Lord Gill : 'Victorian' justice system fails public as soaring injustice & poor legal services undermine credibility of Scots law.

Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill. Scotland's Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill, in his speech to the recent Law Society of Scotland's 60th Anniversary conference, told the delegates a few unwelcome home truths in that Scotland's antiquated Justice system has in effect, turned into an injustice system, where outdated laws & procedures, monopolistic control by the legal profession over public access to expensive legal services, and a sense that many outcomes of cases which even get to courts are being undermined by professional interests, are combining to destroy the credibility of Scots law, and any lingering respect the public may have for our justice system, which according to the Lord justice clerk, is stuck in the Victorian era.

I would certainly agree with most of Lord Gill said to a rather stunned audience at the Law Society conference, most of whom have, themselves, helped maintain and nurture the many failures of Scots Law, and expensive legal services, simply to earn billions of pounds of profits over the years for themselves and undeserving Scottish legal firms.

Many of those solicitors present at the conference, including the 'big named' city legal firms in Edinburgh & Glasgow, lack any real 'global credibility' outside Scotland, as one American lawyer commented to me yesterday.

He claimed that "Many legal firms in Scotland have only survived and got to the positions they have, simply because their 'Bar Association' (the Law Society of Scotland) has cleaned up all their scandals and allowed them to feed off clients."

He went onto name some of Edinburgh's legal firms, several of which do business for the Scottish Government and claimed “they were not to be trusted with the documents to a second hand car and would never survive in the international marketplace if they didn't have their Scottish clients to fall back on and financially rape when it suited them to do so."

Of course, the Scots legal profession and all those who serve in it, have brought this predicament to our justice system by their own actions, which are and have always been geared up for greed, rather than providing the necessary public service which all of us must rely upon for organising our legal affairs, at some stage of our lives.

Many solicitors who attended the conference, despite Lord Gill's publicly welcomed critique of our 'banana republic' style justice system, sat smug in the knowledge they are backed by the political lobbying & arm twisting power of the Law Society of Scotland - dubbed the "World's worst regulator".

You can read more about how the Law Society has managed not only Scotland’s legal profession, but also our justice system, here : Toxic levels of complaints, poor standards of service & soaring fraud by solicitors makes Law Society of Scotland 'World's worst regulator'

Most of the big named firms from the legal profession will no doubt be hoping the Law Society's political weight and roll book of delaying tactics will again be put into play, thwarting any real reforms of Scots law which might clash with their model of a profit hungry monopolistic legal services market which forces clients to pay exorbitant fees for poor, inadequate legal services which in many cases leave clients financially ruined or in a bigger legal mess than when they first engaged a solicitor's services.

One onlooker to the conference said "It was like watching politicians feeding themselves from their parliamentary expenses accounts and not knowing when to stop. Many of the proposals put forward do not go far enough to reform Scots law because too many within the profession are concerned about maintaining expensive lifestyles & bonuses they all got used to in the good times."

Justice Secretary MacAskill fails to make the grade on justice reforms. Yes, even the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, who, rather than take a proactive stance to resolving the many inadequacies of Scotland's failed legal system, seemingly prefers to sit back and allow the rot to ruin what little there is left of any credibility of Scots Law, demonstrating to many that Scotland definitely needs a much more capable, and impartial Justice Secretary who is unconnected to the Law Society of Scotland's long time cronyism and backhander style management of Scotland's legal profession.

With respect, Lord Gill, if you want to make a start on reform, here are one of the issues which must begin the process : Truth & reconciliation fails as MacAskill follows Law Society orders to Parliament on attempt to heal public confidence in legal profession

You can read more about Lord Gill’s Civil Justice review here : Lord Gill's Civil Courts Review

Here follows the Scotsman's report on Lord Gill's speech to the Law Society conference :

Senior judge hits out at Scotland's 'Victorian' court system

Published Date: 09 May 2009
By John Forsyth and Christopher Mackie

ONE of Scotland's most senior judges has launched a savage attack on the country's "Victorian" civil courts – and said reform is vital to tackle diminishing respect for Scots law.

Lord Gill, the lord justice clerk, said the system was outdated, expensive, unpredictable and inefficient – and that it was failing society and putting economic development at risk.

Without dramatic reforms, the reputation of Scots law would continue to diminish, he said – along with public confidence in the judiciary.

He told the annual conference of the Law Society of Scotland in Edinburgh: "The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that has survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in sustance, its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and, therefore, failing society."

As lord justice clerk, Lord Gill is Scotland's second most senior judge after the lord president of the Court of Session. In 2007, he was asked by Scottish ministers to undertake a review of the entire civil justice system and will report at the end of June.

His speech suggests ministers will receive a withering critique of the system. He said immediate reforms were required to check the "drift" in the system and that more radical reforms would be included in his report.

Lord Gill also urged conference delegates to be "receptive to the conclusions of a lawyer-led programme for reform – if only for fear of something worse". He added:

"If you were to sit down and devise a justice system for the 21st century, it would be nothing like we have."

Lord Gill identified three areas that his report, due to be handed to ministers in June, will address: access to law, delay and inefficiency.

He said: "The judicial structure should be based on a proper hierarchy of courts and the procedures should be appropriate to the nature and the importance of the case, in terms of time and cost. Scottish justice fails on all these counts.

"Its delays are notorious. Its costs deter litigants whose claims may be well founded. Its procedures cause frustration and obstruct, rather than facilitate the achievement of justice."

One of the greatest inhibitors to access in the civil courts is not just the cost to businesses or individuals pursuing litigation, but also what they perceive to be the personal cost of undertaking an action. This is particularly an issue in areas of law such as family matters – especially those that involve children – and complex personal injury cases.

Delay in civil litigation is often caused by the volume and urgency of criminal case work that forces judges to interrupt or defer long-scheduled court days. Lord Gill reported a "surprising depth of feeling" among litigants caused by the long gap in issuing judgments once the case had concluded.

He said: "Unless there is major reform and soon, individual litigants will be prevented from securing their rights, commercial litigants will continue to look elsewhere for a forum for their claims, public confidence in the judicial system will be further eroded, Scotland's economic development will be hindered and Scots law will atrophy as an independent legal system."

Huge changes to be proposed in his review are likely to include a focus on an increased and better use of IT. He claimed that Scotland was "far behind many other jurisdictions" in this area.

