LEGAL RAIDERS: Law Society sent 19,000 emails to MSPs in lobbying effort to protect £150 million a year legal aid payments to lawyers & criminal fraternity - ‘regardless of cost to society’

Law Society launches campaign to protect £1m legal aid pay-outs to crooks. ON THE day Scotland elected a minority SNP Government, the Law Society of Scotland has revealed it organised a ‘19,000 plus’ email lobbying effort targeted at candidates in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections – aimed at ‘protecting’ over £150m a year in legal aid public cash hand-outs to lawyers.

The campaign – organised under the guise of ‘access to justice for all’ – criticises recent cuts in the huge Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) budget – which has seen a staggering £1.2 billion of taxpayers cash paid out to lawyers and their criminal clients since the financial crash of 2008.

As part of the campaign, the Law Society said it had encouraged both solicitors and members of the public to contact their candidates for the Scottish Parliament elections to ask them to support access to justice, along with a twitter campaign with the hashtag #defendlegalaid”".

Material published by the Law Society states: “over 450 people have written to their candidates in the Scottish Parliament election asking them to #defendlegalaid.”

“Over 19,000 emails have been sent to candidates”

“Candidates in over 70 constituencies have been contacted as part of the campaign”

“Candidates from eight political parties, as well as independents, have pledged to #defendlegalaid on social media”

Alongside a document titled  Legal Assistance in Scotland fit for 21st Century, the Law Society launched a PR video in an attempt to persuade the public to support a drive to hand out millions more in public cash to lawyers.

The Law Society campaign strategy also includes ‘ research’ commissioned during 2013 from polling organisation Ipsos Mori  - which claims “there is strong public support for legal aid.”

The Law Society ‘research’ claims “81% of the public agreeing legal aid is a price worth paying to ensure a fair society, regardless of its cost.”

Further research was carried out with lawyers during 2015 – coming just after it was revealed the Law Society had rigged a client satisfaction survey, publishing spurious claims of high client satisfaction with Scottish solicitors across several media outlets - the articles authored by the Law Society’s own President.

The 2015 survey of the legal profession claims to indicate 78% of solicitors surveyed believed “Scottish Government policy on legal aid risked undermining access to justice for the poorest in society”, with 77% of lawyers in the survey allegedly demanding an increase in legal aid rates.

Commenting on the latest campaign against legal aid cuts, Christine McLintock, President of the Law Society of Scotland said: “We recognise that like all public sector funding, the justice budget is under significant pressure. However legal aid funding is quite simply the cost of access to justice for those in need.

Ms McLintock continued: “Access to justice is an essential element of a fair and democratic society and we have highlighted it as one of one of our key priorities for this year’s Scottish election. Providing access to quality legal advice and representation for people, regardless of their financial means, helps tackle inequality, encourages early resolution of problems, and protects fundamental rights.

“While our legal aid system is designed to meet costs on a case-by-case basis, there are fees for particular types of work which were set in 1992 and have not been revised.

Christine McLintock attacked the cuts to the legal aid budget, saying : “The legal aid budget was reduced from £161.4m in 2010/2011 to £138m in 2014/15. The target budget for 2016/17 is £126.4m – more than a £10 million reduction – and is less in cash terms than 20 years ago which, accounting for inflation, represents around a 50% cut in real terms over those two decades.

“This is causing enormous challenges – already there are areas of the country where there are not enough solicitors providing civil legal aid to meet demand, because practitioners just can’t afford to take it on.”

However, it has previously emerged during media investigations solicitors have got off the hook from multiple cases involving legal aid fraud & millions of pounds of public cash,

in one media investigation, it was revealed Fourteen lawyers accused of defrauding millions of pounds of legal aid public cash escaped prosecution after Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) refused to prosecute any of the cases reported to prosecutors by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

In another case brought to light by the media – Niels S Lockhart - a Kilmarnock based solicitor took over £600,000 of legal aid cash in just two years – and even when allegations of dodgy claims were reported to the Law Society an investigation by the Scottish Legal Aid Board – the Law Society of Scotland failed to act.

It emerged last summer the same solicitor – Niels S Lockhart – ended up demanding more legal aid cash even after being barred from the legal aid register – reported here: CASH TRAPPED: £1.2m legal aid Lawyer who took £700K Legal Aid in just 3 years - and was investigated for dodgy claims, demanded more public cash after being barred from legal aid register

LEGAL AID - How criminals & legal fraternity pocket £150 million a year of YOUR MONEY:

LEGAL RAID: FRAUDSTER'S TRIAL HANDOUT

Scandal of £11m crook who lived high life on stolen cash ...& WE pay his £769k law bills

EXCLUSIVE by Russell Findlay Scottish Sun 12 July 2015

A FRAUDSTER who flew in private jets and lit cigarettes with burning £50 notes was handed £769,000 in legal aid.

Michael Voudouri cheated taxpayers out of millions of pounds through a VAT scam.

But we can reveal the public picked up the massive legal bill for the criminal, who was jailed for 11 1/2 years.

Labour's legal affairs spokeswoman Elaine Murray said: "It's shocking that a crook who has defrauded the public purse should get hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal aid.

"Ordinary people on low incomes struggle to get legal aid while someone who has stolen millions in VAT fraud gets a six figure sum."

Voudouri, 47, was found guilty in 2012 of laundering £11.5million from a massive VAT fraud.

