Scottish legal profession supports using family law cases to blackmail Executive for more legal aid fees & less reform.

Like North Korean dictators who are currently polluting our planet with nuclear tests, to make political ends for their benefit, the Scottish legal profession has decided to support it's own political campaign against reform of the legal profession, by the use of withdrawing representation for abuse victims & other types of family law cases, in the long running dispute over Civil legal aid feels with the Scottish Executive.

It's no accident that solicitors are now resorting to stronger tactics in their quest to gain more legal aid fees .. with the LPLA Bill currently being considered in the Scottish Parliament, anything which the legal profession can do to 'gum up the works' has been passed by the Law Society of Scotland as 'fair use' against the planned reforms of the way lawyers conduct business in Scotland.

What with the recent resignation of the Lord Advocate over 'unspecified matters', howls from many members of the legal profession, including retired judges, embittered over the loss of self regulation of complaints against their own members, we now see the true face of Scotland's hallowed legal fraternity ... who will stop at nothing to get their own way .. and there is more to come.

Not a very honourable thing for Scotlands legal profession to be doing .. and I haven't noticed retired judges such as Lord McCluskey & otbers in the judiciary, legal profession, or many msps coming out on this one to protest the Human Rights of the public to be defended in court, versus the thing they are so big on lately, being the howls of Human Rights abuse against the solicitors who face losing the power to regulate complaints against themselves. Surely the rights of abuse victims to be protected from violent attackers outweights the rights of lawyers to fiddle complaints against their colleagues ? One would surely think so ...

Of course .. pay someone what they want .. or allow them to set their own pay scales .. and you get a situation like this which we are now in ... and with lawyers over the years being used to milking the legal aid system for whatever they wanted (as long as it didn't include cases against other lawyers) ... they have gotten used to getting the levels of fees they asked for .. so in part, it is certainly the Executive's fault (and previous Governments of course) for allowing this situation to develop in the first place.

Civil legal aid rates are lower than Criminal legal aid rates, and Civil legal aid is more difficult to obtain than Criminal legal aid - because, barring the odd strike by lawyers using victims as a blackmail to obtain more legal aid, it is of course, a right for someone to be defended at a criminal trial - and if they have no defence or representation, either as a result of not being able to obtain a lawyer themselves, or having their legal aid withdrawn, occasionally, Sheriffs have dismissed criminal cases against accused on these grounds.

Civil legal aid applications can be opposed by the defender of the action - this alone, makes it obviously more difficult to persuade the Scottish Legal Aid Board that Civil legal aid should be granted in a case.

Many abuse victims have, at one point or anther, have also had to use a particular rule for claiming Civil legal aid, known as "Regulation 18" where a solicitor can apply for legal aid funding, on the basis they had to take urgent steps to bring a case into court for a client .. This rule has had to be used where there have been difficulties in obtaining Civil legal aid for such cases, in the past, however, sometimes SLAB have also been known to refuse 'Regulation 18" legal aid applications, dependent on the nature of the claimant's case.

A Solicitor can backdate a claim for legal aid using the "regulation 18" rule for emergency legal aid, and you can find out more about 'regulation 18" legal aid and how a case qualifies for it, Here

However, there are great dispartities in the way Civil legal aid is awarded by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, as anyone who has tried to make a claim for Civil legal aid knows .. and there is an even greater disparity in the way the legal profession treats particular types of civil law cases, particularly those which involve civil litigation against colleagues.

For instance, try making an application to the Scottish Legal Aid Board for Civil legal aid in a case against a crooked or negligent solicitor, and you would find, like many before you, it's almost impossible to obtain legal aid .

A claimant in a case against a lawyer, would be faced with all matter of representations coming in from the Law Society of Scotland & the rest of the legal profession to SLAB, to interdict a claimant's application for Civil legal aid. A good example, of this, is my own claim for Civil legal aid, which was obstructed by the Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, Douglas Mill .. but this is typical of the Law Society of Scotland, who make sure most civil legal aid cases against lawyers get killed off, or are obstructed to the point they never make it to court.

For example, an applicant for civil legal aid (who may also be in receipt of state benefits), in a civil law case against a lawyer might find that the lawyer they are trying to bring to court, has supplied the Legal Aid Board with deliberately false or erroneous information against their person. This has happened many times.

Solicitors up and down Scotland, when faced with a case against themselves, have went all out to 'get' members of the public who have tried to claim against a crooked lawyer who has ruined their finances .. and such dirty tricks as providing false information to SLAB, false information to the Benefits Agency, and even false information to the Inland Revenue & the Police, is quite a common practice - and nothing is ever done about this by the Law Society of Scotland, or even, the Crown Office, who know full well what is happening.

If a claimant makes a knowingly false statement to the Legal Aid Board regarding their claim for legal aid - it;s a criminal offence - and the claimant can be prosecuted in such a case.

If a lawyer makes a knowingly false statement to the Legal Aid Board regarding a claim for legal aid in a court case against a lawyer - nothing is done ..

If a member of the public wishing to claim state benefits gives false informatino to the Benefits Agency .. they get prosecuted ..