Truth & reconciliation must be applied to financial crisis, otherwise ‘better regulation’ plans will fail & public anger against bankers will remain

Sir Fred Goodwin ‘shaken’ after hearing of attack on his home. Yesterday's attack on the home of former Royal Bank of Scotland Chief Executive Sir Fred Goodwin has generally been accepted by the media, politicians & public as being a result of Sir Fred’s part in the collapse of the RBS.There is of course, no justification for vigilante attacks against the man’s home & family, no matter how strongly people may feel over his actions at the RBS.

Reports of Sir Fred Goodwin’s home attacked by vandals :

While such attacks are fortunately few and far between, the fact is that the widely reported 'lack of public remorse' by Sir Fred, and many other bankers for their actions which have led to the global financial meltdown, has triggered a demand by many for 'heads to roll' over the banking failures.It may be said, such demands for people to be held to account for their actions, are, reasonable.

However, attacks against individual figures, can and often will be used to stymie the demands & needs of regulatory reform, as we have seen before in Scotland, as was demonstrated with the now slightly forgotten but much more serious attack on another financial professional, the Law Society of Scotland's Chief Accountant, Leslie Cumming, which occurred in Edinburgh in January 2006.

Accounting Chief Leslie Cumming was attacked in a mafia style hit arranged from within the legal profession.

Media reports on Cumming attack were used by lawyers against reforms. Various theories are still being considered for the attack on Mr Cumming, ranging from a revenge attack organised by crooked lawyers over Mr Cumming's investigations of their accounts, to disgruntled clients who lost millions at the hands of crooked lawyers, to even a prospect the attack was carried out by other members of the Law Society intent on giving the profession a sympathetic image in the wake of serious legal reforms to its regulatory structure which the Law Society bitterly fought in Parliament during the latter half of 2006.

Law Society may have caused the attack itself. However it may well be that Mr Cumming, regrettably paid the price for his Law Society colleague's well known policy of bitter attrition towards people who dared make a complaint to the Society against their lawyer, and the general culture of a lack of accountability within the legal profession as a whole, which in turn led to feelings of bitterness on both sides.

Philip Yelland, Law Society Director of Standards. In the case of the Law Society particularly, the glaringly obvious lack of ability by senior officials such as Douglas Mill, Philip Yelland and many others to even 'say sorry' or repair the financial damage their colleagues did to ordinary people, led to many cases of intense hardship, where even in one known case, a client committed suicide over the Law Society’s attempts to thwart consideration of the actions of a crooked lawyer.

Law Chief Douglas Mill blamed campaigners for attack on colleague but it turned out to be lawyers. So bitter were the feelings by some at the Law Society of Scotland, the then Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, held private briefings with journalists and attempted to blame campaigners for the attack on his colleague, however it soon became clear to many in the following days the attack on Mr Cumming came from within the legal profession itself, and Douglas Mill had little more to offer on the subject, which even to this day has seen not one arrest in connection with the Cumming attack.

2006, the year of the attack on Mr Cumming, was a very bad year for the Law Society of Scotland, one could argue, as bad a year as 2008-9 has been & will be for the Royal Bank of Scotland, and indeed many other financial institutions.

The Law Society in 2006 was to be subject to the same outside scrutiny and independent investigations & public inquiries on the weakness & corruption of its regulation of crooked lawyers which will now have to be implemented on the RBS and the financial sector, where the same weak, closed ranks, soft touch regulation has ended up producing the spectacular financial failures on a global scale, that the same weak, closed ranks, soft touch regulation has produced in the legal sector on a client by client basis for decades.

SLCC – now a rubber stamp for crooked lawyers. The Law Society fought the outside scrutiny and newly created legislation to bring independent regulation of complaints, and simply co-opted the new body with its own members to ensure that even after all the effort of campaigners, ruined victims, and the Scottish Parliament, the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission simply ended up as another rubber stamp for crooked lawyers.

The banks, now faced with the same calls for more regulation, inquiries, investigations and the same campaigns by consumers against financial wrongdoings, will do the same as the Law Society did in 2006. We will end up with possibly, a new regulator to replace the Financial Services Authority after a year maybe, and then the regulator will end up being co-opted in the same way the FSA seems to have been so co-opted by the financial profession which led to its negligence in allowing the banks to do as they have done, and, collapse.

Law Society’s Michael Clancy killed off Holyrood attempt to heal ruined clients of crooked lawyers. It doesn't take much to say "sorry", and do the right thing .. however, saying "sorry" and doing the right thing, doesn't seem to be a basic capability of anyone in charge of a bank or a legal firm or indeed a regulator supposedly put in place to ensure that failure & corruption doesn't take place. Too much money. too much political influence, and soft touch, corrupt, regulation, has led to at attitude of omnipotence where these people and their organisations feel above accountability.

That culture of unaccountability must be ended for all professions, particularly those in the legal and banking worlds, if we are to repair the sins of the past and heal the wounds of ordinary people, and our economy, which have been caused by far too much unchecked greed & ambition by a few who control the many … Truth & Reconciliation is now a much needed medicine.

Cabinet Secretary Swinney admits Law Society is 'vigorously resisting' reforms to regulation of legal profession as client protection fails once more

Constituents of John Swinney, as well as thousands more in a stunning admission by the Cabinet Secretary himself, the Scottish legal profession has vigorously resisted reforms to regulation of complaints against lawyers but these changes still do not address the 'sins of the past' including some of the largest scandals in Scots legal history, which the Law Society and even the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are demanding should be buried without atonement.

John Swinney : 'New legislation is no aid to most victims of crooked lawyers' "Finally I would reiterate my view that you have achieved a great deal in this case, not last more stringent legislation in the field of complaints about the legal profession. I know that does not address your own circumstances, but you should be aware of the significant impact of your intervention has had on delivering change that was vigorously resisted by the legal profession but was long overdue."

Mr Swinney is indeed correct in that the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill 2007, which created the 'independent' but now co-opted Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, will be of no help to thousands of Scottish victims of crooked lawyers, which the SLCC has abandoned by ruling it will not investigate or handle cases of complaints against 'crooked lawyers' before 1st October 2008.

There have been attempts to change the stubborn resistance of the SLCC to address the Law Society's sins of the past, where for my own part, I raised Petition PE1033, as a gesture to employ a procedure of "Truth & Reconciliation" where either the SLCC or a new Commission formed comprising individuals independent of the legal profession would consider the past and many cases where members of the public have been ruined by Scottish solicitors, with the Law Society rather letting the crooked lawyer off the hook than doing something for the client.