The wealthy crook, who lived in a £1.5million mansion in Bridge of Allan, Stirlingshire and hired Katie Price and Chris Eubank for personal appearances, is not the first to get legal aid.

We told how Barry Hughes and his wife Jackie jetted off on a £50,000 trip to Dubai weeks after taxpayers covered their £175,000 court battle bills.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board said a "financial eligibility test" was carried out in each case.

SCOTTISH JUSTICE IN THE DOCK : Scotland's lawyers earn more from Legal Aid than whole of Italy, shock report reveals

By Russell Findlay Sunday Mail 30 September 2012

THE European Commission report reveals that Legal Aid in Scotland cost 203million euros (£161million) in 2010 - more than in Italy, which has a population of 61million.

SCOTS lawyers collected more taxpayers’ cash for Legal Aid than their counterparts in Italy – a country 12 times the size.

A European Commission report reveals that Legal Aid in Scotland cost 203million euros (£161million) in 2010 – around 39 euros, or £31, for every one of our 5.2million people.

Lawyers in Italy, which has a population of 61million, got just £100million of public cash – £1.50 per person.

The 450-page Brussels report also found that Denmark, with 5.6million people, paid its lawyers only 88million euros (£70million).

And in Belgium – population 10.9million – legal aid cost 75million euros (£59million).

The revelations, in a 450-page report by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice – came as the Scottish Legal Aid Board banned three lawyers from claiming cash for criminal cases.

We can reveal that Gerard Tierney, Massimo D’Alvito and Andrew Brophy, of Blantyre, Lanarkshire, breached the board’s code of practice. Tierney and D’Alvito have been reported to the Crown Office, who will decide whether to prosecute.

The ban also extends to Tierney’s firm G Tierney & Co, of Auchinleck, Ayrshire, who have raked in £610,500 in Legal Aid over three years, and Edinburgh firm Massimo D’Alvito Defence Lawyers.

The European report looked at 47 criminal justice systems across the continent.

It found the cost per person of Legal Aid in Scotland was third-highest – behind only Northern Ireland and England and Wales. The cost per person was 53.5 euros in Northern Ireland and 45.7 euros in England and Wales.

The findings led to calls for a radical overhaul of Legal Aid.

Central Ayrshire Labour MP Brian Donohoe said: “It seems major organised criminals and terror suspects qualify for unlimited Legal Aid, yet I have constituents who don’t get a penny simply because they have a few thousand pounds of savings.

“The system in Scotland and the rest of the UK is out of control.”

Legal blogger Peter Cherbi added: “Legal Aid is no longer about access to justice for the poor, but a state subsidy for the legal profession – and one they don’t seem keen on talking about.”

The Sunday Mail has exposed a series of rogue lawyers banned from claiming Legal Aid. But none of the 14 reported to prosecutors was put in the dock, prompting claims that Scotland’s legal self-regulation system protects lawyers.

Kilmarnock solicitor Niels Lockhart, who took £600,000 in Legal Aid in just two years, was found to have made “unnecessary and excessive” claims. The Legal Aid board withdrew their complaint to the Law Society after he agreed to stop claiming.

Reacting to the Brussels report, the Scottish Legal Aid Board said: “Across Europe, there are substantial differences between judicial systems and very different approaches to the provision of legal aid and its cost.

“The Scottish system is highly regarded internationally for the efforts made to ensure access to justice.

“The Scottish Government’s budget allocation for the Legal Aid Fund has reduced significantly in 2011-12 and is planned to reduce further in future years.”

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill hopes to cut the Legal Aid bill by making criminals pay some of their costs. The planned move, outlined in a Holyrood Bill, could save taxpayers around £3.9million.

• The Euro study showed that Scotland disciplined a tiny number of lawyers compared to countries of similar size.

Just three were struck off and 13 reprimanded in Scotland in 2010.

Denmark, with a similar population, took action against 309 lawyers, with six struck off and 145 fined. And in Finland, also close in size, 99 rogue solicitors were sanctioned.

Critics blame the Law Society of Scotland’s dual role of representing lawyers while also acting as regulator.

• A large proportion of alleged criminals reported to prosecutors in Scotland are not being put in the dock.

Of 265,830 cases sent to the Crown Office, only 41.7 per cent were brought to court. In England and Wales, 90.6 per cent of all cases resulted in court action.

The difference is thought to be partly due to Scotland’s recent introduction of spot fines and fiscal fines for what the authorities insist are more minor offences.

Critics claim such fines lead to a secret justice system.

• The report reveals that Scotland’s sheriffs top the European pay league.

Researchers compared the wages of lower court judges across Europe.

Our sheriffs, with an average salary of 150,106 euros (£120,000), were number one, ahead of the Irish and Swiss.

Next were sheriffs’ counterparts in England and Wales, who were paid 120,998 euros (£95,000).

Not only were sheriffs the highest-paid, they also topped the table comparing their earnings to the national average. They earned 5.2 times the average Scot’s wage.

EU Investigation on Legal Aid in Scotland: SCOTTISH JUSTICE IN THE DOCK : Scotland's lawyers earn more from Legal Aid than whole of Italy, shock report reveals

The Euro study showed that Scotland disciplined a tiny number of lawyers compared to countries of similar size. Just three were struck off and 13 reprimanded in Scotland in 2010. Denmark, with a similar population, took action against 309 lawyers, with six struck off and 145 fined. And in Finland, also close in size, 99 rogue solicitors were sanctioned. Critics blame the Law Society of Scotland’s dual role of representing lawyers while also acting as regulator.

