INSPECT YOUR ROGUE: Check your solicitors’ record in England, but not in Scotland - UK Solicitors Regulation Authority ‘years ahead’ of pro-lawyer Scots legal watchdogs

Check the regulatory history of your lawyer, not for Scotland. FAR REMOVED from the haven of corrupt and dodgy law firms which shape the landscape of Scotland’s greedy, overbearing legal services market, clients of lawyers in England & Wales have the opportunity to check any solicitor’s record – before shelling out tens of thousands of pounds to a hard working lawyer – or a lazy crook.

The Check your solicitor’s record service – operated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) allows anyone to find out if a solicitor or law firm operating in England & Wales has regulatory decisions made against them in relation to complaints of ripping off clients or providing poor legal services to UK consumers.

However, no such service is on offer in Scotland, due to lobbying from the powerful, shady clique of the Law Society of Scotland and other Scots legal vested interests – who are determined to maintain anonymity of corrupt and incompetent legal practitioners north of the border.

And, instead of providing consumers with a verifiable means of checking up on Scottish solicitors and law firms, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) publish only a selection of heavily edited and censored descriptions of cases which pass through the anti-consumer revolving doors of the Law Society-controlled pro-lawyer regulator.

Diary of Injustice recently reported on how the Scottish legal complaints regulator avoids identifying corrupt and dodgy lawyers within determination decisions – which are only published after being approved by members of the Law Society of Scotland : FROM ROGUES TO RICHES: SLCC refuse to identify corrupt solicitors in case findings.

Admittedly, the service on offer from the SRA in England & Wales does have some drawbacks - for example, not all regulatory decisions are published, and there are time limits to their publication scheme.

However, the facility is a huge advantage over what prospective and existing clients of Scottish solicitors face in efforts to find an honest lawyer north of the border – which some have likened to entering into a game of Russian Roulette with a six barrelled shotgun.

Recent regulation decisions made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in relation to law firms and solicitors operating in England and Wales can be found here Recent Decisions - Solicitors Regulation Authority

A helpful guide on how to use the SRA’s solicitor regulation search service lists the following tips:

You can use our solicitor record check search function to have a look at regulatory decisions that we have made against regulated individuals and firms.

You can search decisions by the name of the solicitor, firm, or other regulated individual, SRA ID number (also known as their roll number) date the decision was made, or type of decision.

You can also view a list of recently-published decisions.

To search for decisions about an individual or firm, enter their name and/or ID number in the search fields. To narrow your search, choose an outcome type and/or specify a date range.

To see all closures (also known as "interventions") during May 2009, for example, leave name and ID fields blank, choose outcome type "closure" and specify the date range 1 May 2009 to 30 May 2009.

Only the most recent published decision against any firm will be displayed. To view a list of all published decisions against an individual made within the past three years (decisions are removed after three years), you will have to go into the record.

To check whether a law firm is regulated by us, use our Law firm search. To check whether an individual is regulated by us, use the Law Society's Find a solicitor search.

We aim to ensure decisions we publish are accurate and up to date. However, this website does not offer a complete picture of an individual's or firm's regulatory record. For example, it is possible that, since publication, a firm has ceased to practice or a solicitor is no longer on the roll of solicitors. Most published decisions are removed from our website three years from the date they were published.

We have published a large number of Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) findings, dating from early 2005 to 1 July 2011.

We do not publish findings made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; these are published by the Tribunal itself.

Please note that the Tribunal publishes findings resulting in a strike off, indefinite suspension or revocation of authorisation of a firm indefinitely. Decisions to suspend for a fixed period remain on its website for the duration of the suspension or three years (whichever is the greater). All other decisions remain on its website for three years. If you are unable to find a decision on the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal website please contact Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority began publishing some decisions in January 2008 – the same year the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was created by the Scottish Government.

In comparison, since the SLCC came into being in 2008, the Scots legal services regulator has not identified one solicitor in any complaint investigated by the Law Society controlled quango – leading to a significant imbalance in the rights of Scots consumers to find out just how crooked their lawyer really is.

And, more often than not, the same Scottish law firms and same solicitors are subject of similar complaints in relation to professional misconduct, negligence, dishonesty, unashamed theft of client funds and some of the worst excesses which in any other arena would rate as criminal behaviour.

Yet, no one in Scotland is able to find out the regulatory history of their solicitor. No one. Unless by chance, clients who find themselves in the position of having to make a complaint against their solicitor decide to publicise their case and name the lawyers concerned.

A recent media investigation into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission recently revealed most of the SLCC’s key staff and investigators are in-fact families, friends & business associates of solicitors, reported here: 'Independent' Scots legal watchdog consists of solicitors’ husbands, wives, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, & employers.

Previous media investigations, reports and coverage of issues relating to the SLCC can be found here: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - A history of pro-lawyer regulation.

Scottish Ministers 'will fight' disclosure of secret legal advice ordering Law Society immunity from Freedom of Information laws

Secret legal advice ordered Scottish Ministers to keep Law Society exempt from Freedom of Information. BLACKED OUT DOCUMENTS containing secret legal advice issued by taxpayer funded Scottish Government lawyers show that Scottish Ministers WERE ORDERED by the legal profession to allow the Law Society of Scotland to keep its much coveted yet little-talked-about exemption from Freedom of Information legislation. The censored advice, issued by lawyers working for the Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive, who are themselves, fully paid up members of the Law Society of Scotland has led to a policy by the present Scottish Government since it was elected in May 2007 to mislead members of the public, consumer groups, law reformers and FOI campaigners on the question of making Scotland’s legal profession accountable under Freedom of Information legislation.

