Sunday, April 08, 2007

Scandals keep coming as election news steals the limelight

A quick update on some items I covered previously.

It seems there is a witch hunt in the Roxburghshire Bar Association (which I should more properly call the Faculty of Solicitors in Roxburghshire) for the Solicitor who passed me a batch of client files on the continuing fiddling of Norman Howitt, Chartered Accountant, Welchs & Co , which I covered here :

A picture is worth a thousand words - Images of fraud reveal corruption & deceit by lawyers & accountants in the Scottish Borders

Despite a few threats & enquiries in my own direction for the identity of this individual, I always protect my sources, as you well know - so no name will be given out from here for you to have your 'wicker man' day in the Borders (you can save that straw statue for me, lads).

I must say though, reading through those files, it seems Welch & Co as a company are just as crooked as Norman Howitt - and to be well avoided by clients who want honest accounts, unless of course, the methodology is to fiddle HM Inland Revenue ...which I hear, is illegal ...

Of course, stealing people's bank books & pension books for oneself is also illegal .. but Norman Howitt certainly got off with that one, at least for the time being. Now that some others are paying more attention to the evidence I posted, and after further contacts on the matter ...there might just be a wee turn of justice here, now that people in the right places are wondering about Mr Howitt ...

On the battle with the Scottish Executive over the Bill Alexander FOI, yes, we are al still waiting to see what's in the carefully sanitised documents which will eventually wing their way to the public domain.

I covered this one here : Scottish Executive drops FOI disclosure battle over restrictive access to Courts while thousands go without representation

I'm sure the Executive and the Law Society of Scotland have now had ample time to fiddle the documents, minutes of meetings & the rest which form the response to Mr Bill Alexander's FOI request ... although of course we do have an upcoming election in May, which may give yet another excuse for the Executive to withhold information on yet more scandal, in fear of losing a few more electoral points to the SNP.

A reminder to you all ... If you have experienced poor treatment from the Law Society of Scotland in a complaint or lost money to a crooked lawyer and nothing was done about it, Please sign Petition PE1033 and begin the campaign for redress and resolution to the way clients have been discriminated against by crooked lawyers & the Law Society of Scotland under their decades old prejudiced self regulatory complaints system.

In the Sunday Herald this weekend, the prospect of Wendy Alexander leading the Labour Party in Scotland makes the headlines .. and what a frightener that one would be ... with the prospect of the long arm of her brother, Douglas Alexander, taking out the LPLA Bill and any reforms against the legal profession ... something well within his means I would think, and well within the policies of his old firm, Messrs Digby Brown, who certainly like to restrict legislation, reforms, justice, and public access to the courts.

If Labour want to lose the election, then certainly flagging Wendy Alexander as a possible leader after the exit of McConnell, will do it I hope .. so lets hunt around for as much scandal as possible now on Digby Brown et all to open peoples eyes to some good old fashioned political corruption ...

The Sunday Herald also covers a story where, unsurprisingly, a convicted stalker has been given £30,000 to hire an advocate to defend against a Police bid to gain a 10-year Sexual Offenders Protection Order (Sopo) against him.

These lawyers, and indeed, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, certainly know who to give the legal aid to ... but just say for instance, a person comes along trying to sue a hospital for a negligent death or even protect themselves from a gang of crooked lawyers out to steal their property ...there's no chance of legal aid, because it just doesn't fit in with the deals between SLAB and the legal profession.

Here are the articles from the Sunday Herald, with links to follow.

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1315265.0.convicted_stalker_given_30_000_to_hire_top_advocate.php

Convicted stalker given £30,000 to hire top advocate
By John Bynorth
Police face huge costs fighting action

A CONVICTED stalker who battled a legal bid to ban him from approaching lone women received £30,000 from the public purse to hire a leading advocate to represent him in court.

The Sunday Herald has learned that "highly dangerous" Robert Basterfield, 35, was awarded legal aid to hire advocate James MacDonald to defend him against Tayside Police chief constable John Vine's bid for a 10-year Sexual Offenders Protection Order (Sopo) against him.

The force - which claims the Australian-born former taxi driver is a danger to women after he was convicted twice of stalking offences - immediately hired their own advocate, Barry Smith, rather than a cheaper solicitor, ramping up their legal bill by tens of thousands of pounds. The case finished last week at Perth Sheriff Court.

The revelations come as a Sunday Herald investigation has found more than 70 Sopos have been put in place across Scotland since new laws were introduced in 2005. They were brought in following the murder of Livingston schoolboy Rory Blackhall by Simon Blackhall, who was on bail for sex offences. However, only one Risk of Sexual Harm Order (RHSO) - given to "suspected" predators - has been granted.

