Standards, but not as we know them : International Bar Association’s ‘Fantasy’ ethics guide for lawyers broken daily in Scots legal profession

No standards are good standards : Law Society of Scotland’s Director of Law Reform Michael Clancy sits on International Bar Association. A CODE OF ETHICS, a term not widely associated with the Law Society of Scotland & Scotland’s legal profession who were recently revealed to have hacked ‘difficult client’s private details in cases connected to complaints & financial damages claims made against negligent or ‘crooked’ Scottish solicitors, have been ‘updated’ in a guide published by the International Bar Association which describes itself as ‘the world’s leading organisation of international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies’.

A clue to how useful the guide is to consumers may be in the inclusion of the Law Society of Scotland’s Director of Law Reform, Michael Clancy, who has at least twice stepped in to curtail moves to reform ethics, regulation & complaints in Scotland’s legal profession. Several currently serving & former MSPs at the Scottish Parliament have disclosed discussions with Mr Clancy over constituents problems & issues connected with ethics & regulation of the legal profession which fall very wide of the mark of what is little more than a ‘fantasy guide’ from the IBA as any client caught in the maelstrom of dealing with a complaint against their legal representative will know.

The International Bar Association's website states in a release on the subject :

The IBA International Principles is the 21st century version of a set of ethics for the legal profession first introduced more than 50 years ago, with the precursors to today’s edition as the ‘IBA International Code of Ethics’ (1956 and 1988). The gathering pace of globalisation and increase in cross-border transactions has led to the Code of Ethics being  revisited and republished, resulting in today’s publication. A thorough process with input from representatives of the legal profession from all continents has produced 10 core principles which should be common to all lawyers. 

The 10 core values constituting the IBA International Principles, compiled from input from representatives of the legal profession from all continents has produced principles which, the IBA says, should be common to all lawyers in 10 core areas:

1. Independence
  A lawyer shall maintain independence and be afforded the protection such independence offers in giving clients unbiased advice and representation. A lawyer shall exercise independent, unbiased professional judgment in advising a client, including as to the likelihood of  success of  the client’s case.

2. Honesty, integrity and fairness
  A lawyer shall at all times maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity and fairness towards the lawyer’s clients, the court, colleagues and all those with whom the lawyer comes into professional contact.

3. Conflicts of interest
  A lawyer shall not assume a position in which a client’s interests conflict with those of the lawyer, another lawyer in the same firm, or another client, unless otherwise permitted by law, applicable rules of  professional conduct, or, if  permitted, by client’s authorisation.

4. Confidentiality/professional secrecy
  A lawyer shall at all times maintain and be afforded protection of confidentiality regarding the affairs of  present or former clients, unless otherwise allowed or required by law and/or applicable rules of  professional conduct.

5. Clients’ interest
  A lawyer shall treat client interests as paramount, subject always to there being no conflict with the lawyer’s duties to the court and the interests of  justice, to observe the law, and to maintain ethical standards.

6. Lawyers’ undertaking
  A lawyer shall honour any undertaking given in the course of the lawyer’s practice in a timely manner, until the undertaking is performed, released or excused.

7. Clients’ freedom
  A lawyer shall respect the freedom of clients to be represented by the lawyer of their choice. Unless prevented by professional conduct rules or by law, a lawyer shall be free to take on or reject a case.

8. Property of clients and third parties   
  A lawyer shall account promptly and faithfully for and prudently hold any property of  clients or third parties that comes into the lawyer’s trust, and shall keep it separate from the lawyer’s own property.

9. Competence
  A lawyer’s work shall be carried out in a competent and timely manner. A lawyer shall not take on work that the lawyer does not reasonably believe can be carried out in that manner.

10. Fees
  Lawyers are entitled to a reasonable fee for their work, and shall not charge an unreasonable fee. A lawyer shall not generate unnecessary work.

Each principle is clearly defined in the booklet available HERE and contains expanded commentary on how it could be used as a basis to establish codes of conduct for lawyers within different jurisdictions.

James Klotz, Chair of the IBA BIC says : “We are hopeful that the “IBA International Principles” will serve as a basis for codes of conduct throughout the global legal profession and beyond. It is our aim that governments and other appropriate authorities in relation to furthering and improving the rule of law and defending liberty and justice will also realise the value of the core principles, so essential to the independence of the legal profession and democracy.’ He added, ‘We believe that fledgling bar associations struggling to establish independence, will find the principles a particularly great resource.”

For a reality check on the IBA’s guide to ethics, the following article may provide a more informed view on the realities of relationships between clients & solicitors in Scotland’s legal services market : Toxic levels of complaints, poor standards of service & soaring fraud by solicitors makes Law Society of Scotland 'World's worst regulator'

In the cold reality of what is Scotland’s invariably dishonest legal services market, each & everyone one of the IBA’s 10 principles, values or whatever they wish to call them, appears to be broken multiple times on a daily basis.

Scots clients & consumers, especially in today’s difficult financial times,, have no guarantees, safety or reason to put any faith or trust in their relationship with their legal representatives as far as I can see from the weekly lists of cases of breaches of client trust brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice on a regular basis.

Michael Clancy BACKGROUND :

Michael Clancy recently stepped into block a petition at the Scottish Parliament calling for the repeal of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, which I reported on here : Law Society ‘warns’ Scottish Parliament : Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 ‘should not be repealed’ by msps or Scottish Government

Mr Clancy also recently served on the Calman Commission review of devolution, viewed by many Scots as little more than a move to curtail more power being handed over to the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government. An article reporting on Clancy’s role in this matter is here : Vested interests take priority as Calman Implementation Group ‘contaminated’ by Law Society of Scotland’s ‘reform blocker’ appointment

Law Society 'obstacle to change' as solicitors & clients hope for better relationship & trustworthy legal services

There is no doubt that solicitors & clients alike, can do without the Law Society of Scotland - the current state of Scotland's legal services market, the general disrespect and lack of trust the public afford the legal profession, and the numerous scandals which consistently rock Scotland's legal system and solicitor base, are evidence enough.

What good has the Law Society of Scotland done for solicitors over the years ?

Well, the Law Society would claim it has raised standards of service & conduct within the legal profession. However, with five thousand plus complaints a year made against less than ten thousand solicitors in Scotland, many of those complaints relating to serious frauds, poor service & conduct, even embezzlement, fakery, corrupt schemes to swindle clients out of even their property, there can be no doubt that standards of service & conduct are at an all time low.

What good has the Law Society of Scotland done for clients & the public over the years ?

The answer to that one of course, is none - no good at all.

The Law Society of Scotland, particularly it's current leadership under the likes of Chief Executive Douglas Mill, has concentrated fully on protecting solicitors from client complaints, ensuring when issues of serious complaints arise, the client loses out each time, while the solicitor goes on practicing.

Take for instance, a complaint where a solicitor had falsified a house & land sale - the client provided all kinds of evidence, even letters which fell into his possession from his own solicitor to a bidder on the property in question .. .scheming a deal so the solicitor & bidder would successfully gain a three million pound property for one tenth of its value, as the solicitor was holding his client for so long in the property sale, the client would go insolvent. The complaint went nowhere, the solicitor still practices, still has three houses of his own, still swindles clients, and hasn't a care in the world.

The client who made the complaint - He received no compensation even through he tried to pursue the case through the court. His new solicitors who took on the case trying to recover damages for theft & negligence worked against their client all the time, acted on instructions from the Law Society to delay the case and ruin it so there would be no settlement - which is in fact what happened. The client & his family lost their home, their lives were destroyed, and he now has cancer.

A situation repeated time & again, in the world of complaints against solicitors in Scotland. If you use a lawyer, the very same could happen to you just as easily, and there is nothing you will be able to do about it while the Law Society of Scotland exists.

If you want to read some more horrors of how the Law Society of Scotland have treated clients and stage managed legal services & access to justice in Scotland, here are a few links from previous posts :

Solicitors protecting themselves at all costs against accusations of wrongdoing, covering up complaints & scandals against colleagues

Solicitors ruining client after client who dared take issue with lawyers poor standards of service

Regular interference from the Law Society in court cases & client claims against corrupt solicitors

Solicitors found to be bribing clients to sign legal aid forms

Solicitors found to be smuggling drugs into prisons for clients

Solicitors with political interests stealing from disabled clients

Solicitors caught & jailed for sexual abuse of children

Solicitors allegedly hiring hitmen to attack & kill professional colleagues involved in the regulation of finance & complaints

Solicitors found to be ruining deceased clients wills in a common fraudulent practice

Solicitors with the worst standards possible, some facing as many as 21 negligence claims from clients, with complaint after complaint covered up by the Law Society of Scotland

The most senior Law Society figures threatening the Parliament & Executive with legal action over proposed independent regulation of lawyers

Legal firms with political influence in Government campaign against improvements in law such as a rise in small claims

Members of the Judiciary interfering in the course of implementation of law, preventing wider access to justice

and, has seen the Scottish Executive unmasked as a protector of the legal profession from clients ruined by solicitors, and complaints covered up to the most senior level

Good list, isn't it ... and there's lots more of course ... what appears above is only the tip of the Law Society's iceberg.