Scottish FOI Commissioner Kevin Dunion. The so-far secret documents relating to the Scottish Government’s attempts to keep quiet about their involvement with the Law Society/FOI issue, have only now been grudgingly released by the Scottish Government in an attempt to persuade Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion from ordering the full disclosure of the legal advice, which has led to a policy of misleading the public for several years on the question of making the regulator of Scotland’s legal profession comply with Freedom of Information laws.

Secret papers disclosed during FOI investigation show Scottish Government ‘is afraid’ of Law Society of Scotland’s legal challenge against Freedom of Information compliance.

The move to keep the Law Society of Scotland free from scrutiny under Freedom of Information legislation will avoid any possibility that clients, the media and the general public could use FOI laws to find out key details of regulatory procedures at the Law Society itself, which are famed for allowing crooked lawyers to continue working no matter what they do to clients, discover actual records of complaints histories of Scottish solicitors, the criminal records of solicitors and staff working in the legal services sector, and also allow clients access to their own personal files held by solicitors, which are often ‘held to ransom’ by solicitors demanding payment before being handed over, in a vastly edited format.

While Scots are forced into the dark chasm of FOI exempt dealings with the Law Society of Scotland, the Law Society of England & Wales while also not FOI compliant, have an open policy of replying to Freedom of Information requests from the public, as I reported earlier, here : Criminal records of lawyers : Scots public kept in dark over convictions while England & Wales get ‘right to know’

Emails between Civil Servants show Scottish Government fear Law Society action against Freedom of Information Scrutiny. A legal insider said last night : "I understand the Law Society warned the current SNP Scottish Executive and the previous administration that it would legally challenge any attempt by Scottish Ministers using Section 5 of the FOI(S) Act to bring them into compliance. The documents now released seem to confirm this.”. He went on : "The civil servants talking about how the Law Society would challenge against any such move, using 'legal privilege' and 'client confidentiality' is very much spot on in terms of what tactics the Law Society would use to prevent itself being made compliant with FOI legislation although I also understand from colleagues that an option of Judicial Review would have been used by the Law Society, should the then Scottish Executive or present Scottish 'Government' have proceeded to bring the Law Society within the scope of FOI."

One Scottish Government civil servant wrote in an email between legal departments : “I am aware that the LSS (Law Society of Scotland) is not subject to the FoI Act and I suppose that any attempt to bring them into line with the spirit of FoI would be resisted on the grounds of legal privilege/client confidentiality.”.

However letters sent out on the authorisation of the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill to FOI campaigners claimed “No decision have yet been taken as a result of [a consultation on Freedom of Information in Scotland'] and Ministers are currently considering the requirement for any action on the issues considered, including coverage of the [FOI] Act” clearly portraying a deliberate policy by the Scottish Government to mislead the public with regard to FOI issues & the legal profession in Scotland.

Scottish Ministers will fight to prevent public knowing why lawyers are exempt from FOI legislation. While the legal advice apparently ordering Scottish Ministers to allow the Law Society of Scotland to keep its exemption from FOI legislation was made during the previous administration, the current SNP controlled Scottish Government have now forcibly warned Scotland's FOI Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, that they will fight to keep the public from knowing that Ministers have in effect been bullied by the Law Society of Scotland into keeping the Scots legal profession free of public scrutiny which would come with FOI compliance.

Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates remain secret, unaccountable to FOI scrutiny. The Law Society of Scotland is one of two key regulators charged with overseeing Scotland's legal profession, the other being the Faculty of Advocates who also enjoy complete immunity from Freedom of Information legislation, making the two regulators of Scotland's legal profession a dangerous unaccountable duo of self regulators who are subject to no oversight other than a passing glance from the beleaguered, scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who have spent the last year rubber stamping investigations into crooked lawyers carried out by the Law Society & the Faculty.

SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine supports making the Law Society compliant with FOI legislation. Ironically, while the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates are both exempt from Freedom of Information, and have threatened the Government to ensure their exemptions remain, the former Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, Jane Irvine, who was appointed Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, actually supports making the Law Society of Scotland comply with Freedom of Information laws, confirming this in a previous article I reported here : Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity

Iraq War : SNP MPs badgered for Cabinet Minutes release on war ‘legal advice’ but now SNP Scottish Ministers will use public money to protect Law Society from FOI & fight release of Scottish Govt’s lawyers advice. This fight by the Scottish Government to keep information from the public which involves elements of the Scottish legal profession bullying the Government into submission over FOI protection for the public is in stark contrast to the SNP's position over the FOI battle for release of Cabinet meeting minutes from the Westminster Government in relation to the Iraq war, where, in a similar situation of legal advice against FOI release,UK Government lawyers based in Westminster also argued it would be against the public interest to release the Cabinet Minutes.

The now famous but still secret Cabinet Minutes containing references to the legal advice given to the Government on the legal basis of the war in Iraq, were ordered for release by England's FOI Tribunal which backed the original decision by the Information Commissioner for England & Wales, Richard Thomas, ordering the release of the Westminster Cabinet Minutes. However, Scotland has no FOI Tribunal, therefore the FOI Commissioner, and even applicants to the FOI Commissioner’s office must rely on going to the Court of Session in Edinburgh to force the release of information that Scottish Ministers may resist disclosing to the bitter end.