Vine said it was "extraordinary" that Basterfield was able to hire an advocate for thousands of pounds a day to conduct his case. The chief constable told the Sunday Herald: "We've had to go along with that expense in order to fight the case.

"The final bill will be between £10,000 and £30,000, perhaps more. Unfortunately, we are not getting legal aid and this money is coming out of the force budget - money we could normally spend on putting officers on the beat.

"I thought it was extraordinary that he got legal aid for an advocate, but if we have to spend money on a top advocate to stop this man then that's what we have to do. We would probably have to spend far more than this if we had to investigate an offence this man committed in the future."

Vine took action to bar Basterfield from talking to or contacting lone females following his convictions.

Basterfield, from Perth, is currently under an interim order, banning him from taking part in any "recreational activity" such as visiting the cinema or a bar without his probation officer's permission.

The police originally wanted the Sopo applied for 30 years, but later reduced it to 10 years.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Herald has obtained evidence under freedom of information legislation from seven of Scotland's eight forces that the orders are now being applied more widely than ever. Northern Constabulary has taken out 22 Sopos - the most of any force. However, their only application for an RHSO was denied.

Lothian and Borders has been granted 19 Sopos, and with no RHSO applications. Strathclyde has obtained five Sopos - and five interim orders identical to that in place against Basterfield - but hasn't sought any RHSOs.

Dumfries and Galloway, has been awarded four Sopos but hasn't applied for any RHSOs. Central Scotland has obtained six Sopos but not applied for RHSOs.

Fife have been granted eight Sopos, and sought two RHSO orders - one of which was declined. And Tayside has been given four Sopos and no RHSOs.

Grampian Police was the first force in the country to seek RHSOs for four suspected predators after the law was introduced but no figures were available at the time of going to press regarding the number of orders it has been awarded.

Vine added that he will consider an appeal if the judge in the Basterfield case, Lindsay Foulis, rules against the force in his written judgment due later this week.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board confirmed Basterfield would have been allowed an advocate after pre-trial discussions. A spokesman said: "If it is fairly serious, then normally an advocate would take it and it certainly sounds likely in this case. However, it's too early for us to say how much the case would have cost."

and the article on Wendy Alexander's possible bid for the Labour leadership in Scotland (let's jump over the side now folks if it happens !)

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1315306.0.wendy_alexander_ready_to_fight_for_labour_leadership.php

Wendy Alexander ready to fight for Labour leadership
By Paul Hutcheon

Dewar's favourite to battle with health minister if McConnell ousted

WENDY ALEXANDER is poised to seek the leadership of the Scottish Labour Party should a disastrous result at the coming election force Jack McConnell out.

The Sunday Herald understands that jockeying has already begun in the party's senior ranks, with Alexander ready to stand should the top position become vacant.

Several Labour insiders admitted Alexander, the former enterprise minister, and health minister Andy Kerr were the likely candidates to go head-to-head if McConnell relinquishes his post after next month's election. It has been suggested Kerr could run on a "joint ticket" with parliament minister Margaret Curran.

This early planning follows Labour's inability to eat into the SNP's lead in the opinion polls. A new survey, carried out for Scottish Opinion, put the Nationalists on 40% of the constituency vote, ahead of Labour's 28%. It also gave the SNP an 11% lead on the regional list vote, with Alex Salmond's party on 39% and Labour on 28%.

A seat projection carried out for the Mail on Sunday put the SNP on 56 seats, with Labour behind on 40.

The results come on top of Labour's internal polls, which are finding the party at least five points behind the SNP.

Labour pollster Philip Gould admitted the deficit at a briefing last week, at which McConnell said: "We're behind. Our private polls show us behind."

The prospect of losing to the SNP has prompted senior Labour figures to think about who will the lead them in a post-McConnell era. The Motherwell and Wishaw MSP is expected to stand down if Labour lose out to the SNP on seats.

The most likely scenario, according to Labour insiders, is for a contest between Alexander and Kerr.

Alexander would probably have the backing of chancellor Gordon Brown and his supporters in Scotland, despite the fact she angered him in 2001 by not challenging McConnell for the top job.

Kerr, a McConnell ally, could expect support from his Lanarkshire base and activists in the west of Scotland, and may run with Curran as his deputy.

One source said: "It will be between Andy and Wendy if Jack stands down. The options are limited but very clear."

