
31Jan –1Feb 2013  Lord Malcolm UKIJSC Meeting, Dublin £464.90

REVEALED : £158k of board members rocketing payments & expenses claims at ‘duck-out’ law regulator Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

SLCC ‘little more than a duck-out house for law complaints’ as solicitors clients forced to foot huge salaries & expenses for do-little law quango. EXTRAVAGANT PAYMENTS & rocketing expenses claims of frequently flying board members at the anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) are revealed today for the firs time in their full detail after a decision from the Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion forced the ‘do-little, do-nothing’ law complaints regulator to disclose the actual claims requests submitted by its board members in true Westminster MP expenses claims style, shining a light into the murky world of remuneration at Scotland’s ineffective law complaints quango.

Documents obtained through Freedom of Information laws have revealed that in the 2009-2010 financial year, remuneration & expenses claims dished out to board members alone amounted to a staggering £158,329.04p yet after three years of existence, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has yet to contribute to a single prosecution of any solicitor at the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT), a fact itself which earlier this year promoted criticisms from the Chairman of the SSDT in his annual report which I covered here : Law complaints quango Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 'a failure' as Discipline Tribunal reveals no prosecutions of crooked lawyers in two years

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine featured among expenses documents released under Freedom of Information laws. The documents reveal staggering daily salaries & remuneration of in some cases, well over £300 a day, wages which many employees across the UK can now only dream of yet it all comes so easy at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, a so-called ‘independent’ regulator of legal complaints in Scotland which has only managed to uphold one single complaint in its three years of existence as I reported here : ‘One complaint upheld’, 928 more sent back to Law Society & £1.8million spare cash : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's 2010 annual report

Readers can download & inspect the actual expenses claims of the SLCC’s board members, who are comprised of lawyers, former lawyers, former senior Police Officers & quangocrats, here :

1. 2009-2010 SLCC expenses claims FOI Docs 1-32 (pdf)

2. 2009-2010 SLCC expenses claims FOI Docs 33-65 (pdf)

3. 2009-2010 SLCC expenses claims FOI Docs 66-100 (pdf)

4. 2009-2010 SLCC expenses claims FOI Docs 101-132 (pdf)

The rocketing figures of remuneration & expenses at the SLCC, which is expected to jump even higher in the next financial year after the addition of three new ‘non-lawyer’ board members including yet another soon-to-retire senior Policeman and an additional ‘lawyer-only’ board member who took the job after no one else in the profession bothered to apply, were criticised by consumer groups and solicitors alike today, as bearing little relation the reality of difficult financial times for all.

Several solicitors and law firms contacted by Diary of Injustice admitted the expense to the legal profession of running the SLCC has impacted on charges for legal services in Scotland as many solicitors & law firms faced with a general reduction in business and having to deal with a complicated complaints system using the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland, have been forced to pass on the costs to consumers.

Today, one senior solicitor branded the SLCC “The Scottish Legal Duck Out House Commission.”

He said : “As far as I am concerned the SLCC is nothing but a duck-out for a few people who haven't got much to show for their past three years of operation.”

He went onto claim “This free for all quango with ludicrous salaries & benefits for a few is doing nothing for client confidence in their legal representatives, or restoring any general confidence in the Scottish legal profession yet clients fees have went up to cover the enormous amount of paperwork needed to deal with the SLCC.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations commenting on the documents said : “The SLCC appears to spend more time & detail on its expenses claims than actual complaints investigations.”

Last year, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission gave two different figures for expenses claims in an effort to mislead the media. The first figure offered up for their 2008-2009 financial year was a meagre £6408.96 yet after further investigations & tip offs, the SLCC was forced to correct the suspiciously low figure and reveal a whopping £128,624.00 had actually been paid out to its board members, many of whom have several other jobs and positions on other taxpayer funded quangos.

A feature on the numerous jobs of many of the SLCC’s current board members can be found in an earlier article, here : More ‘jobs for the boys’ than action on ‘crooked lawyers’ : What it takes to be a Board Member at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to repay £1.7million public funds as board member revealed to sit on Govt. Accounts scrutiny quango

The now former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman at 70K a year was named in a survey as one of the highest paid quango Chiefs in Scotland at the time. Last year it was revealed While board members of the SLCC raked in a staggering £135,000 plus in expenses claims over the past year, and its Chair, Jane Irvine netted in the region of £308 a day, along with the now resigned due to ill health Chief Executive Eileen Masterman who earned a whopping £1350 per week. During 2009, the complaints body showed itself over the past year to be a very poor regulator of complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’, leaving many clients finding their complaints have been ‘whitewashed’ in a way reminiscent of the Law Society of Scotland’s Client Relations Office investigations, which are well known to have let thousands of crooked lawyers off the hook from even the most serious of complaints.