A senior official with one of Scotland’s consumer organisations branded the Scottish Government’s stance over the legal advice as “a grave mistake” and condemned the lack of attention to a clear public interest in making Scotland’s legal profession’s senior regulator comply with Freedom of Information legislation.

He said : "“The current arrangement consumers face with the regulation of legal services in Scotland, where the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates are exempt from FOI legislation, yet the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is FOI compliant, is not in the public interest.”

He continued : “The public interest would undoubtedly be served if the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty were made to comply with Freedom of Information, but such a move will require action from the Scottish Government. It appears this will never take place, according to the documents which have now been disclosed, and even worse, it appears the Scottish Government have been deliberately misleading public enquiries on this issue for several years.”

Former Law Society Chief Douglas Mill threatened legal challenge against complaints reforming legislation LPLA Act which created the SLCC. This is of course not the first time the Scottish Government have been threatened with legal action by the Law Society of Scotland, where in 2006, during the Scottish Parliament’s consideration of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Bill, which went onto create the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the then Law Society Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, threatened a legal challenge against the then Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, claiming that lawyers had a human right to regulate complaints against their colleagues. I reported on that earlier threat of a legal challenge by the Law Society, here : Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

A Scottish Government insider commented on his colleague’s frantic discussions over the Law Society & FOI compliance, saying : “The problem here is the many dark secrets of the legal profession will end up being revealed under FOI if they are made to comply with it.”

“If you find out through FOI your lawyer is a habitual crook and has rolled hundreds of clients, you are not going to use them or their firm for anything. I believe it is the desire of the Law Society and the profession to protect their secrets which we are seeing as the Government’s driving force of maintaining an indefinite exemption rather than groundless arguments of client confidentiality."

Clearly, the public interest would be served by making the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates compliant with Freedom of Information legislation and continuing the present secrecy which allows both of these powerful regulators to remain outside the law and outside the reach of public scrutiny & accountability is only helping those within the profession who are exploiting such weaknesses for their own benefit against the public and all users of legal services in Scotland.

Criminal records of lawyers : Scots public kept in dark over convictions while England & Wales get ‘right to know’

Law Society of England & Wales reveals statistics on lawyers with criminal records. The Law Society of Scotland have today been upstaged by their English counterpart, the Law Society of England & Wales, who, responding to a Freedom of Information request, have reported that in the rest of the UK there are some 90 solicitors in practice in England & Wales who currently have criminal records, with an estimated 50 of those solicitors still retaining their practising certificates, entitling them to continue representing the public in legal matters.

Law Society of England & Wales statement on criminal records of solicitors : "The Law Society is not notified, as a matter of course, when a solicitor is charged with an offence but we are notified if a solicitor is convicted. There are currently 92 solicitors who have been convicted of criminal offences."

"50 of the 92 have current practicing certificates and are therefore currently entitled to practice. A random check of some of the 50 indicate that the convictions in those circumstances mostly relate to driving offences."

This is believed to be the first disclosure of such details on UK solicitors, and even though the Law Society of England & Wales are not bound by Freedom of Information laws, they acceded to the FOI request in the interests of assisting journalism and keeping the public informed of matters of potential concern

Law Society of Scotland refuse to reveal details of criminal records of solicitors. While members of the public in England & Wales now have such information to hand, to assist in their choice of legal representatives, people in Scotland will not have access to such radical disclosure of solicitors criminal history, after the Law Society refused to publicly disclose any such details of the criminal records of Scottish solicitors.

Criminal convictions of Scots lawyers relate to very serious offences and many with criminal records still practise law. A senior Law Society insider today spoke of his concern that revealing the types of criminal charges and criminal convictions of lawyers in Scotland may well put people in fear of choosing a lawyer, given that while in England & Wales, many of the convictions seem to relate to driving, or minor offences, criminal convictions in Scotland range from very grave criminal offences of rape, child abuse, assault, fraud, embezzlement, drugs running, and even accessory to murder, rather than being limited to driving offences and the mode mundane.

He said : "There wont be many within the Scots legal profession or the Law Society of Scotland who will feel inclined to follow the lead of our English cousins in disclosing statistics on criminal records, simply because the seriousness of some of the criminal convictions of solicitors in Scotland would probably make people run a mile from many a legal firm."

"There is an even greater problem in that the numbers of solicitors who are actually charged with a criminal offence is, to be expected, much higher than the figures showing the number of resulting convictions."

He went on : “I personally know of several solicitors currently practising who have been charged with very serious offences, one of rape, one of internet grooming of children, several charges relating to significant financial frauds, not only against clients, but also involving financial institutions, and several younger solicitors in Edinburgh who have recently been charged with drug abuse and possession of cocaine.”

He ended the interview by concluding : “If clients were entitled to this kind of information, the affected law firms would suffer financially from loss of business, but you do raise an intriguing point in that if I were a member of the public I might want to know if my solicitor had a criminal record and what he or she had been charged with or what offences they were convicted for."

Rent boys are a popular theme in criminal charges of leading Scots lawyers. I am all too aware of the seriousness of criminal activity and convictions of solicitors in Scotland, where in recent years we have seen a raft of solicitors hit the headlines such as Angela Baillie, who transported drugs into prison and was herself sent to jail, a Glasgow solicitor who was charged with gun running, also sent to jail, countless solicitors who have been charged with fraud, against clients & banks, some of whom seem to escape with lenient sentences, solicitors who have committed perjury in open court, and of course, the ever popular list of criminal charges relating to offences of a sexual nature, where some of the Scots legal profession's most senior members have been caught with boy prostitutes in shopping centre toilets and other equally sordid cases of rape & abuse - all a far cry from a few ‘driving offences’.