You can read more about Petition PE1033 here :

Petition PE 1033 - A call for action, review & settlement for victims of the Scottish legal profession's injustice against client complaints.

Michael Clancy ‘killed off law reform proposals’ … However, Petition PE1033 was one step too far for the Law Society of Scotland, who, via their Director of Law Reform Michael Clancy, ordered the Scottish Parliament to terminate PE1033 just in case the idea caught on. You can read more about the Law Society's "vigorous resistance" to the Truth & Reconciliation idea here :

Law Society kills Petition PE1033 amid calls for review of injustice & regulatory sins of the past

and not content with allowing the Law society to kill off the idea to heal the legal profession’s sins of the past, the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill joined in and made sure there would be no further help to the many victims of crooked lawyers :

Truth & reconciliation fails as MacAskill follows Law Society orders to Parliament on attempt to heal public confidence in legal profession

Given what has happened recently to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which is now staffed mostly by former Law Society staff .. I doubt the Commission as it currently stands could ever find a place in a truth & reconciliation role.

The fact the SLCC is now staffed by ex-Police officers, ex-Law Society Committee members, and is operating under an unwilling attitude to acknowledge the failings of the past are not a good recipe for engaging in the idea of truth & reconciliation ... in fact, I would call it a very backward step coming from the legal profession’s policy of “vigorous resistance” as Mr Swinney admits himself, which has served the Law Society of Scotland very well in avoiding having to deal with reforms to regulation and the way it operates in general.

However, it is still a fact that if the legal profession’s ‘sins of the past’ were to be tackled, and admitted as Mr Swinney seems to be doing himself, there would be great benefits to all in Scotland, as I wrote in an earlier article here :

The polluter pays - Why cleaning up lawyers sins of the past would be good for the public & legal profession alike

John Swinney fought against crooked lawyers as an MSP but its time to come off the fence now he’s in Government and help the victims he acknowledges the legal profession has mistreated …

While Mr Swinney in his Cabinet Secretary role obviously feels comfortable to admit the legal profession is dishonest when it comes to regulation, it is surely unacceptable for the Government to continue to allow thousands of victims of crooked lawyers to go without help .. simply because of alleged taunts from the Law Society they will challenge the Government if any effort to remedy the sins of the past is made ...

Rough Justice for clients as new complaints commission refuses to investigate cases mishandled by Law Society

Amazingly or not, the work of watering down the intentions of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Act (2007) goes on.

The latest salvo fired by the legal profession against clients takes the form of rigid conditions imposed by the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, itself now mostly staffed by employees of the Law Society of Scotland who have transferred over to the new 'independent' regulator .. which has now definitely lost the tag of 'independence' by any measure of the word.

As reporter in last week’s article but now confirmed, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has now categorically stated that it will refuse to handle any complaints regarding any legal work instructed prior to 1st October 2008, the date the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission begins its work as regulator of 'service' complaints against Scotland's 10,500 solicitors.

This may spell disaster for clients whose complaints are now caught in this tricky period, where it is rumoured, the Law Society are binning complaints against lawyers at an alarming rate before the new Commission takes effect, dishing out infinite measures of 'rough justice' to clients who have fell victim to crooked members of the legal profession.

The SLCC has also decided, after apparently receiving 'counsel's opinion' on complaints handling, that it will refuse to examine historical cases of complaint mishandled by the Law Society of Scotland. A small reminder to readers that ‘Counsel’ would of course, be a member of the Law Society of Scotland ! – so it’s hardly surprising the Law Society would want its old mishandled cases re-examined by the new complaints body.

Being unable to examine cases of the past, may not be such a bad thing though, as the SLCC itself is staffed by many members of the Law Society of Scotland who have performed questionably on complaints against solicitors in the past - and I doubt they would be so willing to reexamine their own work and find against how poorly they had treated clients beforehand while working at the Law Society.

The Law Society of Scotland are of course, very happy about these two policy decisions. It was the Law Society who asked for it, and they have got it. That shouldn't surprise anyone, it was always the goal of the Law Society to ensure the new Commission was 'brought to heal' like an errant puppy, and it has certainly achieved that by populating the new Commission with its staff and lay committee members.

After all, the legal profession is to pay for the new Complaints Commission, so they will definitely want a say in how that money is spent, while ensuring continued control of the regulatory process via former staff from the Law Society who will no doubt continue in the vein they have become accustomed to.

Jane Irvine, the new Chairman of the SLCC confirmed in a statement the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission won't be looking into complaints prior to work instructed before the first of October 2008.

Jane Irvine : "The simple fact is the SLCC's powers to award redress, particularly compensation, would be as limited as those of the Law Society if we re-opened old cases. We wished therefore to avoid re-opening old cases where we could have little effect and instead would probably simply inconvenience parties by taking them through our investigation system. The SLCC will therefore focus on work instructed after 1-10-08"

I have to say, on the whole, I agree with Jane Irvine that the SLCC is not a safe venue to reexamine old cases where the Law Society of Scotland deliberately or incompetently mishandled complaints against solicitors.

We can't have the same people who worked for the Law Society and may have worked on many of these mishandled complaints, re examine their own work now they are based at the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. It simply is not on at all. How on earth could they be trusted to come up with an impartial view of their own work or that of their colleagues ? Simply not possible in the real world ... and it would only malign the name of the SLCC further.

There is no doubt that old cases must be reopened - there are many to consider, where the Law Society has let crooked lawyers off the hook but a new body must be created to do that, if only for that task, as I pointed out in my Petition PE1033.

You can read about my ideas for re examining historical cases of injustice caused by the legal profession & the Law Society of Scotland in the following articles :

The polluter pays - Why cleaning up lawyers sins of the past would be good for the public & legal profession alike

Law chiefs & politicians who left Scots denied access to justice should move to heal legal system's sins of the past

There .. not too difficult is it now - and it doesn’t involved rocket science .. only needing the will to clean up the sins of the past and do some good, for maligned clients, the legal profession, the justice system, and the general public interest. Has to be a good idea, surely !

Truth & reconciliation is the way ahead, but putting together the legal profession, maligned clients, politicians who must lead the process or at least encourage it, and consumer organisations is not the easiest of tasks but it is definitely the way to proceed on this difficult and thorny issue, itself which has led to the changes in legislation and the creation of the new complaints commission.