Another MSP tipped as leadership material, finance minister Tom McCabe, is understood not to want the top job.

Revelations of discussions about McConnell's successor are unlikely to help a Labour campaign that has so far failed the party in the opinion polls.

McConnell will this week attempt to seize the initiative by launching Labour's manifesto, a 100-page document that runs to 28,000 words.

One announcement will be a 25% cut in pensioners' water and sewerage charges, as a first step to abolition. More than 600,000 households would see a discount worth around £180 a year for those living in a band D property.

McConnell said of the new policy: "A quarter of the costs pensioners pay in their council tax bills is for water and sewerage. Labour will cut them in half and eventually remove them completely. This will make a massive difference to the household bills our pensioners pay."

Kerr said of the leadership speculation: "We are all trying to win the Scottish election. Whoever is saying this is undermining Labour's campaign. It is not true and it makes me angry."

Asked if he would stand for the leadership if there were a vacancy, he said: "Jack McConnell will be first minister, therefore there will be no vacancy."

Alexander could not be contacted.

Oh .. I'm sometimes accused of not reporting on the good events in Scotland... well, for a change, here's something good - an article on the "Glasgow Girls" frmo the Herald newspaper, showing how some young people from Glasgow are campaigning on immigration issues, and standing up for what they believe in .. we need a lot more of that in Scotland - so congratulations to the Glasgow Girls !

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1314707.0.0.php

Glasgow Girls in ‘Declaration of Scotstoun’
ALISON CHIESA April 06 2007

The Glasgow Girls campaign group yesterday launched the Declaration of Scotstoun as they outlined their plans for the future and hopes for the Scottish election.

The teenagers, who lobby on asylum issues, unveiled their vision on the 687th anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath.

The seven-strong group were among 100 signatories, including author AL Kennedy and Bill Speirs, former general secretary of the STUC, declaring support for 10 "democratic reforms".

The reform call included a referendum on independence, a reduction in the number of politicians, and a lowering of the voting age to 16.

The declaration - which also pleaded for an immediate amnesty on "legacy" case asylum seekers - was launched by the group on behalf of YouScotland.com.

The interactive website was set up in February with the aim of ensuring the views of "ordinary" voters are uppermost in the current election campaign.

As the teenagers launched the declaration in Scotstoun, they wore the national Italian tartan, in honour of Scotland's "oldest and most successful ethnic minority".

The group came to prominence two years ago when they launched a campaign to save a classmate at Drumchapel High School in Glasgow from deportation.

Somalian-born Amal Azzudin, 17, who attended the launch yesterday with group members, Emma Clifford and Roza Salih, explained why they had signed up for the declaration.

"We think young people should have a say in what happens in their own country," she said. "Among other issues included in the declaration are those of asylum. We hope that everyone takes the opportunity to sign it and, in so doing, changes things in Scotland."

Ms Azzudin, who has ambitions to become a politician, was awarded refugee status in 2004. She added: "While my future's secure, I cannot sit back and do nothing. I still think Scotland is a just country, but the way asylum seeker children are being treated, especially, is unbelievable. Being locked up in detention centres is something they will never forget."

Like others in the group, she gets "frustrated" at the apparently slow political progress over asylum issues. "I know political change takes time," she said. "But we really feel there is just talk of promises from politicians, with nothing being done. While we wait, we watch our community suffer, and it isn't just asylum seekers - it is the teachers, the neighbours, the friends."

Ms Salih, 17, originally from Iraq, remains at risk of being removed from the country she has made her home for six years. Still at school, she has aspirations to become a human rights lawyer. "I feel we have no hope," she said. "Asylum seekers can't concentrate on their studies because they fear being sent back any moment."

She added that she felt her culture was "both Iraqi and Scots". "I was born in Iraq, but I also consider myself Scottish. I grew up here, I understood life here, my heart opened here. Here is my country now and this is where I want to study and make a life," she said.

Alan Smart, spokesman for YouScotland.com, explained the symbolism behind the teenagers' decision to wear the Italian tartan.

He said: "The girls wore the tartan of Scotland's oldest and most successful ethnic minority. This was a community itself initially stigmatised and spurned by the authorities of their day - until it became obvious that they were enriching the communities they lived in, rather than taking from them."

He added: "The Glasgow Girls have shown how, in another way, asylum seekers and people from other cultures can enrich Scotland by backing democratic reforms which will empower the people of Scotland and, in so doing, challenge the stale, closed and largely self-serving culture of our political elites."