An angry client who was confronted with the fact their advocate has faced charges of serious sex offences today said : "This is an outrage we are not entitled to this kind of information in Scotland. Personally I am horrified at the revelations of what is going on inside the Scottish legal profession, and I think there has to be an immediate change in the law that all clients of solicitors know exactly who they are dealing with."

John G O’Donnell has 21 negligence claims but no criminal charges, and is still practising – Your lawyer might have a similar record but no one will know until it is too late. I, of course, fully support the public's right to know whether or not their legal representatives have a criminal record, and also support the idea of full regulatory disclosure by all solicitors to clients, so that people can make up their minds whether the person or legal firm trusted with their legal affairs, is fit and honest enough to carry out the work entrusted to them.

It surely must be the right of clients to check out their solicitors first to see just how honest they are and how they have dealt with regulatory issues arising from perhaps, complaints from other clients. Also clients must of course be able to find out the conduct & negligence record of solicitors, which would in anyone’s mind certainly impact on their choice of legal representation.

I have written about full regulatory disclosure in an earlier article here : Disclosing the regulatory history of lawyers in Scotland to help give choice to the consumer and a more recent article here : Regulatory disclosure to solicitors clients 'a must' as legal ombudsman's report fails to name & shame rogue lawyers

SLCC currently hold no information on criminal charges or records of Scots lawyers. In view of the English Law Society's break from secrecy on the issue of criminal records of those in the legal profession, I asked the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission what they were doing about the issue north of the border, given the public interest would most definitely be served by clients being able to obtain both regulatory disclosure and also disclosure of criminal records or convictions of their solicitor.

I asked Jane Irvine, the SLCC Chair, whether the SLCC have any information regarding solicitors or advocates who are members of the Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates have criminal records, or are currently subject to criminal investigations or investigations from the Legal Aid Board or any other Government Department.

The Commission admitted it had no such information, despite a brief perusal of the newspapers showing plenty lawyers in the headlines for just about any criminal offence imaginable, and some which are too sordid to imagine.

Given the SLCC is now the sole gateway for complaints against the legal profession, one would think there surely exists a necessary role in collating such statistics relating to criminal activity within Scotland's 10,000 solicitors, given that such information may well be relevant not only to complaints investigations but also inquiries from members of the public who suspect or simply wish to enquire as to the honesty of their solicitors & legal firm.

Criminals from within Scotland’s legal profession staged a mafia hit on Law Society Chief in 2006. There amazingly seems to be no obligation on the part of solicitors or advocates to inform the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, or the Law Society of Scotland that they are the subject of criminal investigations, or criminal charges or convictions. The only way the Law Society gets to know if a solicitor has been found guilty of a criminal offence, is from the Crown Office, and according to sources questioned on this issue today, the Law Society of Scotland does not always want to be told one of their solicitor members has been found guilty of criminal offences … unless the media asks first.

I asked the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission if they thought there should be such an obligation on the part of solicitors & those in the legal services market to report to them that they are facing or are the subject of criminal investigations, or criminal charges,or indeed have been convicted of a criminal offence.

The Commission responded by saying "We deal with complaints under our Act - Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Under our legislation there is no obligation on the part of solicitors or advocates to report to the SLCC that they are facing or are the subject of criminal investigations or criminal charges."

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine. While the Commission's Chair, Jane Irvine recently supported the idea that the Law Society of Scotland should be brought within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation, which I reported on here : Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity, there does seem to be a more pressing need for the public to be able to access all kinds of information relating to their legal representatives, to assist making a decision on who will represent their legal interests which often involve the most important parts of their lives, from buying a house, to making a will, to the defence of criminal charges or handling civil litigation of all types.

Simply, wouldn't you want to know if your lawyer has a criminal record ? or a negligence record ? or a poor complaints record ?

Regulatory disclosure to solicitors clients 'a must' as legal ombudsman's report fails to name & shame rogue lawyers

If you were hiring a lawyer or legal firm to handle your legal business, you would surely want to know if there was anything in their past, such as client complaints or poor legal service, maybe charges of embezzling client funds or ripping off a few old ladies which might just make you think twice about using that particular legal firm or that particular solicitor ?

Just as you look at the ingredients of some foods, you surely want to look at the ingredients (and past) of your lawyer who will handle affairs concerning the most important parts of your life ?

Well here is an article today which might just interest readers so inclined to question their solicitor’s service record before committing themselves to a possibly horrendous experience they may never be able to recover from ….

In two announcements today by the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, the Law Society is criticised for their almost routine policy of 'not following' the Ombudsman's recommendations concerning two complaints, one a complicated family matter involving guardianship & the transfer of titles, and the other involving a fairly straightforward winding up of a deceased's estate.

The Legal Services Ombudsman, Jane Irvine, who will soon go on to her new post as the Chairman of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, was critical in two of her reports of the Law Society of Scotland in their poor handling & regulation of both complaints which were reported to the Ombudsman’s office for further investigation.

Unfortunately, due to the demands of the legal profession, neither the complainers, or the legal firms involved in the complaints can be identified, making it highly probable, other clients may or already have fell victim to the same legal firms in similar or other issues which have went on to generate complaints.

The lack of identification of those legal firms and solicitors involved in what appear to be very serious illustrate the problems of informing and warning the public of crooked legal firms in Scotland.

If you can get through the Mrs X, Mr Y and various letters of the alphabet such as "T" assigned to represent the unidentified firms of rogue lawyers, then perhaps the notices may make some sense in their content.

