Insults fly at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Law chiefs launch bitter tirades against campaign groups & law reformers

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – a new ‘Law Society’ with the same mistakes. Spectacular revelations in emails obtained under Freedom of Information laws show that board members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who were personally appointed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, have engaged in bitter tirades against consumer campaign organisations & law reformers, frustrated their inclusion in the debate on improving regulation of Scotland's beleaguered legal profession may eradicate the present system of lawyers closing ranks for their crooked colleagues over complaints of poor legal service to clients.

Margaret Scanlan called campaigners against crooked lawyers "offensive". Margaret Scanlan, a lawyer, who is listed in the SLCC's website as being “an accredited specialist in family law at Russells Gibson McCaffrey” laid into consumer groups such as "Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers" in emails to & from colleagues, branding the organisation's website "offensive" and going on to claim that "no reputable organisations has anything to do with them". Margaret Scanlan : "I would prefer that we not give any recognition to SACL. I do not see why we have to name them even if we are bound to engage with them. Their website is offensive and so far as I am aware no reputable organisations has anything to do with them"’

Scanlan's initial email then started a tirade of abuse & agreement against consumer groups from other members of the Legal Complaints Commission, surprisingly including agreement from Professor Alan Paterson, who is listed on the SLCC's website as being “Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Professional Legal Studies at Strathclyde University, an independent "Think Tank" on the Scottish Legal System.” Independent from what ?

Professor Patterson agreed campaigners against lawyers were "offensive". Professor Paterson : "Can see both sides of the argument on Society against Crooked lawyers. They are offensive, but I do not think that we can safely ignore them. Maybe best not to mention we will involve them since it may create hostages to fortune but I agree with you that they cannot wisely be ignored in this research."

SLCC Chief Exec Eileen Masterman agreed campaigners were "offensive". The bitter tirade against campaign groups did not stop with Board members, as emails show, even the SLCC's Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman sided with the Board members, condemning the campaign organisation as being "offensive" however Masterman conceded SACL would have to be included if only to give the impression the commission was not being "partial in some way".

SLCC Chief Exec conceded campaigners must be allowed in. Eileen Masterman : "She (Margaret Scanlan) says their website is offensive (agreed) and that to her knowledge no reputable organisation has had anythign to do with them. I have no great difficulty with Margaret's first point but I think that if we name them straigt off we immediately dispose of any potential criticism saying that we are being partial in some way. Which ever way we deal wit this point though I believe they have to be included".

Scottish Consumer Council "should not have interfered in regulation of lawyers” in 1999. An insider close to the commission today said : "Several consumer organisations including the former Scottish Consumer Council have been berated by people within the SLCC for their interference in the debate on reforming regulation of solicitors”. It was further alleged that the SCC, now renamed "Consumer Focus Scotland) was referred to by some as "a stooge of disgruntled clients during the 1990s" - this seems to relate to the SCC’s 1999 report “Complaints against Solicitors” which called for independent regulation to be brought in years before the Scottish Parliament passed the LPLA (Scotland) Act in early 2007.

Law Society’s failings over complaints created SACL. An insider to the Scottish Government today condemned the email exchange from members of the SLCC. He said: "I understand why lawyers feel bad about Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers but the fact is if the Law Society had cleaned up its act and resolved the cases we keep getting letters about at the Justice Department, there would be no Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers and probably no need for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission so the lawyers are their own worst enemy - they created SACL so they will have to live with it from now on."

He went on : "I don't think personal tirades against campaigners no matter who they are serve any positive purpose and only seek to undermine the foundations of the commission, which is fast becoming a joke in any case. The Government has a lot to answer for by allowing things to get out of hand to the stage where insults are flying and it seems some members don't even know what they are supposed to be doing. This shows there are serious failings at the SLCC which need to be put right."

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine. Jane Irvine, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Chairman would make no comment directly on the criticisms of board members, other than saying : "I can simply say that I encourage very open discussion at all meetings and am not aware of any “ferocity” of feeling against the SACL by the Board as a whole nor that this is reflected in decision making. The SACL have as you know been included as a consultee in research."