As with its original, the new declaration on the website is seeking an international audience, Mr Smart said. "The website aims to give a modern-day meaning to the ideals of the original declaration's signatories, and to those of the founding fathers of the USA, themselves in part inspired by events in Arbroath," he added.

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Scottish Executive budget on lawyers salaries revealed at over £5 million pounds while public face restrictions on legal representation

While the ranks of Scotland's 'Family Lawyers' happily use strike action & case boycotts to get their way with the legal aid budget - and the Law Society of Scotland makes sure that anyone trying to use a lawyer to sue a lawyer can't get into court, the Scottish Executive has no such apparent problems in securing legal representation, as a Freedom of Information disclosure to Mr Duncan Shields reveals.

The response from the Scottish Executive, reveals that 114 lawyers work for the Scottish Executive at a cost of £5,262,347 per annum - showing that while the taxpayer finds it hard to get a lawyer to do anything competently - and those who can't afford a lawyer can't even get one to work on legal aid - the Executive certainly has quite a little army of lawyers ready to do their bidding.

So, if you want a lawyer - why bother going to the Law Society of Scotland or consulting the Yellow Pages, when you would be as well to phone up the Scottish Executive and ask for one of theirs !

Just who these lawyers are, remains to be seen, as the Scottish Executive has not revealed any identities within the FOI disclosure, although questions are now surfacing as to the regulatory records of those lawyers recruited by the Scottish Executive, with suspicions that some business contracted out, has seemingly went to legal firms embroiled in bitter negligence cases with clients, which have also been raised with the Scottish Executive by constituents & their elected representatives.

These revelations make for interesting reading, given the Executive have held off from implementing sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 - which would have allowed the public a wider choice in legal representation than the currently required choice - that of either a lawyer or an advocate, or typically both, at great expense, and severe restriction.

The Salary Table released from the Scottish Executive on lawyers salaries :

FOI response from Executive on lawyers salaries

I would point out that the Executive have only released a general note on salaries in this case - and it may well be that when other benefits & perks are included, the final salary bill will certainly be over £6 million pounds. Further extravagance at the taxpayers expense perhaps ? .. so we certainly need to know the rest if we are all paying for it !

The following is the Scottish Executive's covering letter to Mr Duncan Shields who made the FOI inquiry, which proves for interesting reading, and will no doubt, give all of you some constructive ideas.

Dear Mr Shields

Thank you for your request dated 9 February 2007 for information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act.

You ask whether Mr Paul Cackette is a member of the Law Society of Scotland. Under section 25 of the Act, we are not required to provide information in response to a request if it is already reasonably accessible to you. The information you requested is available from the Law Society of Scotland's website at http://www.lawscot.org.uk

You request the names of all members of the Law Society of Scotland working for the Executive who have access to your correspondence, and also the names of all members of the Society acting for the Executive in connection with the implementation of sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

We do endeavour to provide information whenever possible. However, in this instance we consider that exemption under sections 30(c) , 38(1)(b) and 39(1) of the Freedom ofInformation (Scotland) Act applies.

These exemptions cover information the disclosure of which would be liable to prejudice substantially the conduct of public affairs; information which constitutes personal data the disclosure of which would contravene the data protection principles contained in the Data Protection Act 1998 and information the release of which would be liable to endanger the health and safety of an individual.

You request the names of all members of the Law Society of Scotland acting for the Scottish Executive in house, together with details of the salaries and benefits paid to each member.

The names of all members of the Society working for the Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive are available from the Society's website at the address supplied above, as are members working for the Legal Secretariat to the Lord Advocate and Office of the Scottish Parliamentary Counsel. A number of members of the Society work in policy posts for the Scottish Executive Justice Department, and their names are also available from this website.. We therefore consider that we do notrequire to provide this information.

We consider that information relating to individuals' salary and benefit details is exempt under sections 30(c) , 38(1)(b) and 39(1). However, I attach a list which contains details of the pay bands within which Scottish Executive lawyers are employed, the salariesapplicable to those bands and the staff numbers within each band.

You also request minutes and memorandums of meetings where discussion has taken place as regards implementing sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. We have now completed our search for the information yourequire, and copies of the following documents are enclosed:-

1. Note of meeting between the Executive and the Department for Constitutional Affairs on 22 February 2006;
2. Note of meeting between the Executive and the Law Society of Scotland on 13 March 2006;
3. Note of meeting between the Executive, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys on 23 May 2006;
4. Note of telephone conference between the Executive and the Office of Fair Trading on 27 July 2006;
5. Note of meeting between the Executive and the Scottish Consumer Council on 2 August 2006.