However, from my own experience in issuing reports on how crooked a firms of lawyers are, or how corrupt the Law Society of Scotland has been in protecting a firm of crooked lawyers against a client complaint, it is much better to name and shame the legal firm and the solicitor concerned, not only to assist the poor client who has already been ripped off, but also to protect and warn the rest of us, and any potential clients of what this legal firm or solicitor has been doing to other clients.

Regulatory disclosure of all solicitors and legal firms, as I have written before, must be made mandatory to all prospective clients before they sign up a legal firm or solicitor to represent their interests. It is perhaps the ultimate level of consumer protection which must be applied in the circumstances of dealing with one's legal affairs, often the most important parts of your lives.

You can read my earlier article on regulatory disclosure here : Disclosing the regulatory history of lawyers in Scotland to help give choice to the consumer

Lets hope the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be more effective in their investigation of client complaints against crooked lawyers and enforcement of the necessary action. However, as the SLCC is to be staffed by the Law Society of Scotland, perhaps they wont be as effective as promised by the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act (Scotland) 2007.. and whose fault is that Mr Justice Secretary MacAskill ?

You can read more about the problems of the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - a mission of failure before it begins

The notices from the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman follow :

Monday, 8 September 2008

Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman Notices :

Section 34A of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Scotland) Act 1990

Failure of the Law Society of Scotland [LSS] to comply with a recommendation from the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman arising out of an Opinion by the Ombudsman on the Law Society’s handling of a complaint.

Factual background and Ombudsman’s recommendation

Mrs X, Mrs Y and Mrs Z went to the solicitors T, for advice about applying for guardianship of Mr X [Mrs X’s son] and to transfer the titles to Mrs X’s house into the names of Mrs Y and Mrs Z. The house had originally been bought in Mrs X and Mr X’s names.

The solicitors T failed to secure guardianship of Mr X. Mrs X, Mrs Y and Mrs Z therefore instructed another firm of solicitors H in this matter.

The LSS investigated 11 complaints of inadequate professional service against the firm of solicitors T and one complaint of professional misconduct against an individual named solicitor in that firm. The LSS upheld 6 complaints of inadequate professional service. The LSS decided to take no action in relation to the other 5 inadequate professional service complaints and the complaint about professional misconduct.

Mr Y complained to me on behalf of Mrs X, Mrs Y and Mrs Z about the LSS’s handling of their complaint and in particular that it was guardianship of Mr X that his family wanted and that they had instructed the solicitor accordingly.

Following my investigation, I concluded that I was critical of the manner in which the LSS had reached its decision in relation to Issues 1, part of 7 and 9. I was not persuaded or satisfied with the reasoning provided by the LSS in respect of these issues. I therefore recommended that the LSS reconsider all of these issues.

In relation to Issue 1 – I found that Mrs X, Mrs Y and Mrs Z had plainly and clearly asked the solicitors by letter to represent them in gaining guardianship of Mr X and this had not happened. There had been a failure to carry out an instruction. I recommended that the LSS should reconsider this complaint and provide detailed reasoning for its decision.

Regarding Issue 7 – I did not think that the LSS had provided clear reasoning in reaching its decision in relation to this complaint. The LSS had upheld Issue 5 which looked at the solicitors’ failure to provide the complainers with clear advice and instructions as to the format of the medical reports required and how to obtain these. Issue 7 looked at the failure to identify and approach the appropriate medical practitioners directly. I did not think that that the LSS had provided sufficient detailed reasoning in relation to identifying appropriate medical practitioners. In relation to Issue 5, the LSS had concluded that there was an obligation on the solicitors to ensure that the complainers were aware of the terms of the Act. I thought this should apply equally to this complaint.

In relation to Issue 9, I considered that the LSS had given too much weight to one piece of evidence and felt that there was in fact no evidence of what had or had not been said during a meeting.

I also recommended that the LSS pay Mr Y compensation and costs for the stress and inconvenience caused by the LSS’s inadequate investigation.

The LSS’s reasons for not accepting the Ombudsman’s recommendations

The LSS considered my recommendations and did not consider that it was necessary to accept the recommendations.

In the LSS’s view, the Committee had provided comprehensive reasons for its decisions and, in particular, why it had departed from the Reporter. The LSS said that the Committee’s reasons were sustainable. They were not perverse, illogical or clearly wrong. The LSS was not persuaded that the points made by the Ombudsman were so fundamental that the decisions reached by the Committee ought to be disturbed. The LSS was also content that the decisions were properly explained.

Issue 1 – The LSS said that the phrase “Guardianship” was legally meaningless. The LSS said that what could be sought was either a Financial Guardian, Welfare Guardian or both. The LSS went on to explain that such a Guardian was appointed by the Court and it was a specific person who was appointed. Accordingly, to say that a number of people wanted Guardianship, was, in legal terms meaningless. Accordingly, to say that the solicitors had plain and clear instructions regarding Guardianship could not be correct. The LSS said that as the term did not make sense in law, they were therefore not clear instructions. The Committee did not consider that the solicitor could be criticised for not doing something which could not be achieved in law. The LSS stated that what the Committee had done was to look behind the issue and note that at the root of the complainer’s concerns was the transfer of the title of the property.

It was the LSS’s view that on the instructions the solicitors had, they exercised their professional judgement that in order to obtain what the complainers were really after was best done by way of an Intervention Order and the Committee considered that this was a reasonable exercise of judgement.