This year, in spite of the same little-work regime at the SLCC where yet again, most complaints have been passed back to the Law Society of Scotland by the ‘independent’ law complaints quango, an extra £23,000.00 seems to have been added to the expenses & remuneration totals.

Slip-up or deliberate attempt to mislead ? : SLCC provided misleading information only admitting to £6k expenses on earlier FOI request. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had in 2009, apparently intentionally provided deceptive information to an earlier FOI request from the media over members expenses, where the SLCC claimed the total sums claimed and paid to Members between 1 October and 31 August 2009 at £6408.96. However, when quizzed further on the figures, the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine issued a new statement contradicting the earlier FOI response on members expenses, and admitted that between 1 October 2008 and 31 August 2009 members received total further payments of a staggering £128,624.00 by way of fees, giving the following 'varying interpretation' reason for the staggering £122,216.00 error in the Commission's expenses accounting figures.

SLCC Chief Jane Irvine threatened media after FOI requests for board members expenses details. After having to admit the huge discrepancies in the FOI release of expenses claims, the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine, threatened to brand journalists Freedom of Information enquires as “vexatious” in an attempt to control publicity on the SLCC’s board members expenses claims habits. Ms Irvine said : "Having stated all this I have very carefully considered the exact wording of your request as you have directed me to. This might be read two ways. Either as a request for records of all claims for expenses and money paid as expenses - which we have answered, or a request for records plus a request for records of all money paid. I have not sought to clarify this with you. Rather I have interpreted it expansively and in this context advise that between 1 October 2008 and 31 August 2009 Members received total further payments of £128,624.00 by way of fees."

The SLCC had previously argued the mental health & ‘safety problems’ of its board members would preclude any significant disclosure of their expenses claims.

University of Glasgow threatens legal action over publication of former Law Society Chief Douglas Mill’s taxpayer funded ‘lunches for judges’

Ex Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill, now Director of Legal Practice, University of Glasgow. DOUGLAS MILL, the controversial former Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive who once ‘swore on his granny’s grave' he had not intervened in damages claims made by ruined clients against crooked lawyers, to the Law Society’s Master Policy and who effectively resigned in disgrace after a bitter, much publicised confrontation with John Swinney MSP during a Justice 2 Committee meeting in 2006, has, in his position as Director of Legal Practice at the University of Glasgow, wined & dined a significant number of Sheriffs, judges, lawyers, tutors & even the media, all at the taxpayer’s expense.

Mr Mill’s expenses claims figures obtained through Freedom of Information legislation show the well known former Law Society Chief Executive who now has his own business “Douglas Mill Consulting” and has occupied a number of consulting posts in other roles, raked up thousands of pounds of expenses claims to taxpayers for at least sixteen lunches with judges, lawyers & ‘fellow’ tutors.

Readers, especially those who may already have been affected by the worst public service sector cuts in the entire history of the country, can view the details of Mr Mill expenses claims, published today by Scottish Law Reporter, here : Ex-Law Society Chief, now Glasgow University Legal Practice Director Douglas Mill soaks broke public coffers for ‘lunch with judges’ expense claims

Granny pays for the Law Society : Douglas Mill bills taxpayers for his annual Law Society membership fee. Staggeringly, Mr Mill also makes the public pick up the cost of his ‘annual retainer fee’ for the Law Society of Scotland, this despite the fact the entire country is facing the worst public service cuts in its entire history, with even the University of Glasgow recently announcing it is facing a £35m budget shortfall unless it takes action to cut costs.

While Mr Mill’s luxurious expenses claims figures make stark reading in recession hit Scotland, Glasgow University refused to disclose details of Mr Mill’s salary (thought to be £80,000 or more), and even threatened “Diary of Injustice” with legal action if any of the disclosures of Mr Mill’s expenses claims released by the University were published.

Glasgow University refuses to release details of ex Law Society Chief’s taxpayer funded ‘teaching’ salary. Glasgow University said : “The information on Douglas Mill’s annual salary has been withheld as: (a) the individual salary information is considered as personal data as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”); and (b) the release of such salary information would be in breach of the data protection principles as set-out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Therefore the exemption from release of such information applies as specified under section 38(1) (b) and 38(2) (a) (i) of FOISA.”