It seems apparent there will have to be an independent Commission created for the purpose of re examining injustice caused by past mishandled cases of complaint against solicitors.

To achieve this, I hope the Scottish Government can see their way to bringing political leadership to this issue, by way of a fully independent Truth & Reconciliation Commission, ensuring a fair hearing for many people who have most certainly been denied such a right by the legal profession in the past - and are now seeing their rights abused again by what was to be a new broom in the legal world, now sadly losing its bristles before it even begins its work.

Hoping to repair the situation somewhat, the Scottish Consumer Council has also been campaigning for historical cases of poorly handled complaints against solicitors to be re examined by the new Commission, and has replied to the SLCC's rules consultation, pointing out inadequacies in the way the SLCC's remit and complaints handling is to be implemented.

In fact, looking at the SLCC’s remit, one could be forgiven of thinking it was … written by the Law Society of Scotland ?

The Scottish Consumer Council's response to the SLCC's consultation can be viewed here : Rules of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 2008 Consultation Draft (in pdf format), and is reprinted below.. You can read more about the SLCC consultation HERE

10 June 2008

Dear Jane

Rules of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 2008 - consultation draft

Thank you for consulting the Scottish Consumer Council (SCC) on the draft rules of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the consultation draft.

General comments

While we understand the need for the rules to be formal and precise, it is important that complainers are able to understand how they operate.

We hope, therefore, that the rules will be supplemented by clear, easily understood guidance for complainers on the Commission’s rules and procedures.We understand that the Commission is also to set up a ‘gateway team’ to advise and assist complainers, and we welcome this.

We are concerned that the Commission does not intend to consider re-opening historic complaints, particularly in relation to complaints about endowments sold by solicitors. We consider these to be a class of complaints which may merit being re-considered, for the reasons which we have previously outlined to the Commission.

Specific comments Rule 3 – making a complaint etc.

We are concerned about the implications of draft rule 3(6), which go beyond the issue of historic cases. As the draft rule stands, where the conduct or service complained about relates to a matter in which the practitioner was instructed by the complainer before 1 October 2008, the Commission will not accept the complaint.

This means that such cases will continue to be dealt with by the relevant professional bodies. This could mean that those bodies will have to continue to deal with such cases for many years after the work was carried out – where, for example, there has been a mistake in a conveying a property or in drafting a will, the problem may only be discovered many years after the event.

We presume that this also means that anyone who has a complaint falling into this category will only be entitled to the level of compensation which the professional body was able to award at the time the work was carried out, rather than the maximum £20,000 which the Commission will be able to award.

While it is understandable that the Commission wishes to start with a clean sheet, it seems unlikely that this situation is what the Scottish parliament intended. It also seems unfair on the professional bodies who could continue to receive such complaints for many years.

We would suggest that an appropriate compromise might be to apply rule 3(7) to cases falling within rule 3(6) (a), which would allow the Commission to deal with genuine long-term cases, without opening the floodgates. This would also mean that the professional bodies would know that there was a clear cut-off point for them beyond which they would not have to deal with service complaints. We would expect this date to be 1 October2009, on the basis that they will only accept complaints for up to one year after 1 October, which we understand is the intention of the Law Society of Scotland.

Rules 13-14: hearings

We are concerned that the terms of these rules – which refer to ‘hearings’, ‘evidence’ etc.- suggest an adversarial procedure, although the Commission has made clear it intends to operate in a more inquisitorial fashion.

Rule 21: quorum

We would suggest that draft rule 21(2) should provide that a quorum of any committee should include at least one non-lawyer member and one lawyer member.

Rule 22: reasons for determination

We would suggest that the Commission should give written reasons for its determinations, decisions etc.

Draft application form

It is not clear whether this is intended to be a paper form or if it can be completed electronically. Presumably the need for a signature means that even if it can be filled in electronically, it will need to be printed off and signed.

Again, we assume that the form will be accompanied by guidance explaining the meaning of terms such as ‘instructed’, ‘practitioner’ and ‘professional body’.

Question 1 – it may be helpful to make clear that an approximate date will be sufficient, where the complainer is unsure as to the exact date when they instructed the practitioner.

Question 2- it would be helpful to clarify from whom the details might be kept confidential – presumably the practitioner complained about. It could also be made clearer that not all of the possible types of contact details are required - only a name and postal address are needed in terms of the rules. Clearly, however, other forms of contact may be helpful to the Commission and would also be more convenient for the complainer.

Question 3 – is there a need to state here, as in relation to Question 6, that if the complainer refuses to allow the form to be copied to the practitioner, the Commission cannot investigate the complaint?

Question 4 – it is not clear what happens if the person filling in the form is not the client. Presumably if the Commission is to make a determination under draft rule 3(4) as to whether it is appropriate for that person to make the complaint on the client’s behalf, it will need further information about the substance of the complaint, as set out in the rest of the form.

It is not clear whether this question is also intended to cover the situation where the complainer wishes to complain about a practitioner’s service, but is neither the client nor acting on behalf of the client. This might be someone else who has suffered as a result of the practitioner’s alleged poor service/negligence, such as a beneficiary of a will or the client of a solicitor on the other side of a transaction, for example.

Question 9 - we are not convinced that complainers should be asked about why they want a particular resolution. This could be seen to be intrusive and is not necessarily relevant to the complaint. We would suggest that instead, question 8 could be opened up a bit more – to ask the complainer what ‘other action’ they would like to see, for example.

Finally we would have expected to see a question in the form about whether the complainer has already complained to the practitioner / firm / been through the firm’s complaints procedure. While the new process requires people to go through this stage before going to the Commission, not everyone will be aware of this.

I hope that these comments are helpful.

Martyn Evans Director

Law Society of Scotland's mismanagement of the legal profession has destroyed public confidence in lawyers

What is the world coming to when a lawyer asks why lawyers get such a bad name ?. Does it go something like lawyer lawyer on the wall who is the most crooked of us all ?

What a question to ask ! particularly on a day when a solicitor of 27 years in the profession (married, father of two) was found guilty of secretly filming women in a ladies bathroom next to his office. See here : Lawyer hid camera in ladies' loo

Of course, there are a few other reasons why lawyers might generally get a bad name ... ripping off thousands of clients a year perhaps ... the odd case of embezzlement too, threats of violence made by solicitors against clients who complain against their conduct, occasional 'attacks' on their own colleagues etc .. to name but a few reasons ....