Issue 7 – Again, the LSS did not understand why the Ombudsman did not totally follow the Committee’s reasoning in relation to this issue. The Committee noted that the solicitors agreed with the complainers that the complainers should approach the medical practitioners as a cost saving measure. The LSS wanted to emphasise that there was an agreement that the complainers would do this and the solicitors could not be criticised for failing to identify and approach when it had been agreed otherwise in order to (a) save money and (b) the complainers would know whom to approach as treatment was already being given.

The LSS noted that I had made reference to Issue 5. The LSS commented that there was a difference between Issues 5 and 7 in that the identification of the doctors was a different issue from giving the doctors clear information as to the form of the medical report required to satisfy the Court.

Issue 9 – The LSS stated that it was for the Committee to assess the evidence. There was conflicting evidence from the parties as to what happened. The other two pieces of evidence were, firstly, the £500 payment to account and secondly, the fact that the file was silent. The Committee regarded the latter issue as neutral. The Committee considered that the payment of £500 was a factor to be weighed up in the balance. It was accepted that it did not prove that the solicitors told them, but it was supportive of the solicitors’ position.

The LSS did not accept that the payment was an irrelevant factor; rather it was one factor to be weighed in the balance. It did not prove that the solicitor did not do something, but it was supportive of their position and the Committee were entitled to decide the weight to be attached. The LSS said that if this matter was considered irrelevant then all the Committee would have been left with was two conflicting views and a silent file and would not have been able to uphold the issue because of lack of evidence.

The LSS was content that the decision reached was reasonable and reasonably explained.

The Ombudsman’s view

I was concerned that the LSS had missed the crux of Mrs X, Mrs Y and Mrs Z’s complaint in relation to Issue 1. Put simply the complainants had asked the solicitors to do something for them and this was not carried out. The LSS had attempted to look behind the request and had not upheld the complaint on this basis. If a specific instruction has been given to a firm of solicitors, a client would expect this to be acted upon and if there was a problem with the instruction as given, I would expect the solicitors to explain this to the client and explain what they are able to do. This was the complaint that the LSS agreed to investigate and is the issue that the LSS has side stepped.

In relation to Issue 7, I accept that the complainants had agreed to approach the medical practitioners themselves as a cost saving mechanism. There should have been a duty on the solicitors to ensure that the complainants knew exactly who to contact. The Act is specific regarding the qualifications required by the medical practitioner completing the form and this was not something that the solicitors explained to Mrs X, Mrs Y and Mrs Z. The LSS has already upheld the complaint that the solicitors failed to provide the complainers with clear advice and instructions as to the format of the medical reports required. The Committee stated that the solicitor had an obligation to ensure that the complainants were aware of the required terms of the Act. Applying this same logic, it would appear equally that the solicitors failed to provide the complainers with clear advice in relation to the appropriate medical practitioners to approach as this was also a specific requirement under the Act. I do not think that the LSS has looked at this complaint consistently and in line with the other complaints that it has already decided.

Regarding Issue 9 – I think that too much weight was given to the fact that £500 was paid on account. I do not think that this shows one way or another whether the solicitors told the complainants about civil legal aid. I think that the LSS could have simply stated that there was insufficient evidence to uphold this complaint rather than attaching so much importance to the £500.

Jane Irvine
Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman
http://www.slso.org.uk/
_________________________________

Case No.2

Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman

Section 34A of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990

Failure of the Law Society of Scotland to comply with a recommendation from the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman arising out of an Opinion by the Ombudsman on the Law Society’s handling of a complaint.

Background and Ombudsman’s recommendation

Following the death of the complainer’s husband, the complained of firm of solicitors handled the administration of his estate. The complainer complained of a lack of information from the solicitors which put her in difficult circumstances.

The complaint has been considered by the LSS. The LSS decided not to investigate some of to the issues raised and subsequently closed its complaint file when it appeared the complainer had abandoned the complaint.

When I examined the matter although concluding the LSS handled the complaint in a generally satisfactory manner, I was concerned at the speed with which the decision was taken to close the complaint file. Part of that concern was that the complainer may not be familiar enough with the British system to manoeuvre her way through it at a particularly distressing time. I had observed the LSS Sifting Panel’s comments that further information should be sought on the solicitors’ alleged failure to communicate with the client. In light of those comments I recommended the LSS consider whether to provide the complainer with another opportunity to give the LSS the information it had requested. I considered it reasonable for the LSS to set a clear time limit to receiving that information.

As I considered the speed of decision to close the complaint file had inconvenienced the complainer I recommended the LSS should pay her £25 in compensation and £10 towards the cost of bringing her complaint to me.

The LSS’s reasons for not accepting the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

The LSS does not accept my recommendations. Its stated view is that the Ombudsman had recognised the LSS provided the complainer with a letter stating clearly if she did not respond within 14 days then the file would be closed. The complainer was not in touch within that period and the file was then closed. The question then arises as to whether the LSS ought reasonably to have adjusted its process to take account of any special circumstances pertaining to the complainer. The Ombudsman had suggested two such circumstances that the complainer might not be familiar with “the British System” and secondly that she was going through a distressing time.

The LSS stated has two sources of information to indicate that understanding English or a “British system” was not an issue for the complainer. She had stated she was not a native English speaker but thought her level good enough. The LSS said the standard of correspondence from the complainer was very good.

