COPS & LAWYERS: Concerns on Public Bodies Legal Fees spending as figures reveal Scottish Police Authority fork out over £1m in legal fees, Police Scotland spend at least £1.3 million on external lawyers

Millions from Police budget ends up funding lawyers. SCOTLAND’S single national Police service – Police Scotland is spending millions of pounds of public cash on external law firms, advocates & QCs over and above the significant costs of it’s own in-house legal teams.

The single national Police service for Scotland has admitted paying at least £1,316,819 to external solicitors, QCs, advocates and the courts over a three year period - over and above costs for in-house legal teams.

The largest beneficiaries of public cash from Police Scotland are Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick) who were paid £361,801.91.

However, while that firm was still Simpson & Marwick prior to its merger with Clyde & Co, they earned £284,914.15, giving total earnings since January 2014, of £646,716.06.

Other big-earning firms from Police Scotland’s public cash splurge on major law firms were Morton Fraser (£278,069.60) and Ledingham Chalmers (£103,906.08).

However, the figures - released in response to a Freedom of Information request - Police Scotland & SPA Fees to external lawyers, law firms & QCs 2014 to 2017 - are now subject to scrutiny - after journalists questioned the Police as to why over half a million pounds paid by the Police to a law firm named in a £400m collapsed Hedge Fund scandal and a suspended judge were excluded from the figures handed over by Police well out of timescales tolerated by the Scottish Information Commissioner.

It was reported by the Scottish Sun in March 2016, a sum of £187K was paid to lawyer Peter Watson – a sheriff who has been suspended from the judicial bench for well over two years, and a further £364,830 was paid to Levy and Mcrae – the Glasgow based law firm named in a £28m writ in connection with the collapse of the Heather Capital hedge fund, run by Gregory King who is subject to a Crown Office probe now in it’s fourth year.

Police Scotland also disclosed at least £52,014 has been paid to in respect of Opinions of Counsel and Senior Counsel instructed by in-house Legal Services directly and at least £32,378 has been paid to the Scottish Court Service since January 2014 by in-house Legal Services directly.

Police Scotland also disclosed the names of law firms and Advocates Chambers who have received legal fees.

And, today, it has emerged in an additional, three months late FOI disclosure – the controversial Scottish Police Authority (SPA) has admitted to spending millions more on legal fees for it’s own use, with at least £623K spent on external law firms and £435K on it’s own in-house legal teams.

SPA Legal Costs (in-house and Third Party) From Jan 2014 to June 2017 saw the following public cash spends on third party legal costs: £154,449 (2013/14) £104,570 (2014/15) £175,785 (2015/16) £167,667 (2016/17) and £20,543 spent already in this financial year which runs to 2018 making a total of £623,012 on third party legal costs.

Costs for the SPA’s own in-house legal team has now reached £434,512 in just three years.

However, unlike Police Scotland, the secretive Scottish Police Authority refused to identify the names of law firms & counsel involved in it’s £1million plus legal expenses bill.

The SPA’s refusal to identify legal firms via FOI legislation has now been submitted for review, and possible investigation by the Scottish Information Commissioner, after weeks of deliberate delays by the SPA in disclosing the legal costs.

Additionally, questions are also being raised with the Scottish Information Commissioner on Police Scotland’s attitude towards Freedom of Information timescales after weeks of deliberate delays in the force’s handling of FOI requests.

The breakdown of the total figure for solicitors' fees by solicitor from 2014 – 2017 as paid by Police Scotland are as follows:

AC White £396; Allan Black & McCaskie £300; Allcourt Solicitors £462; Balfour & Manson £1236.3; Blackadder & McMonagle £342; Brazenall & Orr £168; Carruthers Curdie Sturrock & Co. £324; Clyde & Co.(Simpson & Marwick) £361801.91; Cockburns  £54; Corrigal Black £306; Criggies £42; Douglas Gilmour & Son £36; DWF £134.8; Gray & Gray £60; George Mathers & Co £600; Grigor & Young £1920; Hamish L Melrose £540; Hunter & Robertson Solicitors £1872; John Henderson & Sons £2232; Leddingham Chalmers £103906.08; Linda George Family Law £984; MacIntosh Humble £174; Mackie Thomson £96; Mackintosh Wylie £48; Macnabs Solicitors £312; Malcolm & Hutchison £132; Mathie McCluskey £78; McCluskey Browne £2032; McCusker McElroy & Gallanagh £30; McIntyre & Co £258; McLellan Adam Davis £54; MacDonald McIver & Co £353.1; Morton Fraser £278069.6; Patten Prentice £96; Rankin & Aitken £42; Reid Cooper £15901.92 ;Russel & Aitken £60; Russell, Gibson McCaffrey £4084.8; Simpson and Marwick £284914.15; Stewart Balfour £48; Thorntons £3760.16; W & AS Bruce £60 TOTAL: £1,068,320.82