Generally however, the reason lawyers get such a bad name, is because the legal profession itself is being run akin to the mafia, where the majority of complaints and scandals involving members of the legal profession are covered up by the Law Society of Scotland, and those who ruin clients generally get away with it.

Here are a few examples to shock you :

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

Peter Cherbi comments on top Scottish Lawyer revealed by the Sunday Mail newspaper to be at centre of 12 Negligence Claims by clients

Andrew Penman & Norman Howitt : Lawyer & accountant team up to ruin Cherbi executry estate

The Corrupt Link Revealed - How the Law Society of Scotland manages client complaints & settlements.

Law Society boss Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints.

I could go on & on, as there are so many examples to quote … but that will suffice for now …

So, to answer Nial McCluskey's thoughts of why solicitors are getting a bad name, he should look no further than Drumsheugh Gardens itself, the current base of the Law Society of Scotland.

Perhaps Mr McCluskey should also look at the profession's antagonistic attitude towards almost anyone, not just clients, or complaining clients, but solicitors too, who might want to dissent from Law Society policy from time to time .. even suggest reforms which might repair relations with the public & clients, rather than stick to the Douglas Mill mantra of 'we will fight them in [and out of] their homes' approach .. a public confidence vote loser if ever there was one.

Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill – now there was a man who knew exactly how to ruin clients claims & complaints against crooked lawyers !

If the legal profession were to take a different approach to clients & the public at large ... less of the 'let's rip them off' philosophy, and more of the 'look, this is what we can do for you, in such a space of time, at such a cost or risk' attitude .. then I'm sure the road to getting the public to view lawyers higher up the life chain than worms would be started.

There is a problem though .. in that recent attempts to ‘clean up’ the legal profession’s image, have been hijacked by the legal profession again, resulting in the following stories, which people should take note of :

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - protecting the public or protecting the legal profession ?

Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

Calls for full disclosure on legal complaints commission members as Justice Department 'covers up' conflicts of interest in appointments scandal

Law Society staff secretly migrating into 'independent' complaints commission will ensure continuing problems of regulating Scottish lawyers

So, it seems ideas to clean up the legal profession’s image, and its many sins, cannot come solely from either politicians or the legal profession itself .. as they are doomed to certain failure.

Of course, if you ask me, and probably just about anyone who has been ruined by a lawyer .. if the legal profession and solicitors really want to get themselves noticed .. now, really want to do something good to start the ball rolling on repairing client-solicitor relations .. they need to tackle and repair their profession's sins of the past. As simple a step as that, and one which would certainly bring wide recognition from the public and the country .. doing a lot of good for all concerned too ...

Here's an idea for Niall McCluskey and his fellow members of the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates to consider : The polluter pays - Why cleaning up lawyers sins of the past would be good for the public & legal profession alike

Cleaning up the sins of the past .. now there is an honourable task for the legal profession to perform, but from my earlier article on the subject, you can see there are still a few within the Law Society who are dead against such moves, even to the point of engaging in political bullying & manipulation to stop the ideas dead.

If you really want to remove the misconceptions or ill conceived view of a poorly regulated, deeply corrupt legal profession .. tackle the root causes of those fairly well founded observations by clients .. and the legal profession will find that clearing up the damage it has done, is a certain vote winner with all concerned.

The Scotsman reports :

Why do lawyers get such a bad name?

Niall McCluskey feels that the hatred of legal professionals is, on the whole, ill-conceived, as the vast majority are honest and necessary

BLANCHE Knott wrote: "There are three reasons why lawyers are replacing rats as laboratory research animals: One is that they are plentiful, another is that lab assistants don't get so attached to them, and the third is that they will do things that you just can't get rats to do."

It is difficult to conceive of how she could have been more disparaging of the legal profession.

Many people have tried. Consider this quote from writer and comedian Alan Whitney Brown: "A group of white South Africans recently killed a black lawyer because he was black. That was wrong. They should have killed him because he was a lawyer."

These kinds of jokes abound, and are symptomatic of the disapproval society exhibits towards the humble lawyer.

That lawyers are so hated is strange, because they play such a vital role in our society. There is even a proverb that backs this up: "He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client."

Lawyers assist the public in every conceivable way. In his novel Spring Snow Japanese author Yukio Mishima describes the law as: "A net with mesh so fine as to catch the most trivial incidents of daily life, yet its vast extension in time and space encompass even the eternal movements of the sun and stars." Law is essential and law is everywhere.

Lawyers are also perceived to have the power to improve their client's situation. This is summed up by comic Steven Wright who said: "I busted a mirror and got seven years bad luck, but my lawyer thinks he can get me five." So why does the profession receive such antagonism?

Firstly, lawyers become involved in people's lives at times of distress and are a significant and unwelcome expense.

Actress Claire Trevor once said: "What a holler would ensue if people had to pay the minister as much to marry them as they have to pay a lawyer to get them a divorce." This conveniently overlooks the fact that getting married is generally a terrific expense as well as being a very stressful experience.

In my view it is the association of the lawyer with the pain of divorce and not the expense that is the real issue.

Secondly, lawyers are perceived as parasitic and unnecessarily litigious. Scholar Robert Burton commented that lawyers were "so litigious and busy here on earth, that I think they will plead their clients' causes hereafter, some of them in hell".

There is also a German proverb that says: "When two dogs fight for a bone, and the third runs off with it, there's a lawyer among the dogs."

These are misconceived views. The majority of civil law cases settle, and in securing deals, lawyers are very conscientious about reducing client expense.

Thirdly, lawyers are perceived as dishonest. Screen actor Patrick Murray sneered: "A lawyer will do anything to win his case. Sometimes he will even tell the truth." American entertainer Will Rogers expanded on this theme: "I don't think you can make a lawyer honest by an act of legislature. You've got to work on his conscience. And his lack of conscience is what makes him a lawyer."

These are misleading observations. Because integrity is everything to a lawyer, as soon as a one is considered to be dishonest by colleagues or the court their career is in a downward spiral. I have met many persons of principle in the law who give their all for clients in every case they do. The lawyer's case is not helped by the legal system itself being perceived as a barrier to justice. Oliver Wendell Holmes is alleged to have said: "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

A writer, Alice Koller, went further: "It takes a long time to learn that a courtroom is the last place in the world for learning the truth."