A large proportion of alleged criminals reported to prosecutors in Scotland are not being put in the dock. Of 265,830 cases sent to the Crown Office, only 41.7 per cent were brought to court. In England and Wales, 90.6 per cent of all cases resulted in court action.

The difference is thought to be partly due to Scotland’s recent introduction of spot fines and fiscal fines for what the authorities insist are more minor offences. Critics claim such fines lead to a secret justice system.

The report reveals that Scotland’s sheriffs top the European pay league.

Our sheriffs, with an average salary of 150,106 euros (£120,000), were number one, ahead of the Irish and Swiss. Next were sheriffs’ counterparts in England and Wales, who were paid 120,998 euros (£95,000). Not only were sheriffs the highest-paid, they also topped the table comparing their earnings to the national average. They earned 5.2 times the average Scot’s wage.

A £2.2 billion rip-off for YOU while Law Society Chiefs follow Salmond in ‘grubby’ Dubai tour promoting Scots legal market for vested interests

Seeking business for bent lawyers : Law Society of Scotland in Dubai to promote Scots Law as a safe haven for crooked vested interests. AS SCOTTISH CONSUMERS begin to wise up to the rife corruption in Scotland’s legal profession, where dealing with a lawyer on virtually ANY legal matter means a client is going to be ripped off one way or another, with no hope of recompense or resolution to a complaint, the Law Society of Scotland’s Chief Executive Lorna Jack & current President Cameron Ritchie tagged along on the coat tails of the First Minister’s recent trip to the Gulf States promoting Scots law firms with their own lobbying trip to DUBAI, one of those places in the world where even its own Police Chief reckons state firms are rotten to the core and one would surely expect to find an organisation as dirty & corrupt as the Law Society of Scotland.

Alas, with the Law Society’s core Scots membership beginning to run out of clients back home in Scotland to fleece & ruin, due in part to the recession and in part because consumers are finally waking up to the perils of even walking past a lawyer’s office, a Press Release was issued by the Law Society of Scotland covering Mr Ritchie & Ms Jack’s trip to Dubai to promote the Scottish legal profession and its ranks of paid up & not necessarily honest ‘expert witnesses’ who will sell or twist their testimony to the highest bidder at the top of the vested interest feeding chain.

Law Society of Scotland promote Scots legal system for vested interests : An event held for over 100 delegates in Dubai last night, Thursday 3 November, marked the end of a successful week for the Law Society of Scotland at the IBA annual conference.

Banging the drum for lawyer lobbying in Dubai : Cameron Ritchie, current Law Society President & ex Crown Office Procurator Fiscal. The Law Society's president, Cameron Ritchie, and chief executive, Lorna Jack, have spent time promoting Scotland as a hub for expert legal services at the week-long international conference. Mr Ritchie said: "This has been an excellent opportunity for us to promote the Scottish solicitor profession and emphasise that our legal system sits within an excellent business environment, with over 1,500 overseas companies investing and operating in Scotland. More than 100 guests attended our event, including a number of our members who are working in the Middle East and IBA conference delegates from several overseas law societies and bar associations.”

Mr Ritchie continued : "Scotland has a modern, progressive legal system with a reputation for honesty, integrity and fairness. We provide a flexible and cost effective location for international legal services and, with the passing of the Arbitration Act and establishment of the Scottish Arbitration Centre, can offer a globally competitive place for dispute resolution.We have met a great number of delegates from jurisdictions around the globe this week and been able emphasise the breadth and depth of experience across our legal firms who also provide value for money, have multi disciplinary capability, access to global networks and particular expertise in financial services, oil and gas, renewable energy and life sciences."

A modern, progressive legal system, as in one easily twisted to the requirements of vested interests, and as far as having any reputation for honesty, integrity or fairness goes, well, the years long battle over asbestos compensation payouts for pleural plaques along the multitude of lawyers trying to justify the use of tainted blood products and the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill’s own takedown of justice in the Civil Courts Review seems to sum up the civil justice system quite well, while the Lockerbie Trial and all its attendant fit ups with bribed witnesses & tampered evidence will do for the Scottish criminal justice system, matters which Mr Ritchie will know very well as he is a former employee of the Crown Office, that institutionally closed-ranks organisation which protects its own from prosecutions, even when deaths are involved.

Lorna Jack, Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, replaced the ‘more fun’ Douglas Mill who resigned after staff interfered in court cases & claims against crooked lawyers. Chief executive Lorna Jack said: "We have had a great reception at the conference this year and it was especially pleasing to be able to attend the opening of one of our most successful firms, McGrigors, new office in Qatar. We shouldn't underestimate the contribution of Scottish solicitors' profession either at home, where it is estimated to bring £2.2 billion to our economy and employ approximately 18,000 people, or the role it can play on an international stage. Despite the current and ongoing financial difficulties, there are opportunities for our members which we want to encourage and support."

Needless to say, while the £2.2 billion estimate may be a little more than reality, a great deal of client’s money well over a billion pounds flowing into the coffers of the Scottish legal profession is one of the main reasons there is no regulation of lawyers who are free to rip anyone off, and by the dozen. It was exactly the same with the bankers, who bought politicians, and bought the regulators. As we saw earlier in the year, even the lawyers who commit legal aid fraud, running into millions are not prosecuted for stealing from the public, such is the influence and lobbying power of the Law Society of Scotland over all in authority.