Glasgow University took the view that disclosure of such personal data would breach Data Protection Principles of the DPA where it claimed “The release of the salary information on an individual basis will undermine the expectation of the individual that his/her personal data would not be released.” – this despite Mr Mill’s salary being paid for by UK taxpayers. Glasgow University founded upon their refusal to disclose Mr Mill’s publicly funded salary by referring to an English FOI case involving the University of Cambridge (30 July 2007).

Cash strapped Glasgow University then went onto claim the details of Mr Mill’s salary & expenses “shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. The release of personal data may result in a real risk of his/her personal data being displayed on the internet and thus viewable outside the European Economic Area.”

The University ended its terse response to the FOI request threatening legal action under copyright legislation if publication took place : “Breach of copyright law is an actionable offence and the University expressly reserves its rights and remedies available to it pursuant to the CDPA and common law.”

Sir Fred Goodwin, brought the RBS & UK Treasury to near collapse, was defended by Douglas Mill. It is also worth noting while Douglas Mill’s expenses on dinners put First Minister’s Alex Salmond’s food allowance claims to shame, the cuts which are affecting every facet of public life in the UK, from health to employment, from life to death, are principally caused by the massive multi billion pound taxpayer bailouts of banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, whose former Chief Executive Sir Fred Goodwin was personally defended by Mr Mill several times despite Goodwin leading the RBS and the entire country to near financial collapse.

You can read more of my report on Douglas Mill’s defence of Sir Fred Goodwin, here : Royal Bank failure blamed on lack of regulation by ex Law Society Boss who campaigned against stronger regulation of solicitors

For those who may wish to refresh their memories over Douglas Mill’s confrontation with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, read this : Law Society boss Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints.

Holyrood 2006 : John Swinney MSP exposed corruption at the very heart of the Law Society with a secret memo from Douglas Mill (click image below to watch video)

Douglas Mill’s own memo depicted interference in claims against crooked lawyers. While Douglas Mill famously said “I will go on oath and on record, and I will swear on my granny's grave, that never once have I, any member of my staff or any office-bearer dabbled in a claim”, a claim Mr Mill came to regret after Mr Swinney presented the Justice 2 Committee with a copy of one of Mr Mill’s own memos showing Mill & the Law Society clearly did dabble in claims, it turns out that not only could granny not swear by the Law Society, everyone’s taxes and their grannies are now helping to pay for Mr Mill’s lunches with judges … tough times indeed, and little wonder that Glasgow University who themselves are having to make cuts, don't want the details of Mr Mill’s expenses claims leaking out to the public.

Glasgow University’s refusal to disclose Douglas Mill’s publicly funded salary, and the terms of their legal threat against publication of their disclosure of Mr Mill’s expenses claims has been passed to Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s Information Commissioner for further investigation.

£70K Chief Executive ‘missing for 6 months’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Secretary dodges questions on scandal-hit law quango

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. KENNY MACASKILL, Scotland’s Justice Secretary remained as tight lipped as ever in answers to questions raised in the Scottish Parliament over the abysmal performance of the SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION, once hoped by many to repair much of the scandal surrounding the Law Society of Scotland’s notoriously corrupt closed shop client complaints process against its member solicitors, which has seen thousands of consumer complaints against Scottish lawyers swept under the carpet each year by the legal profession’s own self regulator.

James Kelly MSP for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Labour) James Kelly MSP, Labour MSP for Glasgow Rutherglen and a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee put several questions to the Scottish Government on issues of performance, expenses, budget and costs of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which were answered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who appointed the current board & staff to their positions at the SLCC.

£2million of taxpayers money was lavished on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Amid calls for the SCLCC to be made to pay back , the public purse its massive formation costs, from its huge reserves of £1.5 million, the Justice Secretary refused to answer any questions relating to budget, expenses & costs of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and simply stated any such enquiries should be made directly of the SLCC itself. Mr MacAskill in his replies to Mr Kelly appeared unwilling to disclose to Parliament, the millions of pounds of public funds lavished on the expensive, anti-client law complaints quango, which has now drained up to £2million from the public purse.

The Justice Secretary also refused to confirm the extent of the SLCC’s massive surplus funds of £1.5 million, which are now also the subject of criticism from the Law Society of Scotland & the Faculty of Advocates.

SLCC Board members claim staggering amounts of money on expenses while employed in other quango jobs at public expense. I reported on the extent of the costs to the taxpayer of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in an earlier article. here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to repay £1.7million public funds as board member revealed to sit on Govt. Accounts scrutiny quango. In that article I revealed some of the SLCC’s members were claiming up to £15K a year in expenses while holding other well paid quango positions and ‘advisory roles’ to Scottish Government organisations.