In this Monday's Law Section of the Scotsman, Jennifer Veitch wrote a piece entitled "Law Society must put house in order"

Nothing more than the usual line from Drumsheugh Gardens though, no room for substantive debate, and a distinct lack of reporting on how the Law Society notably achieved some amendments to the much feared & bitterly debated Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.

"The previous 12 months were dominated by the bitter debate over the Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill, and its proposals for a Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

When the Bill was finally passed last December, some of the sting was removed, with lawyers having the right of appeal against the commission's decisions. But if the Law Society's head honchos had known what 2007 had in store then they might not have seemed quite so cheery at the end of 2006."

Yes, indeed it was a bitter debate, with the dirty tricks brigade from the Law Society on duty seemingly 24 hours a day to threaten anyone who would put forward evidence to the Parliament on the inadequacies of the Law Society of Scotland and it's solicitor membership ..

The dirty tricks from the Law Society of Scotland fell out of control, with public skirmishes in front of the Justice 2 Committee between John Swinney & Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill over secret memos which clearly showed deliberate corruption & intervention in client claims against overtly corrupt solicitors.

Would [Douglas Mill's] granny swear by the Law Society ?

As the LPLA Bill debate progressed, and the Law Society of Scotland feared losing control of complaints and client claims, an English LibDem Peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC was drafted in to write the bizarre legal opinion that "it would breach the human rights of lawyers to allow anyone else except a colleague to consider & investigate complaints against themselves."

Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill, then used the Lord Lester opinion to threaten legal action against the Scottish Parliament & Executive if certain amendments agreeable to the Law Society were not put into the LPLA Bill.

Holyrood in solicitors' sights

Ms Veitch's version of that differs slightly from the reality of the legal threat, in that she simply does not mention it. Good stuff ... wholesome incomplete reporting seeking to misinform the public, and you can see a further example of such reporting here :

A lawyer's never loved in his own home land

Despite what some feel, if the Scottish Parliament & Executive changed legislation or amended it because of a legal threat from a profession with a vested financial interest in keeping such legislation restricted in its effect ... that is a big story. Big enough to be of significant public interest .... but not even a mention, as I'm sure if there was, Mr Mill would have been straight on the phone to have it removed.

The SNP Government are currently being attacked over a meeting between Alex Salmond and Donald Trump, over the calling in of Mr Trump's golfing development in the North East, as of course, Mr Trump has a vested interest in the proposals going through, and it does appear to some, that planning rules have been tossed aside in this matter, indicating a slight 'bending of the rules' to get the development through.

Well, if attacking the SNP over such a matter is good enough for the national press, then perhaps attacking the Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive's legal threat to Parliament & Government to bend & change rules or meet him in court, is just as significant a story ... and this is still a story, because as you may have guessed it, the dirty tricks brigade of the Law Society are at it again over the access to legal services debate, which you can read more about here :

Scotland fights political interests for wider access, choice of legal services over protectionism of lawyers monopoly

So, what the Law Society of Scotland has to do is not put its house in order.The time for that is over.

The Law Society of Scotland, has shown, it cannot change. It is too inflexible, too used to making threats to get it's own way, too used to delay to ensure nothing changes, too used to using dirty tricks to take out critics, opponents, and any client who may be a thorn in it's side, and too used to prejudice, protection of the guilty, and too used to having undue influence over public life.

The Law Society of Scotland should rather, jump off a cliff into extinction, and allow both solicitors & clients to get on with managing a relationship between the legal profession & public based on trust, accountability, transparency, and yes, even friendship.

If solicitors wish a representative body for their industry - yes by all means form one. Form one that gives you, each solicitor, a VOTE, in everything your new representative body will do for you. Make sure though, your shiny new representative body for the legal profession doesn't end up with the likes of the Law Society's current dictatorial leadership hell bent on protecting it's own political influence & power base, which has done exponential damage to the legal profession as a whole more than anything in history.

If the public wish a representative body for legal services, and by all means I would heartily advise it, ensure that such a body exclusively represents your interests as the client, has adequate powers to protect clients interests, ensure issues be tackled & publicised, and is able to ensure that complaints be dealt with properly, fairly, and with compassion.

We don't need the Law Society and it's dirty bag of dirty tricks any longer - it's time for a change - a change for solicitors & the public alike, a change for the better, a positive change for Scotland.

Law Society must put house in order

JENNIFER VEITCH

THIS time last year, the legal profession - or at least those concerned with plotting its direction - appeared to breath a collective sigh of relief. The previous 12 months were dominated by the bitter debate over the Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill, and its proposals for a Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

When the Bill was finally passed last December, some of the sting was removed, with lawyers having the right of appeal against the commission's decisions. But if the Law Society's head honchos had known what 2007 had in store then they might not have seemed quite so cheery at the end of 2006.

Thanks to the curveball of the Which? super-complaint to the OFT, this year has been dominated by an accelerated debate on the dreaded alternative business structure. Of course, everyone in the profession has been prattling on about Clementi for so long without similar proposals being seriously mooted for Scotland that perhaps the Law Society could have been forgiven for being lulled into believing it could escape the march of Tesco law.

To be fair, when the Research Working Group on the Legal Services Market in Scotland reported in April 2006, it recommended against intervention. But, after Which? forced the issue, the OFT turned its attentions to the Scottish marketplace, and soon the profession was presented with a list of recommendations for reform, just in time for the Law Society's conference on ABSs.

To say there was no shortage of opinions aired at September's debate would be putting it mildly. Lawyers from across Scotland offered the society plenty of food for thought about the impact of ABSs on legal services and particularly with regard to access to justice. The profession appeared divided into two camps: broadly speaking, there were those who make money, and want to stay competitive in order to keep doing so; and those who are struggling to keep afloat and fear the ABS would send them under. The big question was how the society would attempt to reconcile the two, and it promised the debate would inform its options paper, published with little fanfare on 1 November.

Yet this consultation paper stopped short of putting forward proposals that might give further direction to the debate. It certainly covered the pertinent issues arising from the main forms of ABS. It also stated that the society's council considers "it is now right to facilitate some changes", though it would prefer to see stepped or phased changes introduced. But it was surprisingly light on offering pragmatic solutions.

The society could no doubt argue its lack of prescription is a virtue - it is not prejudging the response from the public and will use the consultation, which ends on 31 January, to inform the process. But the Scottish Government still intends to respond to the OFT's recommendations by the end of this year. So is there a danger ministers will move ahead with their decision-making, without the benefit of clear directions emanating from the legal profession?

The profession has been looking to the Law Society to grasp the nettle on this issue, and provide leadership, and some much-needed certainty, for the marketplace.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, extended a clear invitation for the profession to take the lead, with the caveat that there was not the luxury of unlimited time. But the problem here appears to be that the Law Society is structured to need lots of time to respond to anything. Any decisions of significance need to be run past committees and its council.

And setting aside the current debate over market reforms, the Law Society's role is about to change markedly. When the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission opens next year, at a date still to be confirmed, it will be unburdened of its role in investigating service complaints from consumers.

Theoretically at least, this should free up resources and allow the society to focus on issues such as alternative business structures and the ongoing debate to overhaul legal education.

The society has statutory duties to regulate and represent the profession, bearing in mind the public interest. To have any hope of doing this effectively - in whatever brave new regulatory world we are about to enter - it will need to get its house in order in 2008.

In-fighting, legal aid fraud, theft, & dishonesty typifies poor standards of Scotland's legal profession.

Scotland certainly had an interesting week on the legal front ...

Developments in the World's End trial collapse saw the Lord Advocate & Lord Justice General kiss & make up after falling out over the Lord Advocate's shifting of blame from the usual Crown Office failures to judicial failures ...

The Lockerbie trial - that oh-so-honest international barometer of Scots justice which Westminster & Washington held up as a job well done against terrorism, saw allegations that witnesses were apparently offered millions of dollars for favorable testimony ... not a job well done then as it turns out

The Lord Advocate came in for more criticism she was trying to shield Colin Boyd from the promised inquiry into the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal, where some in the political & legal system decided it was in their best interests to persecute & fit up Shirley McKie, a then serving Detective with Strathclyde Police, than admit the SCRO got it wrong ...