Members of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Ultimately, these bitter exchanges reflect the same policy of undermining or excluding anyone from the debate on regulation of the legal services market in Scotland which the Law Society of Scotland has operated for years. Now these bitter feelings towards anyone who would dare take issue with the legal profession, have simply transferred over to the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and that does not serve either the interests of the legal profession or the public interest if issues such as consumer protection from dishonest legal practice are to be tackled and put right.

No matter what anyone thinks of any particular campaign group or the consumer organisations, or law reformers, the fact is that Mrs Scanlan and her colleagues, all appointed by Mr MacAskill would not be in their highly paid (£300 plus per day as expenses) positions if it were not for the work of everyone who helped create the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. In that respect, the public do deserve to be heard, rather than excluded.

Kenny MacAskill has allowed the SLCC to fail. This unfortunately illustrates to me, the SLCC is failing to do its job as was intended by the legislation, created from a lot of hard work from campaigners, consumer groups, and reformers, who have now been sidelined by a co-opted body now taking on the views of the very organisation (the Law Society) which prompted the SLCC’s creation in the first place. The responsibility for this failure, rests directly with the Scottish Government and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

Insurance firms with links to Scottish Government threaten legal challenge against Holyrood on asbestos claims reforms

Dean of Faculty Richard Keen QC to fight asbestos claims law. Insurance firms and lawyers who have strong financial relationships with the Government and the Scottish Parliament, have teamed up in an attempt to defeat through the courts, the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, expected to be passed this week at Holyrood, which will allow victims of asbestos related illnesses to claim compensation from insurers for suffering such conditions as lung scars, which are an indication of exposure to asbestos.

The Edinburgh legal firm of Brodies has been called in by several insurance companies, identified in the Sunday Herald newspaper as AXA, Norwich Union, RSA and Zurich, to mount a judicial review legal challenge to the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, which goes through Parliament this week. The insurers legal position is that the legislation proposed will allow people to claim compensation who suffer from ailments associated with asbestos exposure, which the insurers currently don't classify as harmful.

Richard Keen as you all know, appeared in the media only a few weeks ago demanding that class actions be allowed in Scotland against banks, however I take it that class actions for the victims of asbestos claims are not included in his thinking at the time.

I wrote a previous article on the Parliamentary hearings, which saw lawyers representing the legal profession attempt to argue that ‘pleural plaques’, a condition which indicates exposure to asbestos, was “good for you”, here : Insurance lawyers argue against laws to help asbestos victims asserting part of their suffering 'is a good thing'

Law Society’s insurers threaten Parliament. It is of note that two of those Insurers - Royal Sun Alliance (RSA) and Norwich Union are backers of the Law Society of Scotland's infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy, which insures every member of the Scots legal profession including the dean of faculty himself, all other advocates, and even the legal firm of Brodies, who themselves have been caught up in claims made by clients against their negligence cover.

You can read more about the Law Society’s Master Insurance Policy here : The Master Insurance Policy, Marsh UK & corrupt practices by insurers of the Scots legal profession

A legal insider who was approached for comment said "It is true that all advocates are part of the Master Policy, although it is generally left to individual advocates to arrange their own Indemnity Insurance cover, albeit through the same firm. It is fair to say the dean of faculty is probably insured by the same insurers now challenging the asbestos claims legislation".

On being asked for his thoughts on revelations the same insurers deal with Government, he said : "It is my understanding that Marsh also arrange insurance cover for many public institutions, including Government. This insurance cover will also be underwritten by many of the same insurance firms who are affected in the asbestos damages bill now before Holyrood."

Scots Govt pays millions to insurers now threatening legal action. The Master Policy, run by Marsh UK, a subsidiary of the US Insurance giant Marsh, which itself has been caught up in insurance fixing scandals, amazingly shares among its clients, the current SNP controlled Scottish Government, which pays out millions of pounds of public money in Professional Indemnity Insurance cover for all Government Departments, many public bodies & quangos, and also the Justice Department's 'goliath' Government Legal Service for Scotland, staffed by 175 seriously well paid lawyers who under Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, also get their huge insurance subscriptions paid as expenses perks by the taxpayer.