If a lawyer or a professional colleague, such as, an accountant, provides false information to the Benefits Agency against a member of the public who is trying to take that lawyer or accountant to court .. nothing gets done but the information remains on file, and is almost impossible for that member of the public to challenge.

I wonder if we may have a few words from the new Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini ?

I would hope the Lord Advocate should have a role & somethjing to say for the public's point of view in this legal aid battle .. where undoubtably, the interests of the public far outweigh the financial interests of the legal profession to rack up legal aid fees.

However, nothing seems to stop lawyers using the most vulnerable people in society for their own financial ends, as we see today in the Scotsman newspaper, who report on more strike threats by the legal profession if their demands for increased legal aid payments aren't met by the Scottish Executive.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1492002006

Strike threat may see abuse victims go to court without lawyer
TANYA THOMPSON SOCIAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

SCOTTISH lawyers are threatening to strike over legal aid payments in a move that could force victims of domestic violence to represent themselves in court.

Family lawyers are furious about the recent introduction of fixed fees for civil legal aid, which replaced itemised payments and an hourly rate for court work.

The Scotsman has learned that a number of family lawyers have called for strike action in the hope of forcing the Scottish Executive to change its policy.

Rachael Kelsey, chairwoman of the Family Law Association, said: "There is a strong feeling among family lawyers that this is coming to a crisis. Some members have said we will have to strike.

"We simply can't afford to do this kind of work anymore; my hairdresser charges more for hourly work than I get paid for legal aid work."

Many lawyers are refusing to represent families in divorce, child custody and domestic abuse cases in an escalating dispute over legal aid.

Next month, the association's 300 members will meet to discuss the option of an all-out boycott of legal aid work, introducing strike action for the first time in its 20-year history.

"We will hold a meeting to canvass views on the prospect of a strike. It would mean a ban on all legal aid work," said Ms Kelsey. "If you have someone who is suffering domestic violence, they would have to represent themselves in court against their alleged abuser.

"I'm currently representing a ten-year-old girl in a particularly difficult case. A strike would mean I would not be able to represent her. It would be heart-breaking to pull out of that case ... but if the association voted for a strike, I would not be a strike-breaker."

Lawyers warned yesterday that a range of sensitive court work would be placed in jeopardy and the most vulnerable clients, including children, would be let down.

A spokeswoman for Scottish Women's Aid said it was appalling that women should be forced to represent themselves in court. "The courts are not places for lay people," she said. "Family law is very complex and needs to be handled sensitively.

"These women won't know the law and to represent themselves could be hugely detrimental to their case."

In recent weeks, the Family Law Association has received more than 100 letters from members concerned about the rates of pay for legal aid work.

Family lawyers have cut the amount of publicly-funded family work they are prepared to carry out as they believe current legal aid payments are so poor.

Helen Hughes, a family lawyer in Paisley, said: "The fees we're paid simply do not reflect the amount of work done.

"In some cases, we're getting about £30 an hour for drawing up writs, appearing in court and speaking to very vulnerable clients. You're running at a loss when you take into account the rent and staff salaries."

A Scottish Executive spokesman said it was currently in negotiation with lawyers over possible changes to the fees for civil legal aid.

Scottish Lawyers continuing to blackmail for more legal aid by holding hostage public`s right of legal representation

The continuing efforts of the legal profession to prove their worth to Scottish society continue - with the boycotting of family law cases (in addition to representing clients charged with selected types of criminal offences).

If this is the way in which Scottish lawyers are trying to endear themselves to the public - maybe ASBO orders would be of better use than ramping up their legal aid payments for representing clients.

The current tactics of the legal profession - to blackmail the Scottish Executive into awarding more legal aid fees for work done, is actually part of a strategy organised by the top echelons of the legal profession in Scotland to kill off the planned reforms in not only legal aid - but also more importantly - regulation of complaints - which currently operates at the hands of the Law Society of Scotland as a self-regulatory complaints system, but which is to be made independent under the terms of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament`s Justice 2 Committee.

The events of recent weeks - which have seen lawyers announce boycotts of various kinds of legal services to clients - is an indicator of just how important the legal profession in Scotland sees these reforms, and just how worried they are by change.

And so they should be worried ... because many of their members have been stealing from clients fro decades - and now they are about to be found out ... so why should they just sit back and let these changes take effect to what is their lucrative honey pot ? ... surely if a thief who has been stealing for 30 years from the same house sees CCTV cameras mounted in the house - the thief will either change his tactics, or break the cameras ? - well it`s the same here - it`s just that in this case - it`s lawyers who are about to be caught out.

So really, this is nothing much to do with income or the levels of legal aid, it`s really more to do with the legal profession not getting it`s own way - so they are throwing what is much more than a tantrum - they are actually playing with our human rights to be represented in legal cases ... so how, does the Law Society of Scotland justify that kind of conduct from it`s member I wonder ?

No doubt the Law Society`s response would be something like ... oh - well ... our members interests come first before the public - so we have to see that our members are well paid and get everything they want - including getting them off the hook from client complaints and negligence claims ..　and this is exactly why Scottish lawyers are now playing with our rights as a tool to get more money .. and this is why we have another article, following, from "The Scotsman" on the legalaid dispute.