If the LSS treated all non British people differently or automatically adjusted its process without due cause then that could be seen as discrimination in itself. In the LSS’s view each situation required to be looked at objectively in order to form a reasonable conclusion. In this case the complainer had not indicated she had any special needs and it was reasonable and supportable that her English was not at a level where it would be a barrier thus requiring an adjustment to the process. The LSSS had taken advice from its Head of Diversity in reaching this considered view.

The LSS noted the Ombudsman’s second contention was that the complainer was suffering a distressing time. That was sadly very much the case. It was also very unfortunately often the case for many complainers if not nearly all to be in a distressing situation upon contacting the LSS. Often the reason they have contacted a solicitor is because they have suffered a distressing life event. It is therefore doubly distressing to have to require to make a complaint on top of that.

There was in the LSS’s view no good reason why it required to adjust its process to take account of the complainer’s situation.

Ombudsman’s view

I considered the LSS response had failed to address the concerns I had identified and had concluded that when linked together amounted to circumstances that merited the LSS contacting the complainer for further information albeit with a very specific deadline.

I had drawn the LSS’s attention to the specific but linked difficulties i.e. by implication the exceptional circumstances the complainer faced. I considered the LSS’s response separated these concerns, appearing to examine them as unrelated matters.

I had referred to the complainer’s knowledge of “the British System” but there was however no special pleading with regard to her knowledge of the English language which is how the LSS had interpreted that reference. The problems identified were in relation to how solicitors carry out their functions and how the Inland Revenue operates. Both of these are to do with the legal and tax systems in Scotland and Britain.

The other linked concern I highlighted was in relation to the complainer’s personal circumstances. I agreed many complainers who approach the LSS experience similar and no doubt even more distressing circumstances. The complainer’s situation was cited as only one of the concerns I had identified. I had also set my recommendation in the context of the view of a LSS Sifting Panel that the complainer should be asked for further information on the solicitors’ alleged failure to communicate with her.

I confirmed my appreciation the LSS’s 14 day time limit for replies from complainers can move things on successfully. I had however in the past identified a concern which continues in light of this LSS response with the differing time limits allowed to complainers and to complained of solicitors.

The matters I had identified gave me enough concern to recommend the reconsideration by the LSS of its decision. Those matters were deliberately linked in the recommendation to underline that view.

The LSS second response

In its response to my views the LSS confirmed it adhered to its initial response. The LSS felt it had acted fairly albeit appreciating the complainer in common with many others found herself in highly distressing circumstances.

Ombudsman’s conclusions

This is a complaint which raises issues of the use of reasonableness when examining all a complainer’s circumstances relevant to a complaint. My view remains that in this case it is not a matter of language but of a lack of familiarity with both the legal and the tax systems in Scotland. The LSS is also aware that I consider time limits are necessary and important to a complaints process and hence why I took care to specify in the recommendation that it was reasonable for the LSS to set a clear time limit to receiving that information. However as the time limit for a complainer is 14 days rather than the 21 days statutory time limit for solicitors, I consider that a tight deadline and in particular not that long when it the result is to exclude someone from a complaint process. I agree with the LSS that complaints have to be managed and setting time limits is an important part of that process. However it is a very serious step to throw a complaint out of a complaint system leaving a lay complainer nowhere else to go - save court and so I consider these cases very seriously.

My conclusion remains that the complainer’s circumstances when taken as a whole merited the LSS using the flexibility available to it to give one final and limited opportunity for the complainer to provide the information the LSS required. I concluded in simply adhering to its formal response the LSS has failed to appreciate and therefore give appropriate consideration to the actual terms of my recommendation.

Jane Irvine
Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman
http://www.slso.org.uk/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote the article directly :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote Mr MacKinnon again from the article :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles from the Sunday Mail and Scotsman to follow :

EXCLUSIVE: LAWYER SUED FOR £1MILLION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard-bearer voices concerns over key issues

JENNIFER VEITCH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DONALD REID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish Sheriffs fear revelations of their past may come back to haunt them ..

Scottish Sheriffs certainly do fear for revelations of their past .. so much so that their Association intervened in the Justice 1 Committee "Regulation of the Legal Profession" inquiry back in 2001 and demanded .. or perhaps .. required .. that the Justice 1 Committee withdraw from any inquiries into Sheriffs .. and you can read Sheriff Lockhart's intimidating letter to the Justice 1 Committee informing the Parliament they might be taken to Court on ECHR grounds if they tried to investigate Sheriffs ..

How's that for fearing transparency ? I'd say ... quite good evidence ... Threaten a Parliamentary Inquiry with Court if they investigate Sheriffs ... quite good evidence of a cover up, by using the threat of Court Action .. which would be judged by one of their colleagues .. no doubt in their favour ...

In Scotland,a Sheriff is a Judge, who is usually assigned to work in a particular local Sheriff Court or who travels around the Sheriff Courts system anywhere in Scotland when they are needed, as a 'floating Sheriff'.

There are now 142 full-time Sheriffs in the various Courts and a number of part-time Sheriffs, all being appointed by a Judicial Appointments Board which is further from transparency than the rules of the Scottish Parliament (a fiddler's charter, one could say).

Sheriff Courts deal with legal cases & procedures which include things like
(1) Solemn and Summary Criminal cases
(2) Large and Small estates upon a death
(3) Fine payments
(4) Civil actions under Ordinary, Summary Cause and Small Claim Procedures
(5) Adoption Cases
(6) Bankruptcy Actions

What & who, are Scottish Sheriffs ?