These are depressing observations, because if a courtroom is not, at least, an attempt to find the truth, we may as well all pack up and go home.

That said, any lawyer with experience will have, no doubt, despaired at cases where matters of form have triumphed over substantive issues. Furthermore, lawyers are perceived to add to these barriers by muddying the waters. Henry David Thoreau certainly believed this: "The lawyer's truth is not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. "

Finally, the law is perceived as remote and incomprehensible. Will Rogers summed this up by saying: "The minute you read something that you can't understand, you can be almost sure that it was drawn up by a lawyer."

It is an axiom that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how can that be justified in a legal landscape that spans European law, vast legislation, countless (usually obscure) statutory instruments and increasingly lengthy and complex case law. Most lawyers are ignorant of areas of law other than the one or two fields in which they specialise.

The question that arises is: how do lawyers regain the respect of the public? There are no easy answers. Much of the prejudice against lawyers is irrational and unjustified.

Lawyers are necessary when people are in crisis. One message that lawyers need to get across is that they are vocationally motivated to assist people in their hour of need. The profession also needs to educate the public about its high ethical standards, and ensure that the legal system itself is not perceived as unhelpful.

The law also needs to be accessible. Take, for example, employment tribunals. Individuals are often required to represent themselves against highly specialised lawyers. How can that be right when it is acknowledged that employment law is a fast-moving and complex area?

Despite all of the abuse, law is a great career. Like politicians and journalists, lawyers have learned to harden their skins against a barrage of insults. Ideally, lawyers would be better understood and appreciated. But that's not what legal practice is about. The lawyer's job is to take the brickbats for clients and to adhere to their duties to the court. The lawyer's prerogative is not to worry about the admiration of the public.

• Niall McCluskey is an advocate

The polluter pays - Why cleaning up lawyers sins of the past would be good for the public & legal profession alike

The attempts by the Law Society of Scotland, and it's sponsored political allies to stall moves to heel the public's relationship with Scotland's failing justice system & legal profession continue unabated, and despite moves by campaign groups, consumer organisations, and even myself to move the process along, the vested interests of injustice seem to have the edge for now, but what is this thing they fear most ?

A simple plan to say "I'm sorry", and a move to bring redress, compensation, accountability and closure to the many cases of injustice of the past caused by the legal profession itself ...

With the present levels of public disrespect of the legal profession & dissatisfaction of the abysmal quality of legal services & restricted access to justice in Scotland, it is now time for matters to be put right, for someone to come forth and heel the deep divisions between lawyer & client, which are damaging the legal profession and the very foundations of justice itself in Scotland.

It is a very easy step to take, and none too complicated a one, where simply the sins of the past must be acknowledged by the legal profession, and put right.

Complaints and scandals, some decades old, need addressed in the here & now, they must be reconsidered, given redress, and given the very closure which should have followed at the time of incident, which the Law Society of Scotland and the legal profession consistently failed to do, and still fail to do.

To understand the present and the future, one must first understand the past, where complaints were and still are regulated by the Law Society of Scotland in a lawyer regulates lawyer approach.

For the last couple of decades , complaints against lawyers have soared from two to three thousand a year in the early 1990's to between five thousand to eight thousand a year after 1998. An almost minuscule percentage of those complaints ever see the client actually get back what was lost to the inaction, negligence, or incompetence of their solicitor.

Why is that ? It's because the legal profession have, like many other professions, had the privilege of regulating themselves, and in a lawyer regulates lawyer world, nothing will ever be done against a lawyer now, will it ...

Lawyers regulating lawyers, or "self regulation" as it is more commonly known .. has served the legal profession very well by keeping its dirty secrets locked away, and ensuring that clients have little or no rights of redress against their solicitors when things go wrong. The Law Society of Scotland's "Client Relations Office" under the leadership of Philip Yelland, functioned perfectly in whitewashing lawyer after lawyer even in the most serious complaints with overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing or even criminal activity ...

Philip Yelland - Director of Regulation and head of the Law Society's "Client Relations Office" mishandling client relations ...

The Law Society of Scotland, has spectacularly used self regulation over its decades of existence to ensure that very policy ... complain against your lawyer, and you get nowhere, and just for good measure, are denied access to justice & legal services in the future.

While of course, many lawyers who have faced serious client complaints over everything from embezzlement to theft of property, even identity theft on a grand scale, have generally gotten away with it while the Law Society has sat there as the profession's governing body ensuring the particular complaint gets binned and the client gets no redress for what happened.

Of course, throwing out complaint after complaint, many with genuine tales of severe wrongdoing, even negligence on the part of their solicitors, eventually builds up a great swathe of disgruntled clients, who genuinely have been wronged by solicitors, and further wronged by the legal profession's regulator who has done nothing for them.

Thus with the great swathe of disgruntled clients, and members of the public who have read of scandal after scandal involving crooked lawyers, the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 was born to 'redress' the public perception of Scotland's legal profession, seen as dire, crooked, corrupt and generally a bad place to trust a lawyer do any kind of legal business for individuals or the corporate sector.

Such as things are with the LPLA Act, the legislators have failed entirely to restore any level of public confidence in the ability of anyone to impartially regulate lawyers and as things stand, it can only get worse, as the policies of the current although outgoing Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive Douglas Mill, continue to ensure stall after stall on both regulatory and access to justice reforms.

Douglas Mill - Law Society Chief Executive who would rather that lawyers regulate lawyers ... whitewashing preferred !

You can read more about Douglas Mill's exploits in his 11 year reign as Chief Executive at the Law Society of Scotland here : Douglas Mill - How to ruin the legal profession in eleven years

Even before the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission takes its first shaky steps, revelations that Law Society staff who may have purposely mishandled tens of thousands of client complaints against lawyers in the past, have transferred over to the new commission, complete even with former "Lay Members" of the Law Society's "Complaints Committee" circuit, have given the public a taste of things to come - which is basically 'expect the same' treatment as before.

You can read more in my earlier report on the problems & scandals of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - protecting the public or protecting the legal profession ?

The Law Society are simply able to get away with this, as the Justice Department of the Scottish Government under Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, seems not to have a clue about how to effectively independently regulate lawyers, or even show a willingness to do so, with the Justice Secretary himself coming out with the occasional outburst of pro-lawyer anti-public statements ...

Kenny MacAskill - SNP owes Law Society a big debt .. but who voted who in last May ?