.. and while the Scottish Legal Aid Board reluctantly troubled themselves to investigate a staggering £1.8million pound legal aid fraud, where the wife of the solicitor who was definitely on the fiddle, and committed suicide when investigations began into his activities, allegedly agreed to pay back the £1.8million pounds her late husband falsely claimed in legal aid payments from the taxpayer.

and of course not forgetting the Paralegal who is up in court for allowing a property to be used to sell drugs, and finally, the lawyer arrested in connection with the theft of Davinci's 500-year-old Madonna with the Yarnwinder, owned by the late Duke of Buccleuch.

My my .. .don't we have a great legal profession in Scotland, never out of trouble .. even with each other sometimes.

If they aren't stealing from the clients these days, they are stealing from the taxpayer, or helping themselves to antiquities of significant value .... a common enough occurrence in the Scottish Borders, where I once remember a lawyer's safe stashed with valuables from deceased clients ... if only those families of the deceased clients had done something about it ... or even if only they knew ...

Despite all of this, not much news out of the Scottish Government on reforming the legal profession, and stripping them of their prized regulatory powers, which are to be shared with the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which I'm sad to say, seems to be turning into a fairly crooked affair on it's own after word reached me today that a few of the usual suspects are being appointed on orders of the Law Society of Scotland to make sure crooked lawyers still get off the hook ...

Well, with the polluted incestuous system of 'lay membership' we have in Scotland, which the shiny new SNP Scottish Government hasn't tackled yet, and needs to soon, can we expect anything else ? How can justice be seen to be done with everyone sitting on each others committees ?

I wonder what people will think of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission when to act against the client interest just like the Law Society of Scotland when investigating complaints ... perhaps in the way some of you suggest in comments & emails which, for your own protection, and mine, I simply can't publish !

Perhaps even, clients should form their own investigative commission to look into complaints against lawyers, and then challenge the likes of the SLCC when it might perhaps, carry on the same culture of injustice where the Law Society left off ?

Finally, since it's Friday, here's a 20 minute video challenging the notion of mob rule in Jedburgh, my former town of residence in the Scottish Borders, where the youth have, allegedly run riot, terrorising elderly residents & tourists. The film has apparently been made by some of the young people in the town who want to put their own side of the story - something ex-provost and now SBC Tory Councillor Len Wyse didn't allow much when he was on the Community Council.

A few articles from the Scotsman & Herald this week relating to the above ...

Widow agrees to return £1.8m legal aid cash falsely claimed by solicitor

MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

A SOLICITOR "embellished" claims for legal aid in child welfare cases with false details of sex abuse to fraudulently obtain nearly £2 million, The Scotsman can reveal.

In Scotland's biggest-ever legal aid fraud, James Muir made false claims for public money in hundreds of child protection cases over seven years.

Mr Muir, who kept a low profile in the profession but was regarded as one of the country's most dedicated and experienced specialist child welfare lawyers, committed suicide after the police began investigating.

Details of the case have been kept secret for two years while the Scottish Government's civil recovery unit sought to reclaim the money from his estate.

Yesterday the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) announced that an agreement had been reached with Mr Muir's family that will see £1.8 million paid back to the public fund.

Last night politicians demanded answers over how such abuse could go undetected for so long.

SLAB claimed the "tragic case" was a one-off and insisted it had improved procedures for checking legal aid claims.

Mr Muir's wife Susan, believed to be a serving police officer, has sold the family's luxury home in Bothwell, Lanarkshire, to help pay back the money.

Mr Muir, 45, who ran his practice from his home, worked mainly as a custodian, or "safeguarder", for children and minors too young to manage their own affairs or represent themselves in court.

The Scotsman can reveal that from 1999 until 2005, he made false claims for legal aid in several hundred child welfare cases. At the outset, he was claiming an average of around £1,000 per case, but by the time he was caught, this had risen to £10,000. To justify the soaring claims, he "embellished" detailed application forms to the legal aid board with fabricated details of sex abuse. He even invented statements between social workers and police officers.

The fraud came to light after legal aid staff noticed his payments were steadily increasing.

Strathclyde Police obtained a warrant to search Mr Muir's home and office on 20 April, 2005. Later the same day his body was discovered on a railway line.

A source last night said: "Mr Muir had a niche market, being the only dedicated children's lawyer in the area. All the children existed in his claims, but he made up the grounds of referral from the Children's Reporter and they all, in effect, became sex abuse cases. This allowed him to embellish claims and increase the amount paid."

Another lawyer, who did not want to be named, added: "If this had been going on in the criminal court, people would have quickly suspected something was going on. But he was basically doing this work on his own and no-one asked questions.

"Everyone thought he was simply working and doing well for himself. When it came to light, I think the legal aid board was embarrassed and furious in equal measure."

Mr Muir was known to have taken on a large workload and on occasions carried out work he did not claim for.

Now, following a long and detailed investigation by the legal aid board and months of negotiations, it is understood that his widow has agreed to give back all £1.8m that her husband received in legal aid over the seven years.

Bill Aitken, the Conservatives' justice spokesman, said: "Little can be done to protect the legal aid fund from deliberate theft but the obvious question is: how was this allowed to go on so long without someone noticing?"

A spokesman for SLAB said steps had been taken to prevent such fraud going undetected for so long. The body's investigation unit had been beefed up with new staff, with closer attention now paid to claims from lawyers working in specialised areas.

Pauline McNeill, Labour's justice spokeswoman, said: "It's important that lessons are learned from this case."

LEGAL AID BILL COSTS TAXPAYERS MORE THAN £150 MILLION

SCOTLAND'S legal aid bill cost the public purse more than £150 million last year.

Criminal cases accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total, but the civil legal aid bill also rose, for the first time in three years. Last year's total legal aid bill was 2 per cent up on 2005 and brought spending to the second-highest ever level.

The figures were disclosed yesterday in the annual report of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It coincided with new proposals from the board and the Scottish Government to change the way solicitors are paid for legal aid in summary - or less serious - cases.

Under the proposals, there will be a "substantial" increase in payments to lawyers in the early stages of a case, with lesser rises for cases going to trial. This is intended to save money overall, as the system is said to favour "not guilty" pleas that are later changed.

The £150 million cost to the taxpayer was made up of £106.6 million on criminal cases, £39 million on civil cases and £4.5 million on children's legal assistance and contempt of court cases.

Over the past five years, total spending has gone up by 11 per cent, or £15 million, mostly because of a £13.6 million rise in the cost of criminal legal aid.

Announcing his intention to introduce the legal aid changes next spring, Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, said: "These proposals aim to save time and expense, to avoid wasted effort and to reduce the demands made on victims and witnesses."

Legal aid winners

DONALD Findlay, QC, has topped the list for legal aid payments to advocates, for the second year in a row, receiving £358,400 last year.

The Glasgow-based law firm Ross Harper topped the solicitors' list, also for the second year in a row, at £1.732 million - and 11 other firms of solicitors were paid more than £1 million each. Top-earning solicitor advocate was Iain Paterson of Paterson Bell Solicitors, with £219,300.

Ten advocates each earned more than £200,000 in 2006-7. They are Donald Findlay QC (£358,400), Ian Duguid QC (£321,600), Edgar Prais QC (£272,500), Mhairi Richards QC (£269,800), Paul McBride QC (£237,800), Gordon Jackson (£228,500), Derek Ogg QC (£213,300), Lorenzo Alonzi (£213,100), Ronaldo Renucci (£212,100) and Thomas Ross (£208,600).

Bill Aitken, the misplaced Tory Convener of Holyrood's only Justice Committee, for odd reasons, stating the obvious .. must have been through gritted teeth, criticising his friends in the legal profession .. now onto the crooked Paralegal .. yes there are plenty of those too ...

Law worker allowed flat to be used as 'drugs warehouse'

GORDON CURRIE

A FORMER employee of Renfrewshire Council's legal department turned a blind eye when she discovered that a flat she owned was being used as a distribution for cocaine.

Claire Feely, 32, a one-time paralegal with the local authority, used details of someone else's identity, taken from the local authority's database, to rent the property in Muirpark Street, Glasgow, then sub-let it to Derek Morrison for £150 a month.

During a huge police operation mounted last summer Morrison, a car dealer, was kept under surveillance, a court heard yesterday.

Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency officers recovered cocaine with a potential street value of over £800,000 during the raids that were mounted.

After gathering evidence, police arrested both Morrison and Feely and detained two others.

Police, acting on inside information, began watching Morrison, formerly of Elliott Street and now of Mossvale Street, Glasgow, over the summer last year.

The final pounce was mounted in August after Morrison had driven to properties associated with student Nikolas Guit, in Glassford Street and Sheila Street; and attended at the home of David Burke, a scene hand, in the city's Aray Street. Morrison, 30, admitted being concerned in the supply of the drug between 1 March and 24 August last year at the flat, described in court as a "drugs warehouse", and at his then home in Elliott Street, Glasgow.