I have to laugh a bit though, at Andrew Gibb`s comments in the "Scotsman" article.

Andrew Gibb is a senior partner with the law firm Balfour and Manson, of Edinburgh. His firm took on the case of looking into the death of my mother at the Borders General Hospital - after 2 other lawyers - Michael Robson, of Robsons WS, Ratho, and David Reid of Morrisons WS, Edinburgh and Campbell Smith WS, Edinburgh, ruined the case completely - out of, it seems, incompetence, and malice.

But what did Balfour & Manson do ? - well, they whitewashed the conduct of the two crooked lawyers who ruined the case to try and make sure I couldn`t sue for negligence - so that`s Balfour & Manson for you - just as crooked and discriminatory as the rest when it comes to Scottish lawyers acting for people the legal profession hates - such as me, Peter Cherbi.

Fancy answering that one then, Mr Gibb ? or is it against your firm`s "ethos" (sic)

Read on for the article on the continuing efforts of the Scottish legal profession to blackmail for more legal aid by holding the public`s rights to legal representation as hostage ... certainly a terrorist tactic, wouldn`t you all agree ??

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=867162006

Solicitors boycott family law cases in dispute over legal aid payments
MICHAEL HOWIE

HUNDREDS of lawyers are refusing to represent families in divorce, child custody and domestic abuse cases in an escalating dispute with Scottish ministers over legal aid.

The Scotsman has learned law firms are slashing the amount of publicly funded family work they are prepared to carry out because they say current legal- aid payments are "scandalous".

Thousands of people are finding it increasingly difficult to find a lawyer, with many unable to secure legal representation in their home town.

Difficult and sensitive cases, many of them involving children in broken homes exposed to drug or alcohol abuse, or battered wives seeking a restraining order against a violent partner, are increasingly being taken on by junior lawyers because some big firms will take on only more lucrative private work.

Experts claim the service offered to many poorer clients is suffering as a result, leading to a two-tier system.

In a survey by the Family Law Association (FLA), which represents 300 solicitors in Scotland, more than half of those who responded say they have reduced their amount of family legal aid work by at least 50 per cent.

One of Scotland's largest law firms told The Scotsman it was turning away up to a dozen people a day because it will not take on new publicly-funded cases. The situation has become so serious that, in Edinburgh, it is almost impossible to get a lawyer to take on a family law case paid through legal aid.

The result of the poll has put further pressure on the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) to overhaul the legal aid system. It comes as more than half of Scotland's criminal legal aid lawyers prepare to boycott sex cases in protest at delays in introducing new fees for solicitors defending people accused of serious crimes.

The number of lawyers prepared to take on family legal aid cases has plummeted since block payment fees for civil work were introduced in October 2003. The fixed payments replaced complicated itemised fees for preparing cases, and hourly rates for appearing in court.

Lawyers say the new fees do not take account of the complicated nature of many family law cases, offering no incentive to take on legal aid work.

Helen Hughes, of the Family Law Association, said: "As with criminal cases, family cases are rarely simple and often very high maintenance, involving issues such as domestic violence and substance abuse. With block fees, it doesn't matter if you have one meeting or 100 with a client, the fee is the same amount.

"The system can work, but it needs to be flexible. It makes no allowance for complex cases that can require a great deal of preparation and court time."

The Paisley-based lawyer said four local firms had decided to refuse to take on any legal aid cases as a result of the block fees, and that the FLA had petitioned the Executive to increase the payments. "Our member firms are finding they simply cannot afford to take on legal aid cases and the ones that do are overloaded with cases and can't help everybody that needs it," she said.

Ms Hughes said she had been paid ￡498 under the block fees system for representing grandparents who were seeking interim custody of their grandson. Under the old system, she would have been paid ￡968 and under private rates the fee would have been more than ￡2,000.

"What we receive in legal aid is not what we end up with," she said.

"From that amount, you have to deduct overheads such as the cost of staff and running an office. For family law cases, we are not being paid a reasonable fee for the work involved."

Andrew Gibb, a senior partner with Balfour and Manson, of Edinburgh, and a former president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "Over the years, I have been proud to do legal aid work and have always taken the view that I am here to help the poor more than the rich. My firm has had the same ethos.

"However, in my area of family law, the position with the Scottish Legal Aid Board has become so scandalous that my firm will no longer take on legal aid work in certain types of cases, except in exceptional cases.

"It is now clear that in Edinburgh, people are finding it increasingly difficult to find solicitors who will take on legal aid work other than for established clients. On a daily basis, we have countless requests from members of the public to take on legal aid cases and decline to do so."

A spokesman for SLAB claimed the total amount paid to lawyers had increased by 21 per cent under the 2003 changes, but admitted that, in some cases, including family law, solicitors were being paid less and that "more flexibility" was needed.

An Executive spokesman said: "One of the principles of the legal aid system is that there should be fair reward for work necessarily undertaken. Monitoring of the 2003 changes is being done and any necessary changes to the regulations are under active consideration."