Also in an earlier article I covered the SLCC’s annual report, which revealed it had done little work on complaints, preferring to pass most complaints back to the Law Society of Scotland : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveals it passed most complaints about lawyers back to Law Society, has failed to act on Master Policy report

SLCC’s website ‘changed overnight’ after questions were raised at Holyrood over its performance & cost to taxpayers. While Justice Secretary MacAskill avoided disclosing much in the way of details in his answers to the parliamentary questions set by Mr Kelly, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission appeared to shake itself up somewhat, publishing all minutes of meetings since July 2009 which it had previously withheld from publication. The SLCC’s Board Minutes for 2009, and those available for 2010 now published in albeit ‘redacted’ form, can be downloaded here : SLCC 2009 Board meetings & here : SLCC 2010 Board meetings

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman on a staggering £1350 a week, now absent for 6 months. The SLCC’s meetings from November 2009 onwards reveals its Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, on a salary of £1350 a week, has apparently been absent from Board meetings and her post since late November 2009, being replaced temporarily in December 2009 by the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine who from papers appeared to take on the Acting CEO role, which was then passed onto the SLCC’s Rosemary Agnew, according to the Board minutes for January 2010.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were asked for comment on Eileen Masterman’s absence as CEO, however at time of publication have not replied to media enquiries …

The questions raised by James Kelly MSP to the Scottish Government regarding the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission :

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to review the performance of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

(S3W-32561)

Kenny MacAskill: We have no plans to carry out a review of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission at this time. It is too early to assess the effectiveness of the commission as it has only been operational since October 2008 and transitional processes remain ongoing.

Under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the commission is required to publish a report, as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year, reporting on the discharge of its functions in that year and such action as the commission proposed to take in the following year. Scottish Ministers laid their 2008-2009 Annual Report in the Scottish Parliament on 8 February 2010.

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with representatives of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission since its inception and regarding what issues.

(S3W-32562)

Kenny MacAskill The Scottish Government has been in regular contact with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on a range of issues such as the appointment of board members, the publication of the Commission's annual report, the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill and the transitional arrangements for complaints relating to the time before the Commission’s inception. Such discussions have been conducted on the basis that the Commission is largely independent of Government in how it fulfils its statutory responsibilities.

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what the cost has been to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission of complaints that it has itself investigated.

(S3W-32563)

Kenny MacAskill: The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is responsible for setting its budget and any questions about its costs and spending should be directed to the Commission.

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how much the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has received from levies paid by the legal profession in 2009-10 and, of that income, how much has been spent on (a) running costs and (b) investigations.

(S3W-32564)

Kenny MacAskill: The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is responsible for setting the levy and any questions about this should be directed to the Commission.

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has a budget surplus.

(S3W-32565)

Kenny MacAskill: The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is responsible for setting its budget and any questions relating to this should be directed to the Commission.

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive who monitors the expense claims of board members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

(S3W-32566)

Kenny MacAskill: The Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is the accountable officer and is responsible for ensuring the propriety and regularity of the finances of the Commission and questions relating to financial monitoring should therefore be referred to the Commission.

The Commission is subject to audit by the Auditor General for Scotland and is required to lay the audited statement of accounts before the Scottish Parliament.

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what the total amount of expenses paid to board members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (a) was in 2008-09 and (b) has been in 2009-10.

(S3W-32567)

Kenny MacAskill: The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is responsible for setting its budget and questions about its spending should be addressed to the Commission.

Calls to scrap 'complaints laundering' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as expensive anti-consumer quango revealed as talking shop for lawyers

Politicians & consumer groups feel SLCC is having a laugh at Scots public. THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION, which is due to publish its first annual report in December, has been roundly condemned by politicians, consumer groups, and members of the public forced to approach it over complaints against 'crooked lawyers' as being an expensive, incompetent & anti-consumer quango which is focussed more on salaries & expenses than its once promised task of cleaning up mounting complaints of corruption in Scotland's legal profession.

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman at 70K a year was named in a survey as one of the highest paid quango Chiefs in Scotland. While board members of the SLCC have raked in a staggering £135,000 plus in expenses claims over the past year, and its Chair, Jane Irvine nets £308 plus, a day, along with Chief Executive Eileen Masterman who gets a whopping £1350 per week, the complaints body has shown itself over the past year to be a very poor regulator of complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’, leaving many clients finding their complaints have been ‘whitewashed’ in a way reminiscent of the Law Society of Scotland’s Client Relations Office investigations, which are well known to have let thousands of crooked lawyers off the hook from even the most serious of complaints.