The High Court in Paisley heard that police had found 15 one-kilogram packages of cocaine, concealed in a suitcase kept on top of a wardrobe.

A frying pan, hammer and scales, all stained with traces of cocaine, and various packages prepared for onward sale, were also retrieved.

Feely, who is now working as a hotel receptionist with the Holiday Inn group, was interviewed by police when they discovered her property had been let to Morrison.

She pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of cocaine between 1 March and 24 August at 6 Muirpark Street.

Burke, 35, now of Pitreavie Place, Glasgow, was found in possession of £800 worth of cocaine when officers raided his former address in Aray Street. He admitted he had been dealing and confessed he had a personal drugs habit that cost him £1,000 a day.

In court, he plead guilty to being concerned in the supply of the drug between 24 May and 24 August, 2006, at both Aray Street and Muirpark Street.

Guit, 32, was found with cocaine with a street value of £3,370 when police went to a second property he had in Glassford Street.

He admitted being concerned in the supply of the drug at both addresses on 24 August.

Yesterday judge Lord Kinclaven was told that a meticulous search of Morrison's home had also revealed correspondence relating to the purchase of another flat in Bulgaria.

Feely, he was told, had not been able to bring herself to tell any members of her family anything about the court case.

The judge remanded Morrison and Burke in custody after calling for background reports, and released Feely and Guit on bail.

All four will appear at the High Court in Edinburgh for sentencing on 31 October.

Law Society of Scotland touts high standards as lawyer gets 5 years jail

Philip Yelland, the Law Society of Scotland's Director of Client Relations, now Director of Regulation, never misses a chance to spin out unfortunate news coverage showing the Scottish legal profession to be anything but honest .. this time, in a case I covered earlier HERE of Shahid Pervez, who was sent to prison for five years & three months by Lord Hardie for giving a client who was charged with abduction & extortion, a false alibi.

The Scotsman newspaper quotes Mr Yelland - the infamous director of Client Relations at the Law Society of Scotland, responsible for seeing many crooked lawyers remain in practice as saying :

"On the incredibly rare occasions when a former member of the legal profession is caught on the wrong side of the law it is deeply regrettable.

Yes Mr Yelland - very regrettable since most solicitors who should actually be caught on the wrong side of the law escape it, due to professional interference, and a reluctance from the Crown Office even to prosecute the ranks of embezzlers, fraudsters, thieves, and even a few would be killers who seem to lurk in the Scottish legal profession these days ...

Mr Yelland again : "Mr Pervez's actions are especially disappointing when compared with the high standards that are so frequently displayed by the vast majority of the profession.

Which "High Standards" are those, Mr Yelland ? The same "high standards" which have generated more than 5000 complaints a year for well over a decade against the 9,500 solicitors in Scotland ... indicating that every single lawyer has a complaints history, with common instances such as (John O Donnell case) being quite common ...

Once more Mr Yelland : "Integrity and honesty are the core values expected in the legal profession."

Clearly Mr Yelland you have to be joking. No one believes you.

How about examples such as this Andrew Penman, this Turcan Connell, this John O'Donnell, this Angela Baillie, and even a solicitor who was bribing clients to put in legal aid claims to name but a few ...

Where lies the legal profession's "integrity & honesty" there mr Yelland ? Somewhere in the sewer perhaps ?

The same legal profession which threatened our elected Parliament & Scottish Executive with legal action over reforming complaints procedures in favour of consumers .... How do actions such as those qualify in the integrity & honesty stakes ?

Lord Hardie, whom as we know wanted to kill off any opening of access to legal services in Scotland when he was Lord Advocate, had his say too as the sentencing judge, quoted by the Scotsman, branding Mr Pervez "a disgrace to his profession, his family and the Asian community"

Not content with that, Lord Hardie, as reported in the Scotsman went on to say :

"You have pled guilty to an offence which strikes at the heart of justice by committing perjury in support of a false alibi for someone charged with a serious offence for whom a trial was fixed.

"The public is entitled to have the highest standard of integrity and honesty from lawyers, and you have betrayed that trust and besmirched the good name of solicitors."

The public is and has been entitled to expect the highest standards of integrity & honesty from lawyers for many years, your Lordship - but as the statistics and client experience shows, we have been getting the lowest standards of integrity (hardly any at all) and honesty has been virtually non existent, where the profession has covered up for its own at every turn.

So, we have an interesting case comparison here, where a lawyer, admitted his guilt of giving a client who was charged with various offences, a false alibi .. and was sent to jail by a judge ... but had the lawyer given a professional colleague an alibi for ripping off an elderly pensioner of her life savings & house .. the judge would have let him off, if indeed the case had ever got to the unlikely stage of a court trial.

Lawyers don't give other lawyers alibis when it comes to complaints though, do they ? Oh yes they do in the case of solicitor Andrew Penman.. and not only lawyers, but accountants too as we well know in the case of accountant Norman Howitt. Doctors, Police, and a few other professions who happen to be self regulator also seem to have the habit of providing a cover story for their colleagues when facing complaints or even criminal charges ...

How common is it for alibis to be spun out by lawyers for lawyers facing complaints ? The answer is, as I and many have found out through experience - Extremely common.

Lawyers regularly give other lawyers alibis when it comes to complaints - that's why so many complaints are dismissed by Mr Yelland's office .. from writing false representations and submitting false evidence in favour of solicitor colleagues to Complaints Committees, to harassing clients who have made complaints, to even threatening the lives of complainers .. lawyers in Scotland have certainly made a profitable industry out of saving their own colleagues skin when it comes to the issue of ripping off clients wholesale and getting away with it, carefully seeing the poor client never gets anywhere near a court.

Quite a few clients who have taken issue with their solicitors conduct, by way of making a complaint to the Law Society, have been made aware of such alibis provided by colleagues for the lawyer who was the subject of the particular complaint .. and surprise, every time an alibi was provided, it was believed over that of even overwhelming material evidence to the contrary. Another example of professional cover up for colleagues in a well trodden track at the Law Society of Scotland and other self regulators ...

Alas Mr Pervez did break the law by what he did, admitted to it, and was sentenced accordingly. That was the right thing to do of course - the law worked in this case, unevenly of course, when you consider the destruction many of his colleagues still in the legal profession have caused to so many clients over the years.

Does anyone think Lord Hardie should break this uneven working of the law, and start insisting that all solicitors who are found guilty of ripping off clients or engaging in all their other grand schemes to embezzle clients money, fiddle clients legal affairs, etc ... come up before the Court for a public trial & sentencing ?

Yes, at least I think that would be a good thing - much better sending a crooked lawyer to a jury trial than having them face the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, having little or no punishment administered in the name of covering up for one's own colleagues ...

The Justice Secretary could start the ball rolling by getting the Crown Office to prosecute more crooked lawyers ... and drop their professional reluctance to do so, or to even admit to how many lawyers have been charged with criminal offences over the years ...things which almost make one wonder whose side the Crown Office is really on ...

Perhaps the story of Mr Pervez, would have turned out slightly different if there had been more robust, independent regulation of the legal profession, with mechanisms in place for a solicitor to report receiving alleged threats from clients to give then an alibi or else .. but of course we know this kind of thing doesn't happen too often in the Scottish legal profession now .. don't we ...

Time for reform of the Scottish legal profession and fast, as the following Scotsman report clearly demonstrates ...

'You are a disgrace to your profession, your family and the Asian community'

ARNOT MCWHINNIE

A LAWYER who provided a "serious criminal" with a false alibi for his High Court trial went to prison for five years and three months yesterday.

Solicitor Shahid Pervez, 39, was branded by the judge, Lord Hardie, as "a disgrace to his profession, his family and the Asian community".

He told Pervez: "You have pled guilty to an offence which strikes at the heart of justice by committing perjury in support of a false alibi for someone charged with a serious offence for whom a trial was fixed.

"As a result, the trial was adjourned for investigation and the accused was allowed bail and is now a fugitive from justice," Lord Hardie went on.

"The public is entitled to have the highest standard of integrity and honesty from lawyers, and you have betrayed that trust and besmirched the good name of solicitors."

Pervez, of Crookston, Glasgow, admitted attempting to pervert justice by providing the man who was accused of abduction and extortion, with a false alibi in 2005.

In a sworn statement, Pervez, a conveyancing solicitor, said the man was in his office discussing an insurance claim at the time the crime was committed.

Paul McBride, QC, defending, described the man who was given the alibi, who cannot be named for legal reasons, as a "significant player" who inspired fear amongst criminals.

He said a terrified Pervez agreed to provide the alibi because the man threatened his life and the lives of his family.