The sum paid to advocates broken down by chamber and year are as follows:-

Chambers fees from 2014 - 2017: 5 Essex court £16620; Ampersand £84000; Arnot Manderson £12840; Axiom  £8640;  Black  £6600; Compass £20334; Terra Firma £3780 TOTAL: £152,814

The National newspaper reports on the Police spend on external law firms, here:

Police Scotland ‘spends £1k a day to fight legal battles’

Martin Hannan Journalist 13th August

Police Scotland's legal costs were exposed after FoI requests

DESPITE having its own legal team, Police Scotland has spent more than £1000 per day on external legal lawyers and court costs since January, 2014.

In the three years and six months to June of this year, Police Scotland paid out £1,316,819 to external solicitors, QCs, advocates and the courts, according to figures released under Freedom of Information (FoI) rules.

Peter Cherbi, the legal issues campaigner and blogger who made the FoI requests, has criticised the force after it refused to answer The National’s questions on the issue, directing us to use FoI questions.

Cherbi said: “There are firms on the FoI list provided by Police Scotland who specialise in legal issues relating to defence of damages claims and other similar legal issues, yet at this time the force appears unwilling to cough up the real reasons for running to lawyers at all hours of the day.”

More than 950 fee notes were issued to Police Scotland by law firms and individual solicitors, with £32,378 paid directly to the Scottish Courts Service for costs incurred in numerous actions.

More than 40 law practices across Scotland were paid for work, some of which is believed to have been connected to the many police property disposals which have taken place over the past few years since the national force was created in 2013. Other firms were paid for expertise in various personnel and legally complex matters, and QCs, solicitor and advocates all represented the force in court, including cases at the Court of Session.

In all, solicitors received £1,068,320 in that time. The National can reveal that the biggest earners from police work were Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick) who were paid £361,801.91 for their involvement in such high-profile cases as former Assistant Chief Constable John Mauger’s failed action for judicial review of a decision by then Chief Constable Sir Stephen House – Maria Maguire QC acted for the force in that case.

While that firm was still Simpson & Marwick prior to its merger with Clyde & Co, they earned £284,914.15, giving total earnings since January 2014, of £646,716.06.

Other big-earning firms were Morton Fraser (£278,069.60) and Ledingham Chalmers (£103,906.08). By contrast, Renfrewshire law firm McCusker, McElroy and Gallanagh were paid just £30.

The total sum paid to advocates and QCs was £152,814 – in its response to the FoI request, Police Scotland explained: “These figures relates to instances where advocates have been instructed directly by Legal Services.”

The force’s response added: “I regret to inform you that I am unable to provide you with the figure in respect of fees charged on occasions where Counsel and/or Senior Counsel have been instructed by external solicitors acting for the Chief Constable as it would prove too costly to do so within the context of the fee regulations.”

The response did state, “951 fee notes have been rendered by external solicitors since January 2014”.

The National asked the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) which is supposed to superintend the national force if it was aware of the extent of usage of lawyers outside the legal services section of Police Scotland. We also asked if Police Scotland had to pay the legal costs of anybody taking out a court action against the force, and why do many solicitors firms were used?

We also asked what is the annual budget for the legal services section and asked both Police Scotland and the SPA to say if any of the costs were for defending Police Scotland personnel accused of crimes, or if any external cost was incurred in defending Police Scotland personnel in civil cases. The reply we received was “you would have to submit an FOI request in relation to these questions”.

Peter Cherbi commented: “While chief constables and senior officers have been talking up their lack of resources and funding in public, Police Scotland have been keeping law firms afloat with huge public spends of funds better spent on front line policing.

“The force’s overuse of law firms for legal action and other legal services must be opened for public inspection on a case-by-case basis. What are Police Scotland spending all this money on lawyers, and why? What are the processes employed by Police Scotland for using legal services? A key question given they have their own in-house lawyers.

“The public have a right to know and the Scottish Parliament should be looking to raise questions on this issue, which would make for some interesting exchanges before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub committee on Policing.

“This addiction to lawyers and exorbitant legal fees by Police Scotland and other public bodies must be brought to a halt as the operational budgets for policing and any public service are not meant to act as unaccountable public subsidies for the legal profession.”