You can read more about the Government Legal Service for Scotland (GLSS) and exactly what contribution they make to us here : Scottish Government's £10m in-house lawyers make their mark against legal reforms & public access to justice

Scottish Parliament also has links to insurers. Even the Scottish Parliament itself is not immune from associations with the insurers who are now challenging the legislation to help asbestos victims. The 13 lawyers assigned to the Scottish Parliament from the GLSS are also themselves insured by the same insurers who are threatening legal action against Holyrood, and several departments of the Scottish Parliament also allegedly rely on insurance services provided by Marsh UK and the RSA for their own indemnity insurance !

An official from a consumer organisation today who declined to be named said : "One could speculate a great deal on whether such involvement at all levels of government by a single insurance firm, or cartel of insurers, may give rise to the conclusion by some there is an inherent conflict of interest going on, which may lead to ineffective or badly worded legislation being passed, or a general lack of will on the part of politicians to do the right thing for consumers, on the basis they don't want to upset their services provided by the Insurance community."

So, we have a situation where the same insurers who are now threatening legal action against Parliament to prevent asbestos sufferers receiving compensation, are at the same time, receiving millions of pounds in taxpayers money from Government, the Parliament, and many public authorities in Scotland, to ensure protection against financial claims for wrongdoing or negligence in public office. Is that right ? Is this an acceptable state of affairs ?

Is it ethical to pay millions of pounds of taxpayers money to the same insurers who are fighting proposals of reforms in the legislative process which are designed to make life better for those who are suffering fatal illness ?

Let us remind ourselves of the arguments put forward by the insurance companies lawyers in Parliament against asbestos sufferers :

Scots lawyers argue ‘asbestos related illnesses are good for you’ :

From the Sunday Herald :

Insurance giants to challenge new asbestos legislation

Firms will fight move to allow Scottish workers to claim £50m in damages

By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

BRITAIN'S BIGGEST insurers are planning an unprecedented legal challenge to a new law which would allow Scots workers to sue for asbestos exposure.

Four firms are preparing to seek a judicial review of the legislation, which is expected to pass its final stage at Holyrood on Wednesday with over-whelming cross-party support.

The law is designed to give workers the right to seek compensation for scars on the lung known as pleural plaques, which indicate exposure to asbestos, but which are themselves harmless.

It is understood the Edinburgh law firm Brodies is co-ordinating the judicial review on behalf of AXA, Norwich Union, RSA and Zurich.

The lawyers have already engaged two of Scotland's most formidable advocates to attempt to overturn the law at the Court of Session. Leading will be Richard Keen QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, and he will be assisted by Jane Munro.

If successful, the challenge would humiliate the government and dash the hopes of thousands of people negligently exposed to asbestos.

While the average payout would be around £8000 per person, legal costs would be twice as much again, and ministers estimate the total cost to private companies will top £50 million.

Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors, which represents many Scots asbestos victims, said the court would be loath to reverse the will of parliament, especially as it was a clarification of the existing law.

He said: "We have researched all the angles and we are pretty confident that this will be overcome. We believe this judicial review will be defeated."

A spokesman for justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "We are entirely confident that this bill is within the legislative powers of the Scottish parliament. There is a moral imperative here that the SNP government in Scotland is acting on, even if Westminster is not. The House of Lords judgment means that people diagnosed with pleural plaques would have to live with the worry of possible future ill health for the rest of their lives, with no recourse to claim damages."

The judicial review will not surprise the Scottish government. During a consultation last year, insurance firms warned the proposed legislation was "wholly wrong", would open the flood-gates to similar dubious damage claims, and ought to be dropped. Some warned of potential legal challenges.

One of the main complaints against the legislation was that it would allow people to sue for a condition that causes them no physical harm: pleural plaques are symptomless, and do not develop into fatal mesothelioma. Allowing people to claim damages for something that hasn't damaged them is perverse and up-ends centuries of case law, critics argued.