Mr McBride's comment that it was an "absolute tragedy" for the lawyer prompted a remark from Lord Hardie: "It is also an absolute tragedy for the course of justice."

He said that after he was threatened, Pervez should have reported the matter to police and he told Mr McBride that if the rule of law was ignored the courts would be governed by criminals.

Lord Hardie said: "The rule of law is greater than any of us, and in this case it hasn't prevailed because there is a fugitive from justice as a result of Pervez's actions."

The Law Society of Scotland, the ruling body of the country's solicitors, described Pervez's action as "regrettable" and "disappointing".

Philip Yelland, its director of regulation, said: "On the incredibly rare occasions when a former member of the legal profession is caught on the wrong side of the law it is deeply regrettable.

"Mr Pervez's actions are especially disappointing when compared with the high standards that are so frequently displayed by the vast majority of the profession.

"Integrity and honesty are the core values expected in the legal profession.

"Clearly, Mr Pervez has betrayed those values."

Pervez has since resigned from his practice at the firm of Belton Pervez in Victoria Road, Glasgow, and is no longer a solicitor.

Lord Hardie told Pervez that in sentencing him he was taking into account the fact that he had given evidence for the Crown in the trial of a Glasgow policeman.

The officer, who also cannot be named for legal reasons, allegedly tried to buy a witness's silence in the fugitive's trial with a £50,000 bribe.

The constable was found not guilty.

Legal Ombudsman criticises legal profession for persistent failure to deal with complaints as clients call for independent review

The final report from the outgoing Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, Jane Irvine, informs the legal profession they must take action before responsibility for complaints monitoring passes to the new Legal Services Complaints Commission, on issues such as using the question of the legitimacy of using different tests - ie criminal and legal - for different types of complaint where moving towards a civil model, with earlier recognition that practice and conduct must be improved is preferred.

Have the legal profession ever listened to the SLSO in the past ? Well, not much , and many or most of the SLSO's recommendations over the years have been thrown out or dismissed by the Law Society of Scotland as being not applicable or 'incompetent in terms of law (referring to the rather prejudiced laws which have allowed the Law Society to self regulate the legal profession into oblivion & see an annual complaints rate of 5000 plus a year against less than 10,000 lawyers).

In short, the Law Society of Scotland have known best what's good for itself and the legal profession - so it hasn't needed anyone to tell it otherwise. A fine demonstration indeed of a self regulator used to do as it pleases without the need for accountability to anyone.

Examining cases of the past, the Law Society have even went back on implementing many of the Ombudsman's previous recommendations they said they would implement, and in some cases, actually sought and gained changes to at least one previous Ombudsman's reports against the way investigations were handled, in the most highly prejudiced situations where at Complaints hearings before Committees, clients who filed complaints were denied representation while the lawyers complained against had senior Law Society Council members ordering Complaints Committees to find their rather crooked solicitor colleagues not guilty ... and of course, Complaints Committees did as they were told, despite the presence of even lay members who were of no use for the public interest...

If only perhaps the Legal Services Ombudsman had been given strong powers of oversight & enforcement in the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990 - the Act which brought the SLSO's office into being, rather than only have been allowed to make non binding recommendations, then perhaps more would have been done and the Law Society of Scotland's self regulation of complaints over the years wouldn't have generated the lowest standards possible for Scotland's legal profession, which has seen an annual rate of some 5000 plus complaints against it's less than 10,000 solicitors for more than a decade now.

However, it is heartening to see that the previous Legal Services Ombudsman, Linda Costello Baker, and now Jane Irvine have taken more of a robust approach to criticising the legal profession for it's regulatory woes and insidiously corrupt treatment of client complains, rather than play along with the Law Society which the likes of Garry S Watson, the Legal Services Ombudsman of the 1990's, who failed the Scottish public miserably as the official charged with oversight of how the Law Society regulated complaints against it's members.

Indeed, Mr Watson was so enamored with the Law Society of Scotland, he regularly wrote reports praising self regulation of the legal profession and said there could be no other model for the way lawyers regulated complaints against lawyers ! .. good thing Mr Watson is no longer in office then .. but he did migrate his services to the equally corrupt self regulatory world of Scottish accountants, having a position on Complaints Committees of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and also ending up as the first (temporary) Standards Adviser to the Scottish Parliament - where as we all know, corruption in addressing the behaviour of msps and constituents complaints has been about as bad as the way the Law Society regulates solicitors.

Perhaps many of the cases which the Legal Services Ombudsman was not able to have returned to the Law Society or be properly addressed could be attended to by the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, or a properly formed independent commission to look into the injustice of the legal profession against client complaints of the past ... as in here: Petition PE1033

However, there is a wider issue here, and that of course is the concept of self regulation itself - a concept which is abused by every profession which is allowed to self regulate itself, depriving the public of any measure of transparency, accountability or honesty in dealing with complaints and poor service.

Taking Self regulation of the legal profession as an example of how professions abuse this right to investigate complaints against their colleagues, it is now a well documented fact that the Law Society of Scotland has produced so much public dissatisfaction with lawyers over the years, new legislation in the form of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 has been introduced to bring much needed reforms, after long & difficult campaigns by those victims who have suffered & continue to suffer injustice at the hands of the legal profession, combined with help from consumer bodies such as the Scottish Consumer Council.

The poor example the Law Society of Scotland have set as a self regulator of their own profession, is true for all the other self regulators, being a good advertisement for an end to self regulation across the board of the professions.

Many of the issues of corrupt self regulation have seen colleague cover up for colleague, and so-called 'lay members' who get themselves on a multitude of similar regulatory committees acting in anything but the public interest which they are supposedly planted on these various self regulating profession's Complaints Committees.

Perhaps a good test of our new Scottish Executive would be whether they will end this insidious culture of self preservation at all costs generated by these professions who are allowed to self regulate themselves totally against the public interest and get by, surviving on the fact they have no credible oversight or accountability to anyone but themselves which is a convenience akin to allowing criminals to judge each other rather than bother sending them to Court.

Why for instance, would anyone argue that a client, who had been through the maze of complaining against a crooked lawyer, or for another example, a crooked accountant, should seek legal representation & advice if they wish to remedy any losses or negligence caused by the failure of the lawyer, accountant, or whichever profession was involved, given the well known facts by all that legal representation is almost impossible to obtain when trying to get a lawyer to sue a lawyer - or even a lawyer to sue an accountant (when many senior members of the legal profession migrate themselves onto such bodies as ICAS, the accountants regulator) and take a hand in giving the same treatment of injustice to clients of accountants which clients of solicitors have experienced for decades at the hands of the Law Society.

A task for the Mr Salmond's new Executive should be to end this corrupt pot of self regulator's power over the consumer, right across the board of the professions, and not to bend to threats or lobbying from those same professions to leave them as they are to go on saving their colleagues from serious client complaints, and even covering up issues involving criminal offences from complaints investigations.

Articles from the Herald & Scotsman to follow :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/law/display.var.1494761.0.0.php

Scottish legal services watchdog urges profession to improve service
DAVID BLACK June 25 2007

SCOTLAND'S outgoing legal services watchdog has urged the professional bodies to improve their focus on the consumer.

Jane Irvine, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, believes the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates must take action before responsibility for complaints monitoring passes to the new Legal Services Complaints Commission.

Commenting on today's publication of her annual report, she said: "There are a number of points highlighted on which both bodies could act now to improve the service they provide to consumers. (They) must address the question of the legitimacy of using different tests - ie criminal and legal - for different types of complaint. I question if the criminal test should be used within a system concerned with regulating professionals and believe we must move towards a civil model, with earlier recognition that practice and conduct must be improved.

As part of this shift, The adoption of mediation as an alternative means of resolving disputes would be an enormously beneficial step forward for the profession and for the public."

Irvine (pictured) also challenged the profession to address the way it deals with complaints about service and fees. "Complaints often arise where fees are taken from client accounts without notice," she added. "In addition, many complaints challenge not just service quality but also the fees charged.

In effect, the consumer is saying they did not receive the quality of service they paid for, yet the profession persists with a system which differentiates the two. I don't think this can be justified."

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=989512007

Report criticises solicitors' 'weak' code of conduct

JENNIFER VEITCH

THE legal profession is still failing to grasp the need for a greater consumer focus and is hampered by a "weak" code of conduct for solicitors, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman has warned. In her annual report published today, Jane Irvine urges the profession to "take the initiative" and act now to improve services, before changes are enforced by the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which is due to open next year.

Irvine, whose own post will be abolished when the new commission becomes the single "gateway" for handling service complaints about both solicitors and advocates, suggests a raft of measures that she argues could not only improve services for consumers but also "the standing of the legal profession".