Previous articles on the Scottish Police Authority can be found here: Scottish Police Authority - Poor governance, private meetings & lack of accountability at Police regulator

Investigation reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's links, secret 'off the record' dealings with lawyers lobby group Legal Defence Union

REVEALED : Law regulator’s dealings with organisation linked to client suicides & blocked prosecutions of legal aid fraudsters. AN INVESTIGATION by Diary of Injustice into dealings between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the ‘independent’ quango which regulates complaints against Scottish lawyers and the Legal Defence Union, an organisation which represents the best interests of lawyers, recently linked to blocked criminal prosecutions of legal aid fraudster lawyers & also the suicide of a married Oban family man in the SLCC’s 2009 report into the Master Policy, has revealed a series of cosy meetings between the regulator & pro-lawyer lobby group at expensive Edinburgh hotels which the heads of both organisations agreed to keep off the record and away from public gaze.

According to claims from SLCC insiders who are fed up with the non-achieving law complaints regulator, the scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Legal Defence Union have now become so close, SLCC staff privately joke it is now “routine” for the Legal Defence Union to intervene in complaints investigations on behalf of solicitors interests while consumers who make complaints about their solicitors to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are not represented in any way and have no organisation to turn to for help with their complaints.

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine agreed no records of discussion between regulator & lawyer’s lobby group at Balmoral Hotel. A limited amount of papers reluctantly disclosed by the SLCC under Freedom of Information legislation show a series of discussions between the two pro-lawyer bodies bosses, Jane Irvine for the SLCC and LDU Solicitor Director William Macreath, also a partner at law firm Levy McRae, who, according to the text of one of the letters disclosed to Diary of Injustice under FOI laws, both agreed “there would be no formal records of any element of the discussion.”. The letter from Jane Irvine to the LDU Director which disclosed the secret no-records-of-meetings policy went on to detail several technical issues about complaints regulation and how the SLCC should deal with solicitors & consumers, the former apparently having much greater priority over the latter.

The limited Freedom of Information disclosure of documents disclosed by the SLCC documenting only a fraction of its dealings with the Legal Defence Union can be viewed online or downloaded here : FOI Disclosure : Involvement & meetings between Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Legal Defence Union

However, there is even darker news for clients of solicitors who are forced to make complaints to the SLCC, as it can now be revealed the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has never disclosed the involvement of the Legal Defence Union to any client who has made a complaint, raising the possibility many clients who complained to the SLCC did not receive a fair hearing due to the fact they were not represented by anyone other than themselves while their solicitor was represented by the Legal Defence Union and other organisations such as LAW CARE, a lawyer operated ‘charity’ which ‘looks after’ & represents solicitors who regularly claim they are too sick to face complaints made by their clients.

The SLCC admitted in its latest  FOI response : “I confirm that the SLCC has been contacted by the LDU in relation to specific complaints”. The response to the FOI request went onto confirm : “The SLCC does not as a matter of routine notify complainers if the LDU or Law Care have contacted us about a complaint, nor do we as a matter of routine send out copies of correspondence that we have received from them..unless we consider it necessary to enable investigation and could demonstrate that it was, we would not automatically or routinely send out copies of letters from the LDU or Law Care.”

The SLCC further stated : “The SLCC is also subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and so is mindful of not disclosing personal data. Given the nature of the range of work that the two organisations you asked about carry out, we also have to take care that we do not release personal data, irrespective of whether disclosure was necessary to our investigation or not.”

The SLCC refused to officially confirm the volume & frequency of the contacts, instead suggesting Diary of Injustice contact the LDU itself. The SLCC refused to provide any further information on contact between the SLCC & LDU to Diary of Injustice on the basis it would cost too much for the SLCC to retrieve it. The limited Freedom of Information response from the SLCC specifically referring to its dealings with the Legal Defence Union on complaints about solicitors, can be viewed online or downloaded here : Legal Defence Union & Law Care involvement in complaints to SLCC

Consumers are therefore advised by Diary of Injustice they should contact the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission immediately to request full copies of any & all Legal Defence Union submissions on behalf of solicitors being complained against.

A legal insider close to the SLCC commented they were not surprised by the refusal to release information regarding the Legal Defence Union’s massive involvement with the SLCC in complaints against solicitors.

The insider said : “As there is so much contact between the SLCC & Legal Defence Union on complaints made by clients against their solicitors, the public perception of some of the LDU’s submissions on behalf of solicitors if they were made public via FOI would portray the SLCC in a very damaging light.”

The insider continued : “Lets just say the submissions made on behalf of solicitors are in some cases, so threatening and with such intent, it is difficult for the SLCC to do anything other than throw the complaint out and let the solicitor off the hook.”