However, at least with the Law Society promoting Scottish Arbitration (recently exposed as little more than a platform for vested interests, corrupt insurers & disgraced judges who fell from grace in scandals) and ‘so-called’ expert witnesses who will alter their testimony to suit vested interests for a price, clients & consumers in Scotland and abroad are well warned to avoid litigating in the Scottish justice system, where injustice is a business and corruption, from the judiciary down to the High Street lawyer is an unregulated money making enterprise of criminal proportions.

Remember where we all live, in a country where expert witnesses and even doctors from the legal profession will argue that “asbestos is good for you” and be happy to say it in front of our own elected politicians in the Scottish Parliament because they know their profession carries too much influence and power for all our own good.

When the legal profession gets to such a stage as the Scottish legal profession have now become, common sense should tell you to save some money and walk out of your lawyer’s office along with all your papers, wills and titles. You, the consumers & clients across Scotland really are better off looking after your own.

HOSPITALITY WINS : Law firms who won £20 Million legal contract wined, dined & lobbied Scottish Government’s Legal Directorate for three years

Scottish Government was wined, dined & lobbied by law firms, lawyer regulators, lawyer lobby groups & universities. A HOST OF LAW FIRMS who secretly wined, dined & in some cases lobbied the Scottish Government over the past three years on areas of law & justice where in some cases, the legal profession’s interests are known to conflict with those of consumers, won valuable contracts in the latest recession busting taxpayer funded TWENTY MILLION POUND legal project by the current Scottish Government to rapidly enlarge its already burgeoning 225 plus lawyer strong legal department to include even more Scottish law firms who are to provide legal services outsourced by the Scottish Government's Legal Directorate (SLGD).

The as yet unpublished details now been revealed in a Freedom of Information response by the Scottish Government showing a host of law firms, regulators, lawyer lobby groups & even universities have offered so many dinners to officials from the Justice Directorate, one Government insider jokingly said it should be named the Justice Dining Directorate.

Hospitality’s in for the Scottish Government’s Legal Directorate, as law firms who wine & dine officials win stake in 4 year £20 Million contract for outsourced legal advice. Some of the declarations of ‘hospitality’ include : 07/04/2008 Lunch Pinsent Masons, 18/04/2008 Lunch Dundas & Wilson, 26/06/2008 Meal Scottish Public Law Group, 29/05/2008 Lunch Dundas & Wilson, 20/08/2008 Meal and Edinburgh Festival Show Shepherd & Wedderburn, (No record held of date) Symposium and Dinner of the  In House-Lawyers Group of the  Law Society of Scotland Dundas & Wilson, 10/11/2008 invitation to In House Lawyers Dinner Burness (did not win a contract), Meal Glasgow University, 08/10/2009 Meal after Scottish Public Law Group Event, 13/11/2009 Invitation to WS Dinner LBC Wise Counsel, 3/11/2009 WS Society Dinner (invited as guest of Morton Fraser, Solicitors), 20/11/2009 Law Society of Scotland In House Lawyers Pinsent Masons, 20/11/2009 Dinner at In House Lawyers Group of Law Society of Scotland McGrigors, 15/01/2010 Meal provided by Glasgow University Law School Advisory Panel, 22/01/2010 Lunch Edinburgh University Law School, 25/02/2010 Meal after Scottish Public Law Group event Faculty of Advocates, 26/03/2010 15 lunch provided by Glasgow University Graduate Law School, 26/03/2010 Meal provided by Glasgow University Law School in connection with GLSS teaching to GU Diploma in Legal Practice students, 21/04/2010 Invitation Scotland PLC Dinner - Glasgow Hilton Hotel Law Society of Scotland, 17/08/2010 Attendance at Fringe show plus meal Shepherd & Wedderburn Solicitors, 27/10/2010 Dundas & Wilson Invitation to Chairman's Dinner, 11/03/2011 The Law Society of Scotland Dinner, 16/11/2010 Meal at Edinburgh University after Edinburgh Law School event "Scotland & Independence" 15/03/2011 Dundas & Wilson Invitation -Leadership Lunch.

Scrutiny of the above information released today reveal several law firms who wined & dined the Scottish Government over the course of the last three years, also managed to win tenders to provide the Scottish Government with additional legal services via the new framework agreement across five legal subject areas, complementing the work of the Scottish Government Legal Directorate (SGLD), which also manages the outsourcing of legal work. There is of course, absolutely no suggestion whatsoever the wining, dining or even any lobbying, helped win the law firms any contracts from the latest multi million pound subsidy offered by the Scottish Government to Scotland’s legal profession. It is merely, coincidence !

The full list of those law firms who won the tenders to provide extra legal advice to the Scottish Government are :

Contract, commercial and corporate – Dundas & Wilson CS; DLA Piper Scotland; Morton Fraser; MacRoberts; Pinsent Masons

Debt recovery: Harper Macleod; Maclay Murray & Spens; McGrigors; MacRoberts; Morton Fraser

Litigation, inquiries and employment: Anderson Strathern; Brodies; DLA Piper Scotland; Ledingham Chalmers; Morton Fraser

Major projects: Biggart Baillie; Dundas & Wilson CS; DLA Piper Scotland; MacRoberts; Pinsent Masons Property: Harper Macleod; DLA Piper Scotland; Ledingham Chalmers; McGrigors; Morton Fraser

The budget for this latest legal venture by the SNP Scottish Government to expand the numbers of lawyers working for the Scottish Government comes in at a whopping cost of an additional TWENTY MILLION POUNDS to taxpayers, bringing in a convenient taxpayer funded subsidy to some of Scotland’s hard pressed for profits law firms in the current recession.