The independent watchdog wants the Law Society of Scotland to draw up "clear, simple and flexible" standards for the profession, to ensure consumers have greater clarity about the standard of service they can expect from lawyers. The society has already set up a working group to set new standards, drawing on its existing code of conduct and guidelines for the profession.

Yet Irvine criticises the existing code as "weakened by lengthy definitions and exclusions" and its practice rules and guidelines as a "patchwork... sprinkled with confusing exclusions".

Neither provides a clear enough framework of quality standards, she says, with the result that "lawyers are regulated against low standards", despite the fact individual firms may set their own higher benchmarks.

Irvine has also challenged the profession to address the issue of the relationship between standards of service and fees charged to clients. Currently, the Law Society will not investigate complaints that relate only to the level of fee charged by a firm.

But Irvine argues that consumers see a clear link between the level of fee charged and the standard of service delivered, and her report highlights the society's "reluctance to consider that a complaint about fees may actually be a complaint about service".

"Legal service complaints often arise where fees are taken from client accounts without notice," she says. "In addition many complaints challenge not just service quality, but also fees charged.

"In effect the consumer is saying that they did not receive the quality of service they paid for, yet the profession persists with a system that differentiates the two.

"I don't think this can be justified, and believe the profession has to recognise the reality of what complaints are actually about."

Irvine also questions whether a "criminal" burden of proof of reasonable doubt should apply during investigation of complaints. The criminal test is currently used by the Faculty of Advocates when investigating all complaints and by the society when looking into misconduct complaints.

She suggests that a civil test would be more appropriate for the regulation of legal professionals. "I particularly believe the professions must address the question of the legitimacy of using different tests - criminal and civil - for different types of complaint," she says.

"I question if the criminal test should be used within a system concerned with regulating professionals and believe we must move towards a civil model, with earlier recognition that practice and conduct must be improved, allied with appropriate outcomes that suit all parties."

Speaking to The Scotsman, Irvine suggested substituting a civil test for a criminal test might make it easier to intervene at an earlier stage, when solicitors start experiencing problems, and before the situation reaches a crisis point.

"If we use a criminal test, it is a very high burden and it means we don't do anything until it's got to a very bad problem," she says. "For example, if you have a solicitor who is stressed and maybe has problems at home and therefore his work goes to pot, if you can get someone early on, you can start bringing someone back into the fold, rather than wait until he has done some awful thing."

In the year 2006-7, the Law Society received 3,623 complaints and 392 of these resulted in a complaint to the ombudsman. Due to a backlog, a total of 529 complaints were managed and 451 were investigated.

A third of complainers said they were dissatisfied with law society processes, 24 per cent were unhappy with the way evidence was used or interpreted and 11 per cent complained of bias.

While acknowledging some areas of good practice by the society - including an "increased willingness to try to resolve difficult issues by dialogue" - Irvine states in her report that the reasons for complaints are consistent with previous years. In an accompanying discussion paper presented to ministers, she concludes: "Overall, the constant theme of letters to me has remained lack of trust in the Law Society of Scotland. Clients simply do not believe an institutional 'members' body can deal with consumer complaints fairly."

Irvine highlights a raft of areas that need to be improved or are causing difficulty for consumers. These include limited resources, that she believes are "preventing resolution of complaints by explanation or conciliation" and "widely differing" standards of investigation reports.

She also criticises confusion over what inadequate professional service actually means, what she terms the society's "ready acceptance" of destruction of files by firms under investigation following a complaint, and the society's "cumbersome decision-making forums".

While the ombudsman's office will be abolished after the commission is set up, Irvine says she remains committed to maintaining the pressure on the profession to drive up standards during the transition.

John MacKinnon, the Law Society's new president, has already said his "priority" for the coming year will be to set standards before the commission opens for business. A working group has been set up and is primed to make recommendations at the society's annual general meeting in March.

Legal profession targets Scottish Executive to protect its business, demanding right of audience & death to public interest reforms

What's in the new minister's legal in-tray ? asks the Scotsman newspaper today .. and one would expect from that a whole host of issues relating to public interest and the well known general failure of Scottish Law to tackle anything transparently these days ... however, there's none of that as the Law edition of the Scotsman uses the article to lobby against change or even the very idea of reforms to the monopolistic business model of the Law Society of Scotland ... dictating who has access to justice and who does not.

The first 'question' - you may suppose, comes possibly from a lawyer, asking, or perhaps better put .. demanding clarification, that Kenny MacAskill, the new Justice Minister, "is a friend of the legal profession in Scotland and will give proper weight to representations from the Law Society of Scotland, and lawyers generally on matters of interest to the profession such as the Purchaser's Information Pack, and any further proposed reforms of the profession, and does he agree it is now time to give the profession a break from the incessant interference it has endured from Holyrood since its inception? ".

Instead of just being a friend to the legal profession, how about the idea that Kenny MacAskill might be a friend of everyone in Scotland ?

I have of course in mind, the rest of the country other than just the lawyers, who have an interest in the Justice system, including those victims who have suffered at the hands of the very same legal profession which now seeks ... or as things seem to be heading, demands Mr MacAskill's loyalty and attention on issues it sees fit - including of course, the issue of regulation of the legal profession, which everyone knows is the most cherished prize of Scottish lawyers - to regulate themselves and cover up complaint after complaint against crooked lawyers....

"giving proper weight to representations from the Law Society of Scotland, and lawyers generally on matters of interest to the profession" .. now, what does that entail I hear you ask ?

Well, if perhaps Mr MacAskill doesn't give proper weight to representations from the Law Society of Scotland and their merry band of crooks, perhaps they will stick him on a rendition flight to Drumsheugh Gardens for some electrical treatment ? or even worse, face another Court challenge threat from Douglas Mill, the Law Society Chief Executive who famously last year threatened the Executive and Parliament over the passage of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007

"does he agree it is now time to give the profession a break from the incessant interference it has endured from Holyrood since its inception?..."

What interference from Holyrood exactly now is that ? ah yes .. perhaps 'Donald' is referring to David Mcletchie's Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill - which was actually welcomed by David Preston, the then President of the Law Society in 2003 ,who said in the Law Society's own Press Release : "This will allow the Law Society of Scotland to modernise and improve its procedures and will implement some of the recommendations made in the Justice 1 Committee's report on regulation of the Scottish Legal profession published last year"

Perhaps not then ... as that Bill was actually steamrollered through the Scottish Parliament and thrust down the Executive's throat by the Law Society itself, along with support from several MSPs. The main sponsor of the "Council of the Law Society of Scotland Bill" was David McLetchie MSP (former Tory leader caught swindling the taxpayer over his Taxi expenses and certain conflicts of interest, and the Bill was also supported by Roseanna Cunningham, MSP, Donald Gorrie, MSP and Pauline McNeill, MSP ... perhaps MSPs to look out for in terms of their support of the legal profession then ?

Obvoiusly then 'Donald' from Glasgow is referring to the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 ... which of course seeks to deprive Scotland's crooked legal profession from self regulating complaints against it's own members .. a right they have enjoyed for far too long which the Law Society has used to keep armies of crooked lawyers in practice while clients get ripped off,, victimised ,intimidated and ruined

Ex-Judge Lord McCluskey also joins in the questions to Mr MacAskill, this time signing his Lordship as being Edinburgh based, instead of at the House of Lords in Westminster as he did earlier in the year in the Scotsman in a a letter condemning the previous Scottish Executive for "disregarding expert opinion on the draft law reform bill" .. which roughly translated, comes out as 'disregarding dictates from the Judiciary on any changes which make it more accountable or transparent'

Lord McCluskey is of course no stranger to effectively making policy dictates to the Government, which today we are treated to as :

"Will the minister be sure to take the time to read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession in Scotland (Chairman Lord Hughes) before taking any further decisions about changes in relation to the structures and institutions of the legal profession?

Lord McCluskey, Edinburgh "

Why not just come out and say it, your Lordship ... the Judiciary doesn't want any change to the way it operates - accountable only to itself and of course, the Judiciary does not want any change to the way lawyers make their money or how the Law Society of Scotland has incessantly fiddled complaints against crooked lawyers, because of course, Judges are lawyers themselves, members of the same Law Society of Scotland .. some of whom go on to be advocates, then sit on the bench, keeping their dark regulatory histories secret from the rest of us so they can advance to the ultimate positions unchecked ...

Are we back to Reforming Scotland's Judiciary at the point of a Judge's Gun again ? Lord McCluskey ? Does nothing change in the legal profession, even though the people of Scotland have voted for change ?