According to the Scottish Law Agents Society website : The Legal Defence Union (LDU) was formed in 1987 for the specific purpose of promoting and protecting the welfare of solicitors in Scotland. Indeed, the concept of an independent defence body for solicitors received unanimous support at the 1987 Annual General Meeting of The Law Society of Scotland. It is committed to protecting the interests of all solicitors in Scotland whether engaged in court, conveyancing or commercial work, in town or country, and in all areas of activity. At a wider level, the LDU aims to promote the interests and defence of solicitors in Parliament, in the media, and to the general public.

Consumers of legal services in Scotland and clients of solicitors should be in no doubt whatsoever, the Legal Defence Union has no interest in defending the rights of clients.

A senior official with one of Scotland’s consumer organisations said she was horrified at revelations the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had agreed to meet a pro-lawyer organisation such as the Legal Defence Union on a secret and unrecorded basis.

She said : “Secret meetings taking place between what is supposedly an independent regulator and what is effectively a lawyer’s lobby group with agreements no notes or records be kept of the discussions taking place is highly improper and in my view, completely compromises the credibility & the claimed independence of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.”

She continued : “In view of these highly damaging revelations I suggest anyone who has made a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission now contact the SLCC to find out what involvement the Legal Defence Union had in their complaint and what if any representations have been made on behalf of the solicitor being complained against.”

A Scottish Government insider has come forward to Diary of Injustice, confirming the Legal Defence Union “had significant involvement in the cases of several high profile legal aid fraud cases”, where a number of solicitors who were referred to the Crown Office by the Scottish Legal Aid Board for legal aid fraud, were let off the hook by the Crown Office, who strangely concluded in each & every case there was not enough evidence to prosecute the FOURTEEN crooked lawyers for massive legal aid frauds, events which occurred under the tenure of former Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC.

The Government insider questioned why the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission should be engaged in dodgy unrecorded meetings with a pro-lawyer lobby group such as the Legal Defence Union which has been identified as being involved in efforts to block criminal prosecutions of solicitors alleged to have committed legal aid fraud, among other things. 

The insider called for an investigation into the LDU’s activities and also called for all contact between the law complaints regulator & the LDU to be made public and for clients to be given the full facts of LDU involvement in their complaints.

He said : “In view of the mounting revelations of interference in criminal prosecutions and consumer complaints there should be an investigation into the scale of the Legal Defence Union’s activities which appear not to be in the public interest or the interests of justice.”

Clearly the relationship between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Legal Defence Union, a body linked to client suicides and to a string of 14 legal aid fraud cases in which the Crown Office failed to prosecute any of the solicitors concerned, raises serious questions as to the honesty & credibility of the SLCC to perform its regulatory function while giving consumers a fair hearing. Would you trust a regulator with such links & dealings with lobby groups of professions it is charged to regulate ?

Background to Legal Aid Frauds where Legal Defence Union represented accused solicitors who escaped criminal prosecutions :

The investigation into the scandal of the 14 failed prosecutions, with even more damaging revelations about to emerge, was reported exclusively in the Sunday Mail newspaper, and later by Diary of Injustice, here : FOURTEEN lawyers accused of multi-million pound legal aid fraud escape justice as Scotland’s Crown Office fail to prosecute all cases in 5 years

ONE LAW FOR THE CROOKED: Crown Office failed to prosecute any crooked lawyer for legal aid fraud in 5 years. THE CROWN OFFICE & PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE, Scotland’s ‘independent’ prosecution service headed by the Lord Advocate, currently Frank Mulholland QC, has admitted that during the term of the former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, it somehow FAILED TO PROSECUTE any of FOURTEEN as yet unidentified lawyers accused of legal aid fraud and referred to it for prosecution by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB). The frauds allegedly committed by the 14 accused lawyers all members of the Law Society of Scotland, collectively amounted to millions of pounds of taxpayers money, the bulk of which appears to be unrecoverable.

One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case :Legal Aid Chiefs accused lawyer Niels Lockhart of excessive claims yet no prosecution or repayment took place. A SECRET REPORT by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) into “excessive” claims for legal aid made by Kilmarnock based solicitor Niels S Lockhart who raked in over £600,000 in legal aid claims over two years can now be published, revealing the full extent of SLAB’s accusations against the sole practitioner, the FOUR YEAR WAIT for the Law Society of Scotland to rule on the case and the intervention of the Legal Defence Union who brokered a deal allowing Mr Lockhart to walk away from all accusations over his claims for legal aid.