The Scottish Government’s tender for the latest intake of law firms at vast taxpayer’s expense can be viewed online here :  CONTRACT AWARD NOTICE £20 Million for a panel of law firms for four years although many of the web links contained within the tender which link back to the Scottish Government's website go to non-existent pages.

Diary of Injustice revealed in an earlier article Scottish Government spending £8.1 million on 225 lawyers salaries as more Scots miss out on legal representation, access to justice although it now appears two hundred & twenty five lawyers are not enough of a legal army to cover legal advice to Ministers, the Scottish Parliament and other departments including well known over budget quangos.

The new, if costly agreement will also be used through the Office of the Solicitor to the Advocate General, to source advice on Scots law for UK Government departments, agencies and NDPBs.

Bodies within the Scottish Administration which obtain legal advice from Scottish Government Legal Directorate include : Accountant in bankruptcy, HM inspectorate of Education, General Register Office for Scotland, Historic Scotland, National Archives of Scotland, Registers of Scotland, The Rent Officer, Scottish Prison Service, Scottish Public Pensions Agency, Social Work Inspection Agency, Student Awards Agency for Scotland, Transport Scotland.

The Scottish Government added in their FOI response they did not keep a hospitality register for the Government Legal Services For Scotland (GLSS), possibly because there is so much hospitality & work going on between the GLSS, law firms & the Law Society of Scotland, it would be an embarrassment to publish it.

THOSE WERE THE DAYS : In 2009, FOI revealed the Scottish Government had ONLY 225 lawyers :

FOI reveals MacAskill likes lawyers so much, he's employed over two hundred of them at our expense. Today it can be revealed the Scottish Government are spending a whopping £8.1 million pounds of public money on salaries alone of some 225 lawyers. The Scottish Government's FOI stated that : "The Scottish Government has 3 main offices which provide legal services to the Scottish Ministers and agencies for which they have responsibility: the Scottish Government Legal Directorate, the Office of Scottish Parliamentary Counsel and the Legal Secretariat to the Lord Advocate. These offices together employ 139 lawyers (as at 1 April 2009). The total annual salary for these lawyers (including national insurance contributions and superannuation) in financial year 2008-2009 was £8,146,000. In addition, a further 86 lawyers are seconded to other government offices and inquiries as part of the Government Legal Service for Scotland. Those lawyers’ salary costs are met by the host office or inquiry."

It is worth noting, nearly every day of every week of every month of every year, someone in Scotland writes to whoever happens to be the First Minister or Justice Secretary, seeking help on a usually complicated, irresolvable issue concerning Scotland’s justice system or legal profession.

As those who write these letters asking, pleading, even begging for help over long term legal difficulties will have realised as time goes on, no matter which political party occupies St Andrews House, the answers to such requests are always the same cold shoulder full of excuses offered by the massed ranks of civil servants who run the Scottish Government.

Clearly however, when it comes to lobbying, gaining favour, gaining changes to legislation which may affect business, or even wining Government contracts, the edge is gained by offering a few free lunches, rather than just a kind word or a letter. As the saying goes, you can get further with a kind word and a free lunch, than you can with a kind word …

Law Complaints Chief secretly lobbied, met Information Commissioner Dunion over FOI investigation into Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine secretly lobbied FOI Commissioner’s office to produce favourable investigation results. DOCUMENTS REVEALING A SECRET WORLD of public bodies directly lobbying the Freedom of Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion and his staff to produce favourable outcomes against FOI requests from the media, amid expectations of transparency & public accountability through the use of FOI legislation, have exposed attempts by Jane Irvine, the Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to pressure the Information Commissioner’s office over the results of several critical investigations carried out into FOI appeals against the SLCC’s refusal to disclose information on its now highly questionable role of investigating complaints against Scotland’s legal profession.

Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion’s office was pressured by SLCC. The controversial cases being investigated by the Information Commissioner which provoked such a storm at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s headquarters at the Stamp Office, Edinburgh, eventually leading to demands of direct meetings between the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine & FOI Chief Kevin Dunion, related to heavily censored Board meetings minutes of the SLCC during 2008, when the law complaints quango was publicly funded to the tune of a whopping £2 million while its Board Members claimed a staggering £130,000 in expenses from the public purse, and also included issues surrounding the SLCC’s Master Policy research, carried out in mid-2009 which linked client suicides to claims against the Law Society’s infamous Master Policy insurance scheme, which is supposed, but fails to compensate victims of ‘crooked lawyers’.

Emails from SLCC Chair Jane Irvine reveals FOI staff were badgered by the law complaints chief to produce favourable outcomes so the SLCC could prevent appeals against non-disclosure. Details contained in a slew of emails between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & the FOI Commissioner’s staff show Jane Irvine, the SLCC’s Chair was desperate to ensure Mr Dunion’s staff produced favourable outcomes to enable the law complaints quango to prevent the media appealing to the FOI Commissioner’s office each time the SLCC refused to disclose information being requested. Jane Irvine said in her email : “We have asked you about this case. I will however have to keep raising it with anyone dealing with our appeals. We are keen that the Commissioner appreciates the link between the cases. In short terms, your Decision on this first appeal is vital in either setting fundamental precedents for us, pointing to a need to appeal or affecting the way we operate and so pushing up our budget costs which we need to be setting now.”