But advocates of compensation said people who discover they have plaques suffer psychological stress.

In October 2007, after more than 20 years of people being able to claim compensation for plaques, the House of Lords ruled plaques were too trivial to merit damages. The Westminster government has so far accepted the ruling, but in Scotland asbestos victims persuaded the Scottish government to legislate to restore the "status quo ante", and let workers pursue damages for the condition once more. Wednesday's third-stage vote will see the culmination of that two-year campaign.

Last week, ministers were forced to issue a revised financial memorandum to the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, after realising it had underestimated the likely cost of compensation.

Settling the backlog against private firms is expected to cost £11.8m to £20m, followed by annual costs of £3.7m-£7m.

Councils also face bills of around £850,000 to settle existing cases, and annual bills of around £500,000.

The Ministry of Defence, which runs the Rosyth Naval Dockyard, and the UK Department for Business, which inherited liability for defunct shipyards, face total costs of around £7m, a bill the UK government could choose to hand back to Edinburgh.

Christine O'Neill, of Brodies, added: "We have been instructed by a number of insurers to look at a challenge."

Witch-hunt at Legal Complaints Commission 'ends at MacAskill's doorstep' as Justice officials forced to confirm leaks inquiry

SLCC once again under fire. Officials of the Scottish Government's Justice Department have been forced to admit a series of interventions with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, over leaks to the media which depict the quango which handles consumer complaints against solicitors as more interested in protecting the legal profession than investigating actual complaints.

Diary of Injustice reveals SLCC’s secret leaks inquiry. As I revealed earlier last month, a witch hunt at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission began after the Justice Department ordered an investigation into leaks which began in August 2008, one of which gave details on non Law Society staff at the SLCC who were being subjected to an attempt by the Law Society and Scottish Government to 'drive them out of the Commission, ensuring total control of the 'independent' SLCC by the legal profession itself.

You can read last month’s report on the witch-hunt at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : 'Culture of fear' grips Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Department witch-hunt threatens whistleblower staff over leaks to media

You can read my earlier report on the leaks as they began at the SLCC here : Law Society target ‘outsider staff’ for exit at Complaints Commission as lawyers undermine attempts at independent regulation

Scottish Government initially denied any involvement. The Scottish Government was asked to explain why it had ordered an investigation at the SLCC, however officials initially sought to play down and deny, several times, that any such investigation, or even discussions between the SLCC and Justice Department took place. A Justice Department official would only admit : "Staffing is a matter for the SLCC. If they have concerns about security of their information then it is a matter for Eileen Masterman and her team."

Leaked SLCC papers show Justice Department ordered investigation. However, after initial denials from the Justice Department, a further leaked document quoted an SLCC meeting where mentions of “Action and impact arising from the unauthorised leak of information that was raised by the Justice Dept.” exposed the Government's account of matters as completely false. Justice Department officials were then hurriedly forced to admit they had directly intervened with the SLCC and demanded immediate action to curb any information reaching the public. Officials sought to justify their attempt to clamp down on dissent at the quango by claiming that when the leaks be some of the staff under suspicion were still employed by Scottish Ministers.

A Justice Department official sought to play down the leaks investigation and protect the Justice Secretary from involvement, claiming : "I had a very brief discussion with Jane Irvine in her capacity as Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman last summer when it seemed from your website and an approach that you made to her that you were receiving information about the Ombudsman’s staff."

The official went on "These members of staff were at that time employed by Scottish Ministers so it was appropriate that I should be made aware of any concerns. Jane and I discussed whether or not we thought there had been a breach in security and we concluded that there had not been. We agreed that it was unlikely the information was coming from the Ombudsman’s office because it was completely inaccurate and we therefore decided to take no further action.That is why there are no minutes or notes"

However, the Justice Department official had no explanation to offer for how the entire episode came to light in leaked documents from the SLCC (more yet to be published) which reported a meeting where the Justice Department raised the leaks issue and demanded action.