As things stand, only a madman would trust a lawyer who has 25 negligence complaints made by clients against them, but at present, the public are not allowed to know such statistics or information, so madmen are aplenty.

This happens only because clients don't know what they are getting into .. but clients would know what or who they were getting into if a solicitor's full regulatory disclosure was required for client-solicitor agreements, as I have reported on in the past.

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

However, there is a good 'first step' the legal profession, and the Government could take to heal the public's relationship with the legal profession. That simple step, is : Truth & Reconciliation.

Truth & Reconciliation doesn't have to mean that vast swathes of the legal profession end up jobless over the many clients they have ruined over the years, but it does mean that those clients and members of the public who had their finances or lives ruined all just because of a lawyer, must be fully and compassionately compensated for the terrible wrongs made upon them, which should never have occurred.

Accountability must too be apportioned if those wrongs are to be righted, and professionals must answer for their actions in some way or another, but the overwhelming aim of this move is to heal the public's mistrust of a legal profession which uses every twist & turn, every deceit, cuts every corner and fiddles as it goes, to get off the hook from a complaint or scandal which has ruined a life.

I have of course suggested a way that Truth & Reconciliation can progress on this issue, with the following petition to the Scottish Parliament :

Petition PE1033 - A proposal of Truth & Reconciliation for the public & legal profession to heal the client - solicitor relationship.

Regrettably, as I reported before, my parliamentary petition was silenced on the orders of the Law Society of Scotland itself, who sent one of their well known number to the Parliament, by way of letter ... Mr Michael Clancy.

Michael Clancy orders the closure of Petition PE1033 at the Scottish Parliament .. by letter rather than attendance ...

Michael Clancy - The Law Society's 'Director of Law Reform', but it seems, no friend of Truth & Reconciliation in the public interest

I am sorry there are those who feel the need to constantly step on the public and victims of their colleagues, to the point they must intervene at every single turn in life to ensure that reforms, which are clearly in the public interest, fail ... to protect their vested interests in the continuation of injustice ...

I am indeed sorry that Mr Clancy, again, typically enforces the Law Society's widely held belief that members of the public who dissent from the Law Society's policy on regulation must be hunted down in every way imaginable .. but it is nevertheless time that moves are put forward for a fairer deal of those who suffer from the legal profession's sins of the past.

It could achieve so much for Scotland, by doing not too much ... and it would be good for everyone to finally lay the sins of the past to rest, properly and compassionately to show Scotland the legal profession, and the legal system itself is capable of recognising and putting right the wrongs it has committed.

Now if that were to happen .. people might just show a little more much needed respect for both the legal profession and Scots Law ... and perhaps more importantly, clients will have a sense of security & trust to use Scots legal services again, which at present, cannot really be trusted to perform adequately.That has to be good for everyone !

How about it everyone ? A little Truth & Reconciliation to help Scots Justice and legal services get back on track by getting the polluter who caused the problem to put it right .. with a little leadership in this area shown by Government and political representatives ?

Surely not too much to ask or expect ... and I see the First Minister is getting into the Truth & Reconciliation mood himself as Scottish Law Reporter reports ... so things might just be looking up ? First Minister orders study of truth & reconciliation commission after law lords refuse abuse cases

Truth & Reconciliation in Scotland - A concept to heal & end longstanding issues of injustice & abuse

Over the years, Scotland has seen many abuse scandals in residential homes throughout the country - many reported in the media, many more probably not.

To address these issues, which have been poorly covered, dare I say, covered up by previous administrations, the Scottish Government has announced there is to be a 'truth & reconciliation' body which will be set up to "publicly acknowledge" the abuse inflicted upon thousands of children in residential homes in Scotland - reports the Scotsman newspaper.

You can read more from the Children's Minister Adam Ingram's announcement about the aims of the 'truth & reconciliation' commission on abuse against children here : Truth & Reconciliation and you can read the Scotsman's report on this story here

Personally, I am all for the idea of 'Truth & Reconciliation' as long as any Commission created to handle the serious issues, has the necessary power, impartiality, transparency & accountability to actually do something for the victims of, in this case, the terrible abuse against children which should never have been allowed to happen.

Less of the delay, prevarication, adjusting of remits to protect the guilty or those with the most to lose - issues which we have been so used to encountering in just about every inquiry into events in the past in Scotland, instead, we should be seeing more of things like substantive action sooner rather than later, honesty, and a will to put things right by doing the right thing ... now that is what 'truth & reconciliation' is all about.

There are many other areas of injustice such a proposal of 'Truth & Reconciliation' could be applied to, and I have as you know, asked the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to implement such a 'Truth & Reconciliation' Commission for victims of legal abuse - which covers injustice at the hands of the legal system and legal profession itself.

So far, Mr MacAskill has been reluctant to implement or at times, even acknowledge my request, or even that the issue exists, due it seems to too much interference from his former colleagues in the legal profession, perhaps too much favoritism towards his fellow lawyers - which has often spilled out into his debates & speeches in the Scottish Parliament itself, and of course, the worries from the likes of the legal establishment and even the judiciary that acknowledgement of the wrongs of Scots Law itself, by those who serve it or use it as a business model, against members of the public who have in many cases had their lives totally obliterated, is a step too far to take in the public interest.

You can see how Kenny MacAskill and the Parliament treated my request for 'truth & reconciliation' for victims of legal abuse here : Law Society kills Petition PE1033 amid calls for review of injustice & regulatory sins of the past.

Sadly, as you can see, the Law Society once again intervened and ordered the issue closed - Parliament and the Justice Secretary complying like wee poodles to the lawyers orders ... no thought for Scots who have been thoroughly abused by by their esteemed friends in the legal system though.

"Truth & Reconciliation' is a model which should be applied wisely to many areas of injustice in Scotland, and there are many areas which qualify for it's application : physical abuse, legal abuse, human rights abuse, and many more.

With Adam Ingram's announcement the concept is now to be used in Scotland, there should be a wider application of this policy to clear up Scotland's injustice of the past in all areas of injustice, which would do a lot of good for the country as a whole and see a new chapter turned in the way people are treated, against the old chapter of allowing people to be mistreated.

The Scotsman reports :

Truth forum 'will give a voice' to victims of Scots care homes abuse

By Michael Howie
Home Affairs Correspondent

A TRUTH and reconciliation body will be set up to "publicly acknowledge" the abuse inflicted upon thousands of children in residential homes in Scotland, the Scottish Government has announced.