Ms Irvine’s email concluded, leaving little doubt she wanted Mr Dunion’s staff to produce a favourable investigation result, darkly suggesting to Mr Dunion’s staff if the investigation fell in favour of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, all further freedom of information appeals to the SLCC by the media or members of the public could be dealt with or thrown out by the SLCC itself instead of being investigated by the Information Commissioner’s office. Jane Irvine stated : “Put very simply if we had the answer on your case we might be able to halt the flow of appeals to you !”

The FOI Commissioner’s staff reminded the SLCC Chair in their reply each appeal to Mr Dunion is considered on a case by case basis. Responses from Mr Dunion’s staff to Jane Irvine’s desperate bid to interfere in their investigation appear to show Ms Irvine being reminded on how cases are investigated. The reply from Mr Dunion’s office states : “I am required to consider each redaction in turn and consider each exemption applied to this information. this has been a time consuming process … However, I must also advise you, noting your comments regarding the importance of this case, that each application considered by the Commissioner is treated on a case-by-case basis and therefore the conclusions reached in this case may not be the same for similar information in a different set of circumstances.”

Further emails reveal the SLCC Chair put extra pressure on investigating FOI staff to produce favourable outcomes, citing high costs to the SLCC of dealing with information requests. In a blistering response to the email from the Information Commissioner’s staff, Jane Irvine, the SLCC Chair rebuked Mr Dunion’s staff for failing to produce a desired outcome for the SLCC, as information requests had allegedly incurred considerable costs to the law complaints quango. Ms Irvine stated in her email : “I’m very aware of the necessity to look at each redaction individually & of the time it takes! I’m also aware that each case and issue is to be considered individually. Equally I am very that we Know what tramlines we’re working within. ****** has caused us to incur considerable costs as have his colleagues this year and our overall FOI case load shows no signs of reducing. Under current law we simply have no option other than to bear the very high costs.”

A further email from Jane Irvine to the Information Commissioner’s staff also alleged the SLCC had “involved legal advisors” in compiling FOI disclosures & responses to the Information Commissioner’s office.

However things were to take a more direct turn as papers now reveal Jane Irvine insisted on a meeting with the Information Commissioner over his office’s investigations of the SLCC’s FOI disclosures.

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine, not content with badgering the Information Commissioner’s staff, lobbied the FOI Commissioner himself in a meeting ‘to discuss’ his office’s investigations of the SLCC. A letter only now released from Mr Dunion’s office portrays a desperate situation at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in March 2010, provoking the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine, accompanied by the SLCC’s Acting Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew to meet the Information Commissioner Mr Dunion to lobby for the SLCC’s position with regard to the investigations being carried out by Mr Dunion’s staff. The letter read : “You may recall when we met on 19 March 2010; we discussed the three appeals currently with your office. I think I emphasised that the SLCC was keen to learn of your conclusions. We have chassed since and were last told they would be with us this week. I am disappointed they have not arrived and this is because as we explained to you when we met, the outcome of the appeals could significantly affect how we deal with future FOI requests and might also have a knock-on effect to our business. I should be grateful if you could let me know when I can expect to receive your decisions.”

A legal insider studying the papers released from the Information Commissioner’s office was of the opinion the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had attempted to pressure the Information Commissioner and his staff for outcomes of their investigations which would be favourable to the SLCC.

He said : “The wording of the letters from Jane Irvine to the Information Commissioner and his staff should leave no one in any doubt the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are determined to put a stop to Freedom of Information requests which appear to have revealed significant shortcomings at the SLCC.”

He continued : “Anyone reading the letters from Ms Irvine to the Information Commissioner and his staff could easily conclude there was an atmosphere of undue pressure put on Mr Dunion and his team by Ms Irvine, to come to conclusions which favour the SLCC while disadvantaging those making Freedom of Information requests or appeals to the SLCC.”

SLCC now want to handle investigations into FOI appeals against themselves ? A law reform campaigner who has made Freedom of Information requests to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission said the letters between Jane Irvine & Mr Dunion’s staff amounted to a clear attempt to ensure the investigation of the appeal went the SLCC’s way. He said : “From the sounds of Jane Irvine’s emails & letters it looks like she wants to do the investigating of the FOI appeal and reach the conclusion herself instead of letting Mr Dunion and his staff do their job. This is not how Freedom of Information is supposed to work, is it ?”

A Scottish Government insider commented on the situation, saying : “We all know the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have been caught out several times with information obtained under FOI legislation. However, if this contact with the Information Commissioner’s office is the SLCC’s attempt to cover up their own failures which have come to light through the use of FOI, it is an entirely inappropriate way to go about it.”

He continued : “If the SLCC want to avoid an unduly high workload on FOI requests & appeals, I would suggest they become more open and publish more of what they do rather than attempting to blame Freedom of Information for their own failures and poor reputation.”