Well, Scottish Sheriffs are lawyers .. well, former lawyers, and Advocates (fancy name for a lawyer who practices in the Higher Courts of Scotland) .. and so on. So, we shouldn't have any trouble then with them, should we ? Sheriffs, being former lawyers ? .. that should be ok, right ? Not at all ... as events have revealed.

Since Sheriffs come from Scotland's near 10,000 lawyers ... who have about 5000+ complaints made against them each year ... we certainly do need to be concerned about their background ... especially the bits which the Judicial Appointments Board conveniently pass over .. in other words, their regulatory history as a lawyer or advocate .. and in this, lies a problem .. a BIG problem.

A friend of mine, a journalist, has been trying to uncover the history of certain Scottish Sheriffs, and has uncovered some sinister details of the history of certain Sheriffs from when they were lawyers. Nothing of course, which doesn't surprise me ... stuff like, embezzling funds from clients, ruining deceased clients estates & plundering clients wills, overcharging clients for work, intentionally mis-selling clients properties for reduced sums to preferrential clients & personal friends, even, allegations of picking up under age rent boys for sexual adventures ....

How come we never see anything of the complaints histories then, of a lawyer or advocate, who then goes on to be a Sheriff ?

Well, we don't see anything like that, because the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Sheriffs Association, and the Judicial Appointments Board .. don't want us to see it .. because if we did .. there would have to be a few resignations from the Bench.

Isn't it about time that some people started asking to see the regulatory histories of these lawyers who are appointed Sheriffs ?

Well, surprise .. that information - their history as a lawyer, how many complaints they had made against them .. etc .. appears not to be subject to FOI Law .. (Freedom Of Information) .. and that is because, the Law Society of Scotland - who collect regulatory data .. even when they don't want to admit it .. got itself an exemption from the FOI Act ... so .. basically, they can do whatever they want .. and if a crooked lawyer refuses to disclose their regulatory history to the public or the Judicial Appointments Board - then we will never know anything about it.

It goes much deaper than that though ... Sheriffs are still lawyers, even though they are Sheriffs ... still lawyers, licensed to practice law .. and they still pay into the sinister, corrupt Master Insurance Policy run by the Law Society of Scotland & Marsh UK ... and that in itself is an interesting point .. as there are a few Sheriffs now on the Bench in Scotland who were subject to long protracted negligence claims by clients .. but the Law Society of Scotland wiped their records of crooked offences clean .. and hid the dirt so they could go on to become Sheriffs.

So, we have situations where, Sheriffs, who have been caught stealing clients money .. stealing their possessions ... embezzling what they could, as a lawyer ... are now sitting in judgement on other fraudsters .. who of course, can't get away with it so easy .. because of course ... the people up before them .. don't serve the law .. or do they ?

What would happen, for instance, if a crooked lawyer who had embezzled their clients funds, stolen assets, looted wills, possessions, ruined clients lives, fitted up complaints so they got off the hook, etc .. came up before a Sheriff .. who had done the same when they were a lawyer ?

Well, guess what ? It's happened .. and the Sheriff certainly didn't dismiss himself from the case .. because of course, he hadn't told anyone he had been a crooked lawyer in the past .. so he didn't really need to.

Now .. if this were America .. probably, the lawyer representing the client who had a negligence claim against the crooked lawyer, would point out that the Judge ... had been a crooked lawyer too in his past .. but no .. that doesn't work in Scotland .. because the Sheriff is also, still, a member of the Law Society of Scotland ... so lawyers never reveal things like that agains their colleagues .. do they ...certainly not to aid their client against a fellow colleague ...

I found it interesting that a Sunday Newspaper recently ran a story about a lawyer who was subject to some 12 negligence claims. TOP LAWYER AT THE CENTRE OF 12 NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS .. well, there are some who are currently sitting on the Sheriffs Bench .. which the Scottish Executive know all about ... who were also embroiled in negligence claims from clients

Of course, the Scottish Executive, the Judiciary, and the Law Society of Scotland, would prefer this information never got out, and would certainly prefer the public not to ask such questions of their Sheriffs .. even to the point of threatening a newspaper and a journalist's career (or more than his career) .. if word got out .. but I think it's time, people started asking for more of the background of these Sheriffs ... because they are certainly NOT what they seem to be ... as some of us well know. Be nice to see the story eventually break though ...

Here's a little unrelated article from last weeks Scotsman on the rising number of Sheriffs ...

Now go and ask some questions everyone on the appointment of Sheriffs... and just what they have been up to in their past

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1447502006

Number of Scottish sheriffs reaches record levels

NINE appointments have taken the total of Scotland's sheriffs to a record 142, it was announced yesterday.

The appointment of the seven men and two women was approved by the Queen after they were nominated by Jack McConnell, the First Minister.

He did so on the basis of a report to him by the independent judicial appointments board that was set up in 2001.

The appointment of a part-time sheriff was also announced and Mr McConnell said he has asked the board to recommend more part-timers.

The nine sheriffs will serve in some of Scotland's 49 sheriff courts. Some of the newcomers will serve in specific areas where help is most needed.

Mr McConnell said: "These appointments will bring the complement of sheriffs up to a record level of 142. I am sure that they will make an early impact in reducing delays in criminal trials and civil cases being heard."

The new sheriffs are Ruth Anderson QC, 59; solicitor Maxwell Hendry, 50; Martin Jones QC, 50; solicitor Desmond Leslie, 51; solicitor Elizabeth McFarlane, 45; solicitor advocate Alan Mackenzie, 50; Charles Macnair QC, 51; solicitor Thomas Millar, 52, and advocate Nigel Ross, 43.