A Justice Department official on being handed a copy of one of the leaked documents said : "I have no idea why the matter was raised at a meeting of the SLCC in October. I was not at the meeting."

However, an insider at the SLCC countered "That is pure rubbish from the Government's point of view. We were all warned to shut up after these discussions between Jane Irvine and the Government. The fact of the matter is there has been a lot of inequality between members of staff at the SLCC and the Law Society want everyone out who isn't under their thumb."

"Law Society staff who transferred over were being paid higher salaries and were to be considered for more senior positions. Whoever denies that is a liar and they know it, and even though you reported it there is still an undercurrent of mistrust between Law Society staff and non Law Society staff."

"What I said last year to you stands, the present Scottish Government are simply allowing the Law Society to dictate terms to the SLCC and we are not able to perform our role as was intended under the previous administration which created the SLCC in the first place."

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill must have known his department intervened with SLCC. A senior source within the Government said however, he doubted the Justice Department’s explanation on the matter and pointed to the leaks of documents, and reports of bitter infighting within the Commission as a direct challenge to the reliability of the Government’s explanations.

He said “I doubt this was left to an official to clear up, considering there is a great deal of interest in your reporting of the matter and criticisms of regulation of the legal profession”.

“I understand the Cabinet Secretary for Justice knows all about what took place and probably wants to shut the whole discussion on leaks down because ultimately the quango is his responsibility and the people there are at his appointment.These reports of problems at the Commission are making life very difficult for those who want to keep control of regulating lawyers for themselves.”

“Clearly responsibility for this rests with Kenny MacAskill himself no matter who tries to throw themselves into the path of the oncoming train and the Law Society has to be stopped from gaining full control of the Commission if the public are to be properly protected”

The insider went on to refer to claims in the Justice Department’s statement there were “no minutes or notes” of the Government’s intervention with the SLCC on the leaks issue.

He said : “It is preposterous to claim there are no minutes or notes of such a matter given the importance of it and implications for the SLCC and the Justice Department and why did they even put such a thing in their statement. I regret to say I sense this issue is being covered up deliberately to protect people here in Government, at the SLCC and probably at the Law Society.”

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine. The Commission’s Chairman, Jane Irvine was asked for comment on the situation, but refused. This does seem to leave the obvious impression the Commission is indeed in crisis, amid staffing problems, threats of resignation by its own members unless they get increased financial perks & insurance protection, and the intense layer of secrecy which the Commission has been operating under, seeking to blank out most Freedom of Information requests specifically to law journalists while releasing the same information to elements of the legal profession.

A brief history of leaked reports relating to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission :

The story that started the ball rolling on leaks at the SLCC : Law Society target ‘outsider staff’ for exit at Complaints Commission as lawyers undermine attempts at independent regulation

SLCC members demanded more perks or would resign. You can read an earlier article where the Commission members threatened their resignation over lack of perks and insurance cover, here : Legal Complaints Commission in crisis amid funds shortage & resignation threats over lack of insurance protection. The resignation threats came even though the SLCC had received a whopping £2 million of public money, and yet more was being paid in by the Scottish Government for demanded perks, as I reported here : MacAskill silent on taxpayers £2million 'write off' to lawyers quango as Complaints boss reveals Law Society defaulted on levies

I also reported that insiders to the Commission don’t even believe the SLCC is up to the job because of too much interference from the legal profession and a lack of will at the Scottish Government to protect it’s intended role, which you can read here : Insiders attack MacAskill's Legal Complaints Commission as 'a front' while millions go on quango which refuses to investigate crooked lawyers

Lets also not forget the SLCC seems to be so mired in problems it has to rely on a veil of secrecy to continue its operations, as I reported here : FOI disclosures censored to law journalists as MacAskill’s legal complaints commission prefers secrecy to public accountability

Toxic levels of complaints, poor standards of service & soaring fraud by solicitors makes Law Society of Scotland 'World's worst regulator'

Crooked lawyers give Scotland a bad name. While the attention of most remains focussed on the crisis in the banking system, the problems which have caused the collapse of our great financial institutions are nothing new to Scotland's legal sector. Year in year out, clients have been losing millions of pounds of their money to , ambitions, greedy, and downright crooked lawyers over the past couple of decades, and the regulator responsible, the Law Society of Scotland, has done little or nothing about it.