Blacked out FOIs are preferred by the SLCC. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have been ‘caught out’ several times with information obtained under Freedom of Information legislation, among those instances, several of which I have reported earlier, such as : MacAskill’s SLCC lied over secret meetings with Law Society & Marsh as quango announces £15k 'study' into master policy & guarantee fund, also here : Officials pull FOI disclosures as Guarantee Fund "chancer" emails show Law Society anti-client bias has migrated to Legal Complaints Commission, here : Fresh appointments sleaze at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as FOIs reveal protests against independent oversight of board member recruitment & here : Censorship & ‘frequent flyers’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal attempt to write off consumers evidence in Master Policy report. More can be found HERE

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its Chair, Jane Irvine, refused to give any comment or explanation for their attempt to lobby the Information Commissioner on the investigations involving the SLCC. However, a legal insider close to the law complaints quango claimed late last night the SLCC had now embarked on “a policy to delay, prevaricate and refuse further Freedom of Information requests it considered may be damaging to its operations”.

This latest claim seems to support a recent slew of decisions by the SLCC to intimidate journalists making requests for information as to whether they are requesting it on their own behalf or for someone else.

Curiously, the SLCC is also now operating a policy of terming many FOI requests as “vexatious” even if the subject matter requested has only come to light through the Information Commissioner’s own investigations. However, this latest attempt by the SLCC to stall the flow of information into the public arena will doubtless only result in more appeals to the Information Commissioner’s office, something the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine, was keen to prevent as she expressed in her emails to Mr Dunion’s office.

Given we are now at the stage where the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission feels it must manipulate Freedom of Information legislation to protect its secrets, it must now lose any lingering trust of consumers forced to approach it over complaints against the legal profession.

It is now time to call time on the grave mistake the SLCC has turned out to be, and give Scots consumers the level of protection which only a fully independent regulator of legal services can provide.

‘Ministerial Interference’ as Fergus Ewing demands SLCC’s £1.5m reserves be handed to lawyers after Law Society lobbied Scottish Government

Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing tells SLCC : Give lawyers a £1.5m refund or else we take away your independence. FERGUS EWING the Scottish Government's Minister for Community Safety has demanded the independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission use its massive £1.5m surplus to lower the annual complaints levy which solicitors have to pay each year to cover the Commission’s costs of investigating complaints made by clients against their lawyers. The move has surprised many, as under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLCC is independent of Government and the legal profession.

Law Society of Scotland lobbied Scottish Government to reduce complaint levy which funds investigations against ‘crooked lawyers’. The unprecedented move by Mr Ewing, comes after the Scottish Government was lobbied directly by the Law Society of Scotland to intervene in the budget levy dispute with the SLCC, forcing a quick, quiet reduction of the complaints levy, after law campaigners and MSPs began to question why the Scottish Government had not asked the SLCC to repay its massive £2m formation costs to the public purse.

Mr Ewing’s direct intervention on behalf of the legal profession, coming just a few weeks after I reported Mr Ewing had announced plans for Ministerial appointments to the Law Society of Scotland’s Council had been withdrawn after some more lobbying from the Law Society, is being widely seen as nothing short of Ministerial interference in an ‘independent’ body, particularly after Mr Ewing apparently issued a threat to review Ministerial powers over the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission if it does not comply with the Law Society of Scotland’s desire to see the complaints levy reduced.

Community Safety Fergus Ewing writes to Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, demands reduction of complaints levy for lawyers. The letter from Mr Ewing to the SLCC, recently released, states : “I note that you have used some of your reserves to offset any increase in the general levy and that is commendable, but I am strongly of the view that this does not go far enough. I understand that this financial year you have generated income of around £2.3m and that your predicted costs of £2.9m are now forecast to be £2.6m. The shortfall between income and expenditure will be met by your contingency fund should that remain untouched and in effect your budget will balance this year. However the surplus finds generated during your first 9 months of operation recorded as £1.5m are likely to remain untouched.”

Mr Ewing continued : “Whilst I recognise that during your initial year of operation the workload and consequently expenditure was difficult to predict, having built up an significant reserve fund in this financial year, it is essential that the Commission takes full account of this reserve in determining the amount of annual general levy and the complaints levy that is reasonably sufficient to meet its expenditure for the next financial year. When the Commission has existing reserves, it must ensure that, taking one financial year with another, the amount of the proposed general levy and complaints levy is reasonably sufficient to meet its expenditure, in particular, any estimated shortfall including for contingencies.”

Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing threatens a review of Ministerial powers over the SLCC if it refuses to lower the complaints levy. Fergus Ewing continued in his letter to the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine : “I do not think it is sufficient to use these reserves to merely off-set an assumed increase in the proposed amount of the annual general levy for next year. I therefore invite the Commission to give early and serious consideration to reducing the proposed amount of the annual general levy and the complaints levy to ensure that these do not, taking one financial year with another, exceed what is reasonably sufficient to meet its expenditure.“I appreciate that this is important for the SLCC to manage their financial risks and hold some contingency funding and I know that officials here would be happy to discuss how this could be achieved in ways which do no to rely on large reserves. I appreciate also that, as the legislation stands, the levy is a matter for the SLCC to determine, and that Ministers have no powers to order the SLCC to take any particular action in respect of the levy. It is for the SLCC itself to ensure that the level of charge is justifiable, in the light of the demands on it. I trust that you will exercise that discretion appropriately, having regard to the views expressed by consultees.”

Fergus Ewing ended his letter with an apparent threat : “I would wish to give fair notice that Ministers will review the situation following the setting of this year’s levies to see whether any change in the respective powers of Ministers and the Commission is desirable.”