MSPs have been asked to assist consumers caught out by anti-client SLCC. While the SLCC has focussed on huge salaries and expenses claims, little by way of complaints victories for consumers have been achieved by the cash hungry quango. The public’s dealings with the SLCC have now reached such a low point that MSPs across Scotland have been called in by many constituents to help complainers get the SLCC to give them a fair hearing that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill had promised would be routine with the failing SLCC, once styled as a 'new broom' but which has now lost its bristles, and it seems, the will to address public complaints against the legal profession.

This morning, an MSP spoke of being called in by a constituent to ask the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission why it had continually failed to address serious issues in a complaint made against a rogue solicitor and his law firm which now includes a complaint against the Law Society itself.

The MSP said : "A constituent who has become embroiled in a dispute with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Law Society of Scotland over a complaint made against a solicitor, asked me to write into the SLCC seeking to untangle the mess they had made of my constituent’s problem. The responses I have received so far from the SLCC demonstrate nothing has been learned from the failures of the Law Society’s complaints system.”

“Each time I received a response to my enquiry, they would seek to complicate the issue further to the point that matters became very unclear as to what was happening with my constituent’s complaint and what they intended to do about it. I was left with the distinct impression I was dealing with an organisation that has a very bad attitude towards the public. Clearly the SLCC has become unfit for purpose.”

A member of the public who has been waiting several months for his complaint to be investigated by the SLCC said today : "I have been writing letters back & forth for months to people at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and I feel they are just doing all this on purpose to lose me in a paper chase. I think the legal profession are just having a laugh at us consumers by using the SLCC to launder complaints made against crooked lawyers. I have lost all trust in the SLCC. They should be replaced with something that can help people with complaints not hinder them and there should be no lawyers on whatever replaces it in the future.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was asked for information on how many MSPs had contacted it over problems faced by constituents who had encountered difficulties with the law complaints body. However, the SLCC refused to hand over any information or documents on this subject, and tersely said that requests for such information would now be charged for.

Quango secrecy to maximum as SLCC website reveals lack of board meeting minutes and accurate information on its actual performance. While the SLCC was being secretive about its own difficulties and the lack of trust it suffers from public & politicians alike, the quango’s own website amazingly reveals today that up to today, 23 November 2009, it has failed to post any board minutes since July 2009, begging the question what has the Commission actually been doing all this time, while its members have been raking in huge expenses claims & salaries while complaints and the public have become its last priority. An insider commented on the lack of minutes information, claiming that due to poor media coverage which had revealed the SLCC to be unfit for purpose, the commission had now taken the decision not to release much information on its internal workings to the public, for fear that the details of its daily operation and board meetings would continue to portray it to be a pro-legal profession body, rather than an impartial regulator of consumer complaints against poor legal services.

SLCC’s July 09 report into Master Policy claims revealed client suicides but quango did nothing. A spokeswoman for a consumer organisation today rounded on the SLCC and agreed the quango needed to be reformed. She said : “While the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission may argue this has been their first year of operation, they have without doubt made a huge mess of handling complaints and attending to their duties.” She continued : “Probably the worst example I can think of from the SLCC’s first year would be their Master Policy investigation, which revealed so much, yet has still to see any action or reform of the horrendous claims process which clients are forced to use when claiming negligence or damages against their solicitors. I think that failure on its own, demonstrates the SLCC is too weak, too unwilling, and too close to the legal profession to be of any use to consumers as the impartial, independent regulator it claims itself to be.”

"We need to move on from this mistake and create a fully independent regulator that is able to do the job the SLCC was supposed to do, but cannot do due to overwhelming influence and control from the legal profession itself."

You can read my earlier reports on how the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission handled their investigation into the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, here : 'Ground-breaking' investigation into Law Society's Master Policy insurance reveals realities of corrupt claims process against crooked lawyers and here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

Well, I can only agree with the sentiments expressed by others, that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is most certainly, unfit for purpose, and should be replaced with a fully independent body which operates under external oversight, and is free of influence & control from the legal profession, to ensure that consumers are fully protected from the many rogue elements of Scotland’s very poor, untrustworthy, legal profession.

Expenses secrecy scandal as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission seeks ban on information requests to protect lawyers 'mental health & safety'

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuses to disclose members expenses claims. POTENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY PROBLEMS of four lawyers and four ‘lay people’ (two of whom are ex-senior ranked Policemen, one of whom actually served on a Law Society of Scotland Committee) have been raised by the beleaguered, scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as excuses for refusing to disclose board members expenses, this coming after the SLCC has today been stung by claims from solicitors clients, consumer groups, & even politicians that the Commission operates an anti-consumer complaints system which has after one year, yet to have a single success for a client.

SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine – our members ‘mental health’ is on the line. Jane Irvine's written refusal of full disclosure over members expenses details stated : "I have studied each and every record we hold and am perfectly satisfied that the SLCC is entitled to extract the information from records held, namely what was claimed and paid. Further that the actual claim forms etc which you now state you require are both confidential under s.36(2) and personal data under s.38(1)(b) thus we may withhold the records as exempt."

Ms Irvine staggeringly went on to claim the full release of expenses claims details may harm the safety or mental health of SLCC board members. Jane Irvine : "In addition, I consider we can withhold them under s.39 in that release might endanger the physical or mental health or safety of an individual."

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine’s extraordinary about-turn on Freedom of Information compliance policy by the joint public-legal profession funded Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, comes after the SLCC, which has so far received a staggering two million pounds of public money from the Scottish Government, received an FOI request for the expenses claims made by its members, which can be revealed today at a staggering £128,624.00 on fees alone in an eleven month period.

The SLCC’s new anti-FOI stance also contradicts Ms Irvine’s earlier supported for making the Law Society of Scotland FOI compliant, which I reported on several months ago, here : Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity

Jane Irvine claimed SLCC members with huge expenses claims might ‘face mental health problems’ if details of their salaries were disclosed. A legal insider today attacked the SLCC's decision to resort to secrecy over members expenses and said today : "This is deplorable. It seems when the going gets tough, the SLCC stoops to secrecy in order to protect itself from accountability on issues like members expenses. There must be a lot of duck houses to hide if this hugely expensive & unnecessary law complaints quango feels it cannot publish its members expenses claims in the same way politicians at Holyrood, and even Westminster Parliament have been forced to reveal. The Chair's reasons for secrecy are astounding. It is very bottom of the barrel stuff for Jane Irvine to claim these extravagantly paid board members mental health or safety could be affected by exposing their expenses claims to public scrutiny."

A client who is having considerable difficulty with the SLCC over a serious complaint made against a leading law firm involving fraud also commented, saying : "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I have spent months writing back & forth to this high salaried mob at the SLCC about my complaint and am no further forward. In my opinion they don't deserve the flood of money they have received."

He continued : "From the way they are treating the public, Jane Irvine should be more worried about the mental health & safety of clients who I also read have been driven to suicide over trying to complain against a crooked lawyer. Maybe the SLCC board members and their fat expense accounts should come down off their perch and treat us a bit better instead of worrying so much about what people will think over their expenses claims."

SLCC provided misleading information only admitting to £6k expenses on earlier FOI request. It can also be revealed today that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission apparently intentionally provided deceptive information to an earlier FOI request from the media over members expenses, where the SLCC claimed the total sums claimed and paid to Members between 1 October and 31 August 2009 at £6408.96. However, when quizzed further on the figures, the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine issued a new statement contradicting the earlier FOI response on members expenses, and admitted that between 1 October 2008 and 31 August 2009 members received total further payments of a staggering £128,624.00 by way of fees, giving the following 'varying interpretation' reason for the staggering £122,216.00 error in the Commission's expenses accounting figures.

SLCC Chief Jane Irvine threatens media ‘no more FOIs’ after asking for board members expenses details. After having to admit the huge discrepancies in the FOI release of expenses claims, the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine, threatened to brand journalists Freedom of Information enquires as “vexatious” as she was forced to admit the huge ‘accounting error’, saying : "Having stated all this I have very carefully considered the exact wording of your request as you have directed me to. This might be read two ways. Either as a request for records of all claims for expenses and money paid as expenses - which we have answered, or a request for records plus a request for records of all money paid. I have not sought to clarify this with you. Rather I have interpreted it expansively and in this context advise that between 1 October 2008 and 31 August 2009 Members received total further payments of £128,624.00 by way of fees."

FOI disclosure exposed SLCC Board member Margaret Scanlan who wanted consumer groups excluded from SLCC business. As the SLCC’s new anti-FOI stance gathers pace, Commission insiders have also claimed that in order to stem the rising numbers of FOI requests from the media, necessitated by the Commission’s secrecy policy on just about everything, and the SLCC’s consistently late publishing of monthly minutes (up to six months late in some cases, alongside significant use of black ink) the Commission has also decided to charge for any & all FOI requests, in the hopes of putting off enquiries which may lead to further embarrassing & compromising revelations such as some of those already reported in the media where ‘on the razzle’ board members and senior SLCC officials embarked on bitter hate-fuelled email rants against consumer groups, members of the public, solicitors clients and even media journalists who all came in for heavy criticism and insults after publication of problems at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