A crooked lawyer’s tangled web of deceit. During 1991, one of the most famous cases of fraud by the Scots legal profession occurred with revelations that John McCabe, a solicitor working at the now defunct Edinburgh firm of Scott Moncrieff & Dove Lockhart, operated a multi million pound fraud scam against clients & banks, which ultimately was discovered after he became careless and so entrenched in deceit & debt, there was simply no place left to run (although he did try running to Uruguay). While clients stood ruined, and banks took huge losses, the Law Society of Scotland could only watch on as the press of the day mauled both the legal profession and the poor standards of regulation which allowed McCabe to get away with what he did, and ultimately, McCabe was jailed for 10 years for his crimes.

Just imagine for a minute, if every one of the 10,000 lawyers in Scotland stole £4million from their clients. What would be done about it ? .. well nothing much, as long as the Law Society has anything to do with regulating lawyers …

Law Society Chief Kenneth Pritchard failed on reforms. Amid the recriminations of the McCabe case, and the costs of compensating his victims, the Law Society's Kenneth Pritchard (now a Sheriff), promised reforms to ensure no repetition, and that standards would rise in Scotland's legal profession to ensure public confidence remained in solicitors.

Kenneth Pritchard : “The aim of the new rules … is not to help the legal profession shrug off an obligation to meet losses, but to reduce the amount the Guarantee Fund might have to repay. "It should become much more difficult for solicitors to defraud clients. “There is not a reluctance among solicitors to pay this money. there is an acceptance that we must do so to maintain the good name and standing of the profession.". What good name ?

Law Society Chief Pritchard performs a u-turn & orders legal firm to drop 'crooked lawyers' case. However, three years on in 1994, the same Law Society Chief, Kenneth Pritchard who had promised reforms to prevent crooked lawyers hurting their clients, was revealed to have personally intervened in a case of litigation against a firm of crooked lawyers, ordering the clients solicitors to withdraw from acting, letting the crooked lawyers off the hook in a policy of protection for crooked lawyers.

Court documents revealed Law Chief's duplicity. Kenneth Pritchard wrote to legal firm Skene Edwards advising them to withdraw from acting in the case, and that letter was subsequently discussed in the Scottish Parliament debate chamber by Cabinet Secretary for Business John Swinney.

You can read more about how the Law Society of Scotland and Kenneth Pritchard did nothing to stem the rising tide of crooked lawyers, and actually closed ranks with crooked lawyers to protect them from punishment while denying clients access to justice, here : Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

After the exploits of McCabe, the Law Society of Scotland professed to have 'cleaned up Scotland's legal profession, but much worse was to come as the following demonstrates.

Borders lawyer Andrew Penman became Scotland's most famous crooked lawyer. From 1994 to the present day, my own battle with the Law Society of Scotland ended up in the press, showing yet again the Law Society of Scotland would simply close ranks with crooked lawyers to protect them from client complaints & financial claims for dishonesty & fraud. Indeed, the Law Society went out of its way in a determined effort to prevent me from obtaining legal representation and access to the courts to pursue Penman and his legal firm Stormonth Darling solicitors, for the untold damage it did to my family. Nothing then had changed - there were still plenty of crooked lawyers in business, and the Law Society of Scotland still covered up for crooked lawyers no matter what.

Proposals since 1999 to bring independent regulation to lawyers were blocked by Law Society. The legacy of Andrew Penman, and the cover up by the Law Society of his actions was felt by all solicitors just as in the McCabe case, and assisted with the drive to bring about independent regulation of lawyers and end the closed shop operated by the Law Society of Scotland that allowed thousands of complaints to be binned while investigations were whitewashed.