A legal insider indicated the Law Society had decided to push the matter after they had become concerned calls for the SLCC to repay its millions to taxpayers might gain ground, and scupper the chance of solicitors getting a refund on the complaints levy.

He said : "Officials at the Law Society were furious some were suggesting the SLCC repay their £1.8 million start up costs met by the taxpayer and saw a real possibility this idea may gain ground particularly since the Commission is sitting on a £1.5 million cash reserve in a recession where the daily talk is of more cuts to public services.

It has also emerged there are at least four cases in the Court of Session where the Law Society of Scotland are taking legal action against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission over the Society’s remaining duties to regulate conduct complaints. A legal insider today alleged the Law Society’s lobbying of the Scottish Government under the circumstances of it pursuing the SLCC in the courts “is entirely inappropriate”.

He said : “The Law Society calling in the Scottish Government to intimidate the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission over the complaints levy may well be a tactic connected with the Law Society’s court actions against the Commission, or an intent to disturb the SLCC’s regulatory function investigating complaints against the legal profession, a function which we all are very well aware the Law Society wants back within its grip.”

He continued : “In the light of this incident, there should be a full investigation of Mr Ewing’s conduct and the disproportionate lobbying access the Law Society of Scotland and legal profession appear to have with the Scottish Government. It cannot be that a Minister gets involved to such a degree in what are decisions the law says should be taken independently and without influence from Government”

SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine. Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission gave reaction to Communities Minister Fergus Ewing’s intervention on behalf of the Law Society. Commenting on the SLCC budget consultation responses, Jane Irvine said: “In February, we received responses from the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and comments from the Scottish Government Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing.The Minister’s letter repeated some of the points raised by the Law Society of Scotland with regard to the SLCC reducing its reserves in order to reduce the Solicitors’ Levy. “The SLCC Board has, however, raised concerns at the Minister’s inference to the level of control the Scottish Government may wish to exert over the operation of the SLCC, should our Board decide against reducing the Solicitors’ Levy.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are facing four cases ongoing in the Court of Session where the Law Society refuse to investigate certain conduct issues. Jane Irvine continued: “The SLCC has endeavoured to clarify for the Minister the rationale behind our reserves policy, explaining that reserves are for unforeseen events and reflect what the SLCC Board considers to be the risks facing the Commission. Every new complaints body faces an early tranche of appeals over the first 3-5 years of its operation as powers are tested, and currently we are dealing with four Court of Session appeals, lodged by the Law Society of Scotland, under which the Law Society infers that they do not wish to investigate these particular conduct issues. We must have sufficient reserves to defend legal actions and to be in a position to balance the strength of the legal profession as it raises appeals against the lesser strength of consumers, who will raise fewer appeals. It is simply not feasible for the SLCC to be acting in a defensive manner when making decisions.“

Jane Irvine continued: “We already know the SLCC is facing significant legal costs and, depending on the outcome of these appeals, we may need to change how the SLCC operates. “This could mean a review of our processes and procedures resulting in the need to substantially increase the size of our Gateway Team which is currently served by ten members of staff.“

The media release from the SLCC concluded by stating : “The SLCC Board will meet later this month to discuss the Minister’s comments regarding the independence of the SLCC from the Scottish Government and the legal profession, the level of reserves held, the implications of reducing the solicitors’ levy, our ability to meet the costs of appeals and our ability to fulfil our obligations to consumers should the Court decision result in changes to how we operate.”

You can read the Response from the Law Society of Scotland (PDF 542 KB) and the Response from the Faculty of Advocates (PDF 72.3 KB) to the SLCC’s Budget for 2010-2011 : SLCC Budget levy consultations along with the letter of Ministerial interference from The Scottish Government Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing MSP, (PDF 506KB)

James Kelly MSP, (Labour) Glasgow Rutherglen. James Kelly MSP, a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee queried whether the SLCC could justify its huge £1.5m budget surplus under current financial conditions. He said : "At a time when budgets are under pressure it is correct that questions are being asked as to why the SLCC need to retain a surplus of £1.5m. If the SLCC are unable to justify this surplus then consideration needs to be given to the steps required to bring the monies back within the remit of the general budget."

Asked for reaction on Communities Minister Mr Ewing’s intervention on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland, a Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The Minister is entitled to make his views known to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), and any future changes which might be considered to ensure the SLCC operates efficiently and does not impose unnecessary burdens on the legal profession would ultimately be for Parliament to consider."

An official from a Consumer organisation condemned Mr Ewing’s intrvention on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland while the Scottish Government had refused to help members of the public who had lodged complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’.

She said : “What we now have here is a Scottish Government Minister saying he prefers that lawyers get a multi million pound refund rather than maintain dwindling public services. If Mr Ewing wishes to put lawyers before the Scottish public he should go back to being a lawyer instead of remaining in Government.”

Clearly the conduct of the Communities Minister Mr Ewing amounts to what many will view as Ministerial lobbying on behalf of the legal profession, coupled with a veiled threat of action if the aims of the lobbying (to reduce the complaints levy for solicitors) are not met.

In view of what has taken place, and the information with regard to the court cases involving the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland, which taken together, directly impacts on the ability of the SLCC, an independent regulator which was created by legislation designed to protect consumers from poor legal services, I support calls for a full investigation into the amount of lobbying power & access to politicians the Law Society of Scotland seem to enjoy – lobbying power which is now clearly not in the public interest for the Law Society, or legal profession, to retain …