It's time to bring change to the way our legal profession has run the justice system and public access to it for all these decades - and if the new Justice Minister wants some ideas on issues to look at, how about subjects like these :

How about tackling the issue of lay member recruitment for all these self regulatory bodies such as the Law Society, where the same people staff regulatory committees of many different professions & public bodies, making it an industry for themselves while consumers suffer constant injustice as lay members sit by & do nothing

How about reviewing & compensating the victims of injustice by the legal profession itself ? there are ideas, such as my own Petition PE1033 to review the legal profession's sins of the past and properly review, investigate and compensate those ruined by crooked lawyers who have been allowed to go on practicing as lawyers, even ruin a few more clients in the process

Also, there is the issue of small claims, and why the legal profession has lobbied to keep it low for so long - to make sure the public have to use a lawyer to recover anything more than £750 .. and of course, spend a lot more than £750 using a lawyer to do it.

There needs to be a new culture of oversight, accountability and transparency at bodies such as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Committee, where serious injustice to people in the Courts does not always get a fair hearing.

The Crown Office, that well known ogre of incompetence, cover up & injustice also awaits significant reform as it seems to excel in issues of corruption itself , covering up cases involving it's own staff, fellow members of the legal profession, and victimising anyone who takes issue with its actings ...

How about an inquiry into why Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990 which were designed to open up access to justice and the legal services market, were held back by lobbying from the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates because of course opening up access to legal services would affect the profits of lawyers & advocates .. and of course, that such an inquiry would look into why previous Scottish Executives acquiesced to the wishes of the legal profession in this restriction of public access to legal services which even former Lord Advocate Lord Hardie seemingly agreed with denying increased competition & public access to legal markets

Instead of just having ASBOs - the now well known Anti Social Behaviour Order, how about instituting an ACBO - an Anti Corruption Behaviour Order to tackle the likes of crooked lawyers and crooked businessmen out to fleece the public & taxpayer at every turn ?

It would be so nice to have Lord McCluskey's support, whether he bases himself in London or Edinburgh, on some of these issues instead of just badgering or fingering the Executive on issues of 'don't reform the legal profession or judiciary, or else' ... after all, shouldn't an ex-judge speak for all of us not just his colleagues on the bench or in the legal profession, in the interests of justice, fairness & our interests as the Scottish public, of course ?

Where lies the victims of injustice in your words of wisdom to our elected Government, Lord McCluskey ?

Here is the article from today's Scotsman:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=948582007

What's in the new minister's legal in-tray?

KENNY MACASKILL, the new cabinet secretary for justice, answers your questions.

WILL the minister confirm that, unlike the impression given by the previous regime, he is a friend of the legal profession in Scotland and will give proper weight to representations from the Law Society of Scotland, and lawyers generally, on matters of interest to the profession such as the Purchaser's Information Pack, and any further proposed reforms of the profession, and does he agree it is now time to give the profession a break from the incessant interference it has endured from Holyrood since its inception?

Donald, Glasgow

MACASKILL: Law is a vital part of Scottish history, identity and life. We live in a changing world and the legal profession must change with it. But I want to work with the profession to allow it to better serve Scotland as well as its members.

At present the government is in the process of implementing the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act. Establishing the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and getting it off to the best possible start is the priority. We are not proposing any further regulatory reform at the moment.

However, I also think it is wrong to see the profession as a single homogenous group. It is diverse and I need to take account of the range of views within it. I know there are different ideas about whether we should introduce alternative business structures. I want to listen seriously to everyone concerned before we make decisions.

With regard to the Purchaser's Information Pack, the legal profession has been involved throughout the development of the proposals. We are keen to work with all of the stakeholders as we take the proposals forward. The previous administration's intention was to introduce the Single Survey before the end of 2008. Ministers will consider the way forward for these proposals in light of the responses received from the consultation.

What do you see as the future for the antisocial behaviour legislation? Do you consider it is working effectively to eradicate neighbourhood crime in Scotland and, if not, what change do you think is necessary for it and the criminal justice system to attempt to achieve that objective?

Jane Dewar, Highlands

MACASKILL: First of all, I want to make clear that this government intends to build on many of the reforms of the last administration. The Antisocial Behaviour Act has now been in force for three years and in some areas is making a real difference to the quality of people's lives across Scotland. Many neighbourhoods have got some much-needed respite from antisocial actions as a result of closure orders, and penalty notices for noise nuisance have given thousands some well-deserved peace.

However, we also need to tackle the factors that cause so much of the low-level crime and antisocial behaviour that blight communities - particularly the three "D"s of drink, drugs, and deprivation. And we need to provide more positive things for young people to do, promoting good social behaviour as well as punishing the bad.

That's why now is an appropriate time to take a fresh look at the antisocial behaviour strategy to see where it can be strengthened and improved - and how we can get greater community involvement. Local agencies are responsible for promoting community safety and tackling antisocial behaviour at the local level. We plan to review how we fund them and monitor their performance to ensure continuing progress is made.

Hand in hand with that, we will also strengthen frontline policing to ensure neighbourhood crime is dealt with through the criminal justice system, wherever appropriate. The results of ongoing evaluations of antisocial behaviour orders and dispersal powers will feed into this wider review of our community safety strategy, which in turn will complement the wider programme of summary justice reform. In all of this, our aim will be to instil a culture of personal responsibility at the heart of safe, strong communities.

Will the minister be sure to take the time to read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession in Scotland (Chairman Lord Hughes) before taking any further decisions about changes in relation to the structures and institutions of the legal profession?

Lord McCluskey, Edinburgh

MACASKILL: This government does not have a monopoly on good ideas. So we will look for fresh thinking and new approaches from across the country - as well as the widest range of research.

I will want to consider a range of sources, such as the report by the Research Working Group on the Legal Services Market in Scotland. The Hughes Commission dates back to 1980, and in some respects it has been overtaken by events. An example would be the extension of rights of audience to solicitor-advocates. The Royal Commission then recommended maintaining the status quo, but solicitor-advocates are now well-established and doing an excellent job. The Faculty of Advocates has shown it can cope with the extra competition. That does not mean there is not still plenty of material in the Royal Commission's report, which remains as relevant as ever.

The most important thing will be to have a proper informed debate about the future of our institutions and how best they can contribute to the success of the country. I will seek to listen to and work with individuals such as Lord McCluskey.

Levels of Lay Membership on new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission questioned as lawyers begin attempt to plant allies in positions

Even during this formation stage of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the likes of the Law Society of Scotland and the rest of the Scottish legal profession are certainly up to the mark on their dirty tricks campaign, this time, by 'putting the word out' to get friendly appointments to the "Lay Member" positions of the new independent SLCC, which will take the place of the Law Society of Scotland to independently manage, investigate & oversee the complaints process against crooked lawyers as mandated in the new Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007

Allegations are circulating that ex-Committee members of the Law Society of Scotland have been 'encouraged' to put in applications to join the new SLCC as "Lay Members" .. and with the Law Society not obliged to disclose any records of individuals who have served in such a capacity .. or even be related to those who have .. it will be a tricky procedure to weed out the 'planted' friends of the legal profession who make it to the "Lay Member" positions on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

There are further 'anomalies' which have crept into the "Lay Member" appointments process ... just take a look at this rather strange development ...

Compare the following, which comes from the report of the Justice 2 Committee itself at the Scottish Parliament, proposing a "majority of SLCC will be lay persons appointed by Scottish Ministers unlike the comparator professions examined where professionals are in the majority "

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/reports-06/j2r06-11-Vol01-03.htm

It is proposed that a majority of SLCC will be lay persons appointed by Scottish Ministers, unlike the comparator professions examined where professionals are in the majority."

with this, which comes from the recruitment advertisement from the Scottish Executive itself :

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/public-bodies/SLCC-Members-06Jun07

Scottish Ministers require to appoint a Chairing Member and eight other Members, four of whom must be lawyers, to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session.

Something very strange going on here then ... because a Committee stuffed by four lawyers, doesn't really meet up to the spirit of "a majority of lay persons", as mentioned in the Justice 2 Committee report ... where proposals seem to have been for two lawyer members rather than the now four ... where did the other two lawyer members come from ? .. lobbying from the legal profession ?

In fact, this ratio of lay members to lawyers, albeit as proposed in the new SLCC Committee, having a Chairing member who is not a lawyer, but paradoxically whose appointment is agreed to by the oh-so-impartial Lord President ... is getting near to the set up of the Complaints Committee framework of the Law Society of Scotland .. which itself has allowed swathes of crooked lawyers to go unpunished, ripping off everyone in sight and yet being allowed to continue in practice, giving some publicised examples from 5000 complaints a year against crooked lawyers in Scotland such as the following :

EXCLUSIVE : LAWYER SUED FOR £1MILLION & REVEALED: TOP LAWYER AT THE CENTRE OF 12 NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS &
Law Society of Scotland rejects complaint over estate ruined by huge legal fees & Scottish Legal Awards - Lawyer Lawyer on the wall, who is the most crooked of us all ? & Lawyer caught in media sting bribing clients to defraud Legal Aid Board - the tip of an iceberg .. to name but a few ...