You can read an earlier account of scandals at the SLCC revealed by FOI requests here : MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members 'booze culture conduct' reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers & here : Censorship & ‘frequent flyers’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal attempt to write off consumers evidence in Master Policy report

A Scottish Parliamentary insider today said : “The way the SLCC is operating is clearly not what was intended in the LPLA Act and clearly the commission has a poor attitude towards the public and a poor view of how it should manage its own affairs and finances. The commission has, as I understand it, received a great deal of public money and millions of pounds from the legal profession itself. I am sorry to say I do not see value for money in what I read of the SLCC’s performance in the media of late.”

He continued : “I feel it may now be time for parliamentary scrutiny of the commission’s performance to-date and I would encourage anyone who has encountered difficulties with the SLCC to contact their own MSP and make a request the commission be brought before the parliament when its annual report is published, I believe sometime in December 2009.”

An MSP, speaking this afternoon after reading the SLCC’s refusal over members expenses details said : “If the SLCC are playing fast & loose with FOI requests, I would be willing to put in a few requests myself to assist the outflow of information into the public domain.”

The SLCC’s refusal to disclose full details of its members expenses has now been passed to Scotland’s Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, for a full investigation.

Lawyers fraudulent fee demands must be curbed by independent fee watchdog as culture of greed prohibits public access to justice

Law Society of Scotland does little against fee fraud complaints.With the ongoing revelations from Westminster of a culture of greed revealed among politicians over their expenses claims, shamed into repayments only because of public naming & shaming by the media, calls are now growing for similar shaming of some of our notoriously if needlessly expensive legal firms, as the profession fails to deal with the issue of solicitors exorbitant & fraudulent fee demands to clients.

I reported on this issue in an earlier article here : Lawyers stealing from clients to earn 'double fees' while Law Society looks the other way in vast network of legal aid fraud & embezzlement

Basically, since competition in legal services has not existed in Scotland, ever, and the relevant legislation dating back to 1990 via Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which would have enabled wider rights of audience in Scottish Courts was withheld from implementation for 17 years to March 2007, solicitors and legal firms have charged clients what they wanted, in an orgy of spiralling greed, rather than allowing market conditions and market competition to set the price of legal services in Scotland.

If for instance, a solicitor wants a second or third home, or a new car, up the costs to clients go, unchecked, and must be paid on threat of legal action or repossession of clients assets .. and solicitors seem to have as easy a time ramping up their bills and claiming expenses for anything they want, just as much as MPs at Westminster loading their expenses claims for everything under the sun, soaking the taxpayer for all they could get – and getting away with it until now.

Just as at Westminster, where the 'Fees Office' set the rules for Parliamentary expenses claims, providing MPs with a justification for their claims for cleaning the swimming pool, moat, or paying everything (including their mortgage allowance) on their second home which of course they must have as one of life's necessities, the Law Society used to set its Table of Fees, by which solicitors could refer back to as justification for supporting their extortionate bills to clients, despite the poor quality of legal work, and high case failure rate.

After the Table of Fees were withdrawn in 2005, legal firms decided themselves how to ramp up the costs of litigation, and up to sky high levels they went as bonuses, cars, new offices, and all manner of perks were paid for out of clients soaring legal bills, while case success rates and quality of legal services remained poor, generating record levels of consumer complaints to the Law Society of Scotland.

Advice from the Law Society's own website currently offers the following : "With the withdrawal of the Society’s Table of Fees, it will not be appropriate to refer to fees recommended by the Society. If, for example in executries, the file is to be feed by an external fee charger such as an Auditor or Law Accountant, the basis on which the external fee charger will be asked to fee up the file needs to be stated to the client needs to be included. If hourly rates are reviewed during the course of the work, the clients will need to be told about any increase or there is a risk that firms will be unable to charge the higher rate."

I can only describe that as hopeless. Clients are hardly ever if ever informed about changes in rates, until the fee demand arrives on their doorstep.

The Law Society's advice continues : "As well as the hourly rate any commission which will be charged on capital transactions or on the sale of a house would need to be included. In any matter where the account is being rendered on a detailed basis, the charges for letters, drafting papers, etc will need to be expressed as well as the hourly rate. They can be in a separate schedule referred to in the basic letter."

Again, this is pure fantasy from the Law Society.