2006, and still plenty crooked lawyers in Scotland. Things are now so bad in Scotland that many solicitors & legal firms have 'toxic levels of client complaints & claims' for poor legal service, rendering the use of Scots solicitors a dangerous game of Russian roulette for consumers, where selecting the worst of a bad bunch can see you end up financially ruined and your lives destroyed by a greedy lawyer out to take as much as possible, safe in the knowledge his regulator, the Law Society of Scotland, will do nothing to help members of the public.

Lawyers staged mafia hit on one of their own. Indeed the corruption of Scotland's legal profession became so entrenched, the Law Society's own Chief Accountant, Leslie Cumming, was subject to a mafia hit, staged by crooked lawyers in an attempt it has since been claimed to put off investigations into crooked lawyers .. and while the then Law Society Chief Douglas Mill was busy blaming clients for the attack on Cumming, it became clear to all the motives for the attack came from within the ranks of Scotland's solicitors, who had become so evil they would consider and use murder hits to escape justice for their vast network of corruption against clients.

2007, and even more crooked lawyers. The media coverage of countless scandals within the Scots legal establishment, and the Law Society’s seeming ability to whitewash any crooked lawyer, no matter the crimes they had committed, ultimately brought about the creation of legislation passed in 2007 to 'improve' regulation of the legal profession, however the 'independent' Scottish legal Complaints Commission which was created as a result of the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 has since been co-opted by the Law Society, and is mired in many scandals itself, as the legal profession fights back to retain its crooked regulatory powers over crooked lawyers.

Let us finally take a look at some of the people who have perpetuated this disgraceful state of affairs the Scots legal services market finds itself in :

Douglas Mill, ex-Chief Exec. of the Law Society. Douglas Mill, recently famed on television for supporting Sir Fred Goodwin who brought RBS to its knees, made no bones about it, he had no time for clients who complained against crooked lawyers, and saw it as his mission to interfere in complaints & financial claims against crooked lawyers. Mill horrendously hounded clients who dared make a complaint against a solicitor, and personally saw to it that attempts at legal action against solicitors failed at every turn, even demanding legal aid be refused to anyone seeking to take a lawyer to court.

Philip Yelland, Head of Client Relations. During all this time, and all these scandals, one man has been the key to ‘Client Relations’ at the Law Society of Scotland, Mr Philip Yelland, who has presided over scandal after scandal, where curiously many of the crooked lawyers got off the hook, or investigations were simply whitewashed, while the Law Society saw to it members of the public were denied access to justice and a solicitor to try and pursue the thousands of McCabes and Penmans for the damage they did to many clients.

Michael Clancy, Director of Law Reform. Despite the hundreds of ‘crooked lawyer’ scandals in the last two decades, and all the promises of reform from the Law Society itself, nothing has been done to help thousands of people with outstanding cases against crooked lawyers, and some at the Law Society such as Michael Clancy, have come down hard against any proposals to bring in Parliament or new legislation to help clean up the legal profession’s sins of the past.

You can read my own proposals, in effect. a “Truth & Reconciliation” proposal for the Law Society’s sins of the past here : The polluter pays - Why cleaning up lawyers sins of the past would be good for the public & legal profession alike

We are now at a point where no matter the scale of corruption in Scotland’s legal services market, nothing will bring the reforms and consumer protection that all Scots and consumers of legal services in this country should have. The feeling now by many is that when someone goes to a lawyer, the odds are they are going to get ripped off, and with lawyers experiencing a marked downturn in legal business, levels of fraud against clients through faked up legal fees and menacing demands for expenses on work not carried out are sharply rising.

If we are to have good regulation of legal services in Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland and those associated with it, presently or formerly, cannot be allowed anywhere near such a body, as the crop of scandals at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission show very clearly.

As long as we have a Justice Secretary who says he will protect lawyers from much needed reforms, the Scots public will always take second place to the criminal element of society that walks around with a Law Society of Scotland membership badge, professing to offer the best in legal services when in reality they offer levels of toxicity to consumers that Chemistry could never hope to define.