There is of course, a problem with the Lay Member circuit - with many people on this cirtuit making it an industry for themselves to get placed on as many Committees as possible, and I covered these very dangerous revelations here :

Restrictions required on the interests of lay members in the world of self regulation Restrictions required on the interests of lay members in the world of self regulation

and as luck would have it, a demonstration of just how many of the various profession's corrupt self regulators are linked, the Herald newspaper revealed that ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, were stuffing their own Committees with lawyers on the somewhat unbelievable argument of 'ensuring public interest'

I covered the revelations on the Committee placement tactics of the accountancy profession here : Fears over corrupt self regulation as accountants regulator draft in ex Law Society President and solicitor as Public Interest members.

Another excerpt from the Justice 2 Committee report tells us :

"While one can trust OCPAS to ensure that due process is observed, there is a prior issue as to how lay members emerge in the first place, newspaper advertisements seeming to be the usual method. The task is one of encouraging a wide and diverse range of people who do not have particular axes to grind. "

What & who exactly is that 'wide and diverse range of people who do not have particular axes to grind" ?

I hope we aren't going to get friends or relatives of those who serve on other Committees as so called "Lay Members" .. .or indeed, ex lay members of other regulatory Committees or those who have served the legal profession placed as lay members on the new SLCC .. .because if so, what justice will that bring ? .. none.

I think it's time the new Scottish Executive looked at the framework for these Committees and particularly the appointments of lay members, who you can see, certainly seem to proliferate themselves onto as many positions as possible - amazingly without the issues of conflict of interest ever cropping up - where in any other walk of life, it certainly would.

How about having actual victims of injustice on these Committees as lay members - or at least as oversight members, to ensure the voice of the public and the very victims themselves is heard over those of people who would rather appease their friends in the professions and pick up a few awards & decorations for doing so over the years.

I say - reduce the lawyer membership to two .. we don't need four bullying lawyers lobbying for their colleagues in the legal profession on the Committee of the new independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, just as they have done so for all those years at the Law Society of Scotland ...

Here is the recruiting advertisement for the lay member positions of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

If you have had bad experience at the hands of the Law Society of Scotland and crooked lawyers, maybe you should put in an application to join ! ... or at least write to the new Scottish Executive asking that the process be a lot more transparent than it seems to be at the moment.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/public-bodies/SLCC-Members-06Jun07

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION (SLCC) - APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRING MEMBER AND MEMBERS

Scottish Ministers require to appoint a Chairing Member and eight other Members, four of whom must be lawyers, to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) in consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session.

The SLCC will be established by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. The main functions of the Commission are to resolve complaints alleging inadequate professional service or negligence, to refer complaints which allege professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct to the relevant professional body and to promote good practice in complaints handling.

Scottish Ministers expect the Commission to be operational in late 2008 and the appointment of the Commission members will be made in Autumn 2007.

Remuneration: £298 per day for the Chairing Member.

£202 per day for the position of Member.

Travel and subsistence costs and reasonable receipted childcare and dependent carer expenses directly related to the Commission's work will be reimbursed. Any pension provision will be a matter for the Commission itself to determine with the approval of the Scottish Ministers.

Time commitment: Initially 4-6 days a month for the Chairing Member while the Commission is being established. This may reduce when the Commission is in full operation. Other Members are likely to serve up to 4 days a month.

Location of meetings: Normally at the Commission, the location of which will be decided by Scottish Ministers.

Chairing Member

The Chairing Member will be appointed for 5 years and can not be a lawyer. Under statute, appointments are not renewable on expiry. The Scottish Ministers seek to appoint a Chairing Member who has a successful track record in leading the strategic development of an organisation (in the pubic, private or voluntary sectors), and would particularly welcome applicants with skills and knowledge of setting up and leading a new organisation or leading an established organisation through a substantial change programme. Applicants for Chairing Member should also meet the criteria set out below for non-lawyer Members and the general criteria.

Lawyer Members

Two Lawyer Members will be appointed for 4 years and two for 6 years in order to ensure that new appointments are staggered. Under statute, appointments are not renewable on expiry.

The Lawyer Members must be either a solicitor, advocate or conveyancing or executry practitioner or have acquired rights to conduct litigation or a right of audience by virtue of section 27 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Three Lawyer Members must have practised in one of these categories, or any combination of them. One Lawyer Member must fall into the specified categories but need not have actively practised. In selecting Members, particularly but not exclusively Lawyer Members, the Scottish Ministers are to have regard to the desirability of including:

* Persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, the practice and provision of legal education and training;
* Persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in
* (a) civil or criminal proceedings;
* (b) court procedures and practice generally;
* (c) the practice and provision of other legal services;
* (d) the monitoring of legal services.

Non-lawyer Members

Two non-lawyer Members will be appointed for 4 years and two for 6 years in order to ensure that new appointments are staggered. Under statute, appointments are not renewable on expiry.

There are no specific qualifications for appointment of non-lawyer Members. In appointing Members, the Scottish Ministers are to have regard to the desirability of including:

* Persons who have experience of and have shown capacity in
* (a) consumer affairs or complaints handling;
* (b) the provision of advice to members of the public on or in relation to such matters.

General criteria

In addition, the Scottish Ministers will have regard to the desirability of including Members, whether lawyers or not, who together have sufficient knowledge at senior level of corporate governance. The Scottish Ministers will seek to select a balanced Commission, offering collectively, skills and knowledge in human resources, finance and information technology, change management, diversity issues, and customer service.

For an information pack and application form please see the contact details below. Application packs are available in alternative formats on request. You should provide your name, address and the vacancy that you are interested in.

Public Appointments, PO Box 26867, Glasgow G4 7BG

Telephone: 0870 240 1818

Fax: 0870 600 4111

E-mail: publicappointments@response-handling.com

SMS text message: 0796 013 3181

Closing date for applications is 6th July 2007.

Appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland. All applicants must complete and submit the application form contained in the application pack in order for it to be considered for appointment. Please note that application forms sent electronically will be in Word format and, if returning electronically, will only be accepted in that format.

The Scottish Executive is committed to equality of opportunity and encouraging a diverse range of applicants for public appointments, reflecting the best of contemporary Scotland and to the principle of public appointments on merit with independent assessment, openness and transparency of process. For more information about public appointments and other vacancies visit the Scottish Executive's website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/government/publicbodies.

oh .. and if to emphasise the Law Society of Scotland and Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal are still letting crooked lawyers off the hook and able to continue making money from unsuspecting clients .. here's another recent article from the Sunday Mail :

LAWYER GUILTY : Watchdogs say he sold homes for drug accused But he escapes with £5k fine and dodges ban
By Russell Findlay

A LAWYER has been rapped for helping an alleged drug-dealer sell three homes before they could be seized by Customs in a dirty money probe.

Legal watchdogs found Robert Thomas guilty of professional misconduct for disposing of property owned by Michael Beacom.

But the dodgy brief escaped with a £5000 fine and still works as a solicitor.

A damning finding by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal states: "The tribunal considered that a solicitor in these circumstances must have thought that what he was being asked to do was attempting to assist someone in the commission of a crime.

"The tribunal considered that this was a grave offence in that the respondent proceeded either with the knowledge of what he was doing or with recklessness.

"For a solicitor to attempt to assist a client to commit a criminal offence is extremely reprehensible conduct."

Beacom was jailed for six years over a cannabis haul seized by Customs, though the conviction was later quashed.

Before his trial, Customs investigators visited Thomas, 58, with a court order demanding access to his client's files.

The order was designed to prevent solicitors disposing of a criminal's assets which could be seized.

But when Customs returned to Thomas' old firm, Robert Thomas &Caplan, they found a flat in Argyle Street, Glasgow, had been sold.

And a cottage near Helensburgh and a share of a flat in Glasgow's west end had been transferred to Beacom's brother.

The lawyer's actions led to him facing trial on money laundering charges four years ago.

During the trial, Bruce Ritchie, director of professional practice for the Law Society, said: "He should not have acted in the details of any property disposition for this client.

"My professional opinion would have been not to have touched this case. He should have known better."

Sheriff Rita Rae ruled there was not enough evidence and threw the case out.

Law Society chiefs launched their own probe but despite finding Thomas guilty of helping dispose of criminal assets, the tribunal did not have him struck off.

Instead he was fined £5000 and ordered to have his worked supervised by his employers until 2011.

Thomas, now working for Campbell Sievewright & Co in Glasgow, last night refused to comment.