On matters of Executries & deceased estates, the Law Society offers the following : "In executries where the only executors are solicitors in the firm, the information should be provided to the residuary beneficiaries, as they will be meeting the fees out of their shares of the residue. In other executries the information should be provided to the non solicitor executors. "

I have never encountered this taking place in an executry yet, and since the handling of wills & executries by Scottish legal firms seems to produce the highest levels of fraud & embezzlement I have ever seen, the only advice I could give to anyone trying to write a will is keep lawyers and accounts well away from your belongings, because whatever your bequests are in your will, they will never reach their intended beneficiaries in their entirety if a lawyer has anything to do with it.

Even some of the legal profession’s senior members now admit soaring fraud is common among members, as Richard Keen, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, hinted in an earlier report I wrote here : Dean of faculty hints at rising fraud claims against solicitors as 'Penman Levy' bites hard into Scots law firms

In my experience of cases, clients who embarked on litigation often find their solicitors are content to write letter after letter to opposing legal teams, for no reason at all, other than to scoop up fees in some cases of £250+VAT for a single letter with four lines of text on it .. and several follow up letters which usually achieve nothing other than to inflate the solicitor's fee demand.

In one example of a case I heard of, there were 42 follow up letters at £150 each which totalled £6,300, with the case remaining unresolved after four years of letter writing and projected court costs of £10,000, all over a boundary fence misplaced by a galactic "5.2 inches" which the defenders in the action were at one stage willing to settle until their lawyer advised they should fight it out and continue sending costly replies to the pursuers costly enquiries.

Both legal firms in that case, in the Scottish Borders, have a good game of ping pong going - pursuers & defenders have paid over £10,000 each over a fence and a dispute, which might be settled quicker if wood worm eat the fence away, than if the two legal firms have their way.

Amazingly both those legal firms handle legal aid work too .. but I wonder, if they are so dishonest with their private clients, can they be trusted to receive public legal aid funds ?

We saw recently how the Law Society of Scotland protects legal aid fraudsters from criminal charges .. just to keep their members on the legal aid bandwagon, as I reported here : Law Society protects legal aid fraudster lawyers from criminal charges as SLAB nets £1.6 million ‘repayments’

The obvious conclusion from this is that solicitors who rip off their private clients, or are subject to complaints involving dodgy fee demands and other financial irregularities should not be allowed to claim legal aid fees.

In the past 12 months, many people have contacted me over their sudden receipt of huge fee demands from their solicitors, usually in the thousands of pounds, for as it usually turns out, non existent work allegedly undertaken two or more years ago, with little or no accounting of what that work actually entailed.

As an example, one demand sent to me by a worried client of an Edinburgh legal firm, who, among their case work, specialise in representing the Law Society of Scotland's Master Policy insurance, protecting crooked lawyers from negligence claims, threatened “legal action in seven days if an account of £23,000 was not paid immediately”. It was the first time the client had seen the bill, and notably there was no explanation of the work, no detailed breakdown, nothing at all to indicate what the solicitor had actually done, other than the words "working on a boundary dispute & drawing up letters".

The client contacted the legal firm, and pointed out they had ceased working on the boundary case in October 2006, due to settlement with the defenders, and that fees had been paid in full at the time, producing a receipt from the firm itself confirming that to be the case.

One of the senior partners of this legal firm then wrote back to the client, informing them "charges for work had been overlooked and not included in the fees at the time, and must now be paid or we will take legal action against you as intimated in our fee note."

The client returned to me, and I advised them to inform the legal firm they had passed on copies of the accounts to myself, and were going to call in the Police. Two days later, a letter arrived from the legal firm explaining "a clerical error had led to the fee note being issued, which has now been withdrawn."

However, not all cases of what can only be described as fraudulent fee demands, end up as easy to resolve as the above example, and, with the financial downturn affecting legal business significantly, I have noticed a huge upswing in legal firms bullying clients with demands for legal fees on work which simply never took place, and cannot be accounted for. When clients dare challenge these fee demands, the legal firm usually backs down, only after a threat of media exposure.

The legal services market, as it currently stands as a market monopoly controlled by the Law Society of Scotland and its members, cannot be trusted to set fees for legal services. These practices must end.

However, not only must it end, given the volume of complaints against fraudulent fee demands from the legal profession, there must be an independent fees commission to watch over the costs of legal services, ensuring access to justice is within the reach of everyone, not just the rich, or those the legal profession itself chooses to represent.

Given the high levels of fraud in solicitors fee demands, there must also be an independent inquiry into how far and how long this has been going on, with a view to the public being paid back money which has falsely been claimed by solicitors for work they never did, or legal services which were mishandled, either incompetently, or deliberately, just to inflate fee demands equating to a level of extortion over clients which cannot be allowed to go unchecked or unpunished.