The move could see the perpetrators of abuse being brought face to face with their victims, in many cases several decades after the offences occurred.

It could also result in formal apologies from the Catholic Church, Quarriers, local authorities and other groups which ran children's homes at the centre of Scotland's abuse scandals – and promises to lift the lid on the full extent of the atrocities.

However, the concept of a truth and reconciliation forum is also a tacit admission that many abusers will never be brought to justice – a fact that enrages many who still bear the psychological scars of their abuse.

A consultation will be held over the detail of the project, led by Shona Robison, the public health minister, with officials set to examine the famous Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, as well as other schemes in New Zealand and Northern Ireland.

Announcing the plan, Adam Ingram, the children's minister, said: "None of us should forget the physical, emotional and sexual abuse that has taken place in Scotland's residential care homes, perpetrated by the very people who should have been providing support. It would be inexcusable for us not to confront what happened. It's time for us to demonstrate our commitment through actions."

Ms Robison added: "The move towards a Scottish truth and reconciliation forum will benefit victims of historical abuse by providing them with a platform to voice their experiences whilst giving public acknowledgement to what happened.

"For many (abuse] survivors, an acknowledgement of the abuse they suffered would be more beneficial than monetary compensation."

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said the scheme could lead to reports being published into the extent of abuse in children's homes, although individuals' identities would be kept secret.

The administration also announced a national "hub" service to assist victims in accessing help such as psychiatric services, better training for residential child-care staff and a review of the law to address shortcomings in public records held on children in care.

The move follows a review of historical abuse of children in residential care by independent expert Tom Shaw, a former chief inspector of education in Northern Ireland. The report was triggered in 2004 when the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, publicly apologised to children who were abused while in care.

But hundreds of victims from residential schools and homes such as Nazareth House, Quarriers, Kerelaw and De La Salle have been unable to come to terms with the physical, psychological and sexual abuse they suffered and are angry at the lack of public acknowledgment and concern for their suffering.

With abuse dating back, in some cases, as far as the 1930s, relatively few people involved have been prosecuted, while evidence is often difficult to corroborate.

Kathleen Marshall, Scotland's children's commissioner, said: "Most people desperately want to be heard. They want an apology. This could provide that opportunity."

'Now it's time for us to be heard'

ELIZABETH McWilliam no longer wants to hide in the shadows, struggling on her own to cope with abuse she describes as "atrocities".

"We've been the silent minority. Now it's time for us to be heard," says the 70-year-old, one of hundreds of children abused by staff at Quarriers homes in Scotland in a period spanning decades. She says that she "just wants the truth". But reconciliation is another thing.

"I will never forgive and forget. The government must make these people face up to what they've done."

But she says a truth and reconciliation forum could help Scotland to move on from the shame of its past. "This is a new dawn, a new horizon for children in care now," she says. "We've got to look forward to the future."

However, Adeline Spence, 45, from Glasgow, is less convinced.

Ms Spence, who was abused by nuns at Nazareth House children's home in Cardonald, said: "I don't know what difference it will make. These people need to be taken to court."

'OUR NATIONAL SHAME'

THE abuse inflicted on children in residential care was described four years ago as Scotland's "national shame" by the then First Minister, Jack McConnell.

Adam Ingram, the children's minister, has already announced an inquiry into allegations of – and convictions for – child abuse at Kerelaw, a residential school and secure unit in Ayrshire that sparked Scotland's biggest child abuse investigation before it closed in 2005. However, that was just the latest in a succession of abuse scandals in residential institutions for children.

The list has grown in recent years. It includes: Larchgrove, a council-run children's home in Glasgow; Blairs College, a seminary in Aberdeen; St Ninian's, a school run by monks, the De La Salle Brothers, in Gartmore, Stirlingshire; and Nazareth House, a chain of Catholic children's homes.

and now the release from the Scottish Government :

Truth and Reconciliation

07/02/2008

A Scottish Truth and Reconciliation Forum is to be set up to support adults who suffered childhood abuse, initially focusing on the needs of survivors of historic abuse in residential care.

The move was among a package of support for adult survivors of abuse announced by Children's Minister Adam Ingram today.

Mr Ingram unveiled plans for:

* A Scottish truth and reconciliation model
* A national service framework to support survivors of historic in-care abuse
* Improvements to the residential child care system, including better staff training and development
* A review of the law to address shortcomings in public records held on children in care
* The specific remit of the joint Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council inquiry into abuse at Kerelaw residential school

Mr Ingram said:

"None of us should forget the physical, emotional and sexual abuse that has taken place in Scotland's residential care homes - perpetrated by the very people who should have been providing support.

"The system let these young people down in the most terrible way and it would be inexcusable for us not to confront what happened.

"It's now time for us to demonstrate our commitment through actions and that's why we're driving forward with the measures announced today."

Minister for Public Health Shona Robison, who will oversee the creation of the forum, said:

"The move towards a Scottish truth and reconciliation forum will benefit victims of historical abuse by providing them with a platform to voice their experiences whilst also giving public acknowledgement to what happened to these children.

"Through close working with survivors and the organisations that represent them, we have come to understand that for many survivors an acknowledgement of the abuse they have suffered would be more beneficial than monetary compensation.

"It is on this basis we have begun to explore the use of a truth and reconciliation model. I hope that through that process there will be an opportunity to give survivors a chance to speak about their experiences but also learn lessons to ensure that children in the future are better protected."

Survivor Scotland member Helen Holland, who suffered abuse in residential care during her childhood, said:

"What many survivors want is acknowledgement of what happened to them and a truth and reconciliation forum can help them to achieve that.

"What we are now seeing is actions, not just words and that has to be positive."

Today's announcement is the Scottish Government's response to recommendations in a review of historical abuse of children in residential care by independent expert Tom Shaw.

2. Scotland's truth and reconciliation forum will give survivors the chance to speak about their experiences, establish the facts and learn from the suffering to help protect children in the future.

Ministers are supportive of proposals for a national framework of advocacy, mediation and counselling services to help in-care abuse survivors which are being considered by reference group Survivor Scotland. Subject to the group's endorsement and Ministerial approval, funding will be made available.

The Scottish Government has asked the National Archives of Scotland's Keeper of the Records to carry out a review of the legislation on public records.

Information on the Independent Kerelaw Inquiry

Ministers have accepted recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission that prescribed personal injury claims (pre-September 1964) cannot be revived.