We consider that exemption under section 29(1)(a) and 30(b) applies to the notes of two meetings between the Executive and the Lord President's office in February and August 2006. These exemptions cover information relating to the formulation or development of Scottish Administration policy and information the release of which would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice to Ministers or the free and frank exchange ofviews for the purposes of deliberation. We believe that these exemptions apply on the basis that these notes constitute the preparation of advice to Ministers.

We also consider that exemption under sections 29(1)(a), 30(b) and (c) and 38(1)(b) applies to the minute of a meeting with a member of the public in 2001. This meeting involved discussion of the personal views of an individual relevant to the formulation ofgovernment policy. We consider that there is a need to protect the free and frank exchange of such views, and not to release information relating to them withoutthe consent of the individual concerned.

We believe that exemption under sections 30(b) and 38(1)(b) applies to the note of a meeting with representatives of a stakeholder organisation in 1997. This is because the note records the personal views and intentions of individuals, and we consider thatdisclosure of these would be liable to prejudice the free and frank exchange of views.

In reaching our decision about the release of information under sections 29(1)(a), 30(b) and (c) and 39(1) (exemptions which are not absolute) we have applied the "public interest" test, where we carefully weigh up the balance between whether it would be inthe public's best interest to either release or withhold the information. We believe that it would not be in the public interest to release the information because this would discourage the development of policy and the preparation of advice to Ministers in afree and frank way.

In the case of the material relating to individual civil servants which we consider to be exempt under sections 30(c) and 39(1), disclosure could lead to the harassment or intimidation of individual employees with detrimental consequences for the effective conduct of public affairs.

If you believe that our decision not to release all the information we consider to be exempt is wrong, you do have the right to request us to review it. Your request should be made within 40 working days of the date of this letter, and we will reply within 20working days of receipt. If our decision is unchanged following a review and you remain unsatisfied with this, you then have the right to make a formal complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

If you require a review of our decision to be carried out, please write to Robert Gordon, Head of the Scottish Executive Justice Department, St Andrew's House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG, explaining why you wish a review to be carried out.

Access to Justice Division
Scottish Executive Justice Department

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Scottish Executive drops FOI disclosure battle over restrictive access to Courts while thousands go without representation

The Scottish Executive have decided not to take the Bill Alexander FOI disclosure battle to the House of Lords, so, unless a few documents are going to go missing (which many suspect) .. we should get some good indications soon as to the strength of the legal profession's lobbying and all those political maneuvers which kept those parts of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990 inactive, which would have opened the highly restrictive markets of legal & courtroom representation to the public - and perhaps avoided many of the problems our Scottish legal system faces today.

You can read more on my coverage of the Alexander FOI disclosure battle here :
Scottish Executive fails to block FOI disclosure on records of restricted access to Courts

Scottish Executive thought to be blameworthy for allowing restrictive practices in legal services

Many of the current problems of lack of legal representation in Scotland may not have actually existed, if access to the courts had been opened up years ago, as were intended in the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990 - but for the fact of course, the legal profession saw the writing on the wall for their way of life - where certainly much of their work & income at the time came from legal aid.

Currently, if you want to get into Court, you have to use a lawyer or an advocate, and if you want to use an advocate, you have to use a lawyer - despite claims to the contrary where the Faculty protests that advocates will work direct for clients.

This was to have been broken with sections in the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990, which, if implemented as they should have been at the time - the public would have had a wider choice as to whom they could choose to represent their affairs.

Sadly, this never happened, due to powerful lobbying from the legal profession which kept these much needed reforms off the books - all because of money - just in the same way the legal profession have lobbied to keep the small claims amount at a few hundred pounds in Scotland - so that for anything else, you will of course, need the services of a lawyer. Good for them, but not good for us.

Anyway, watch this space, and watch the newspapers soon for the revelations which may or may not come out in the Freedom of Information disclosure on the Bill Alexander request .. .which will depend on how honest some people at the Scottish Executive are feeling in terms of which documents are actually released ...

Not to be outdone by the imminent release of such documents which may or may not portray the legal profession & the Law Society of Scotland as a bunch of political manipulators, the traditional way out of the media spotlight on such issues, is to come up with a few distractions - and we have had a few of those this week ...

One of these now long running distractions, is the battle over legal aid payments between the so-called 'family law' lawyers, and the Scottish Executive over who gets paid what & how much from the Legal Aid budget.

While the issue is publicly portrayed by the Scottish legal profession as being a dispute solely between those 'family law' lawyers who make their bread & butter from legal aid, and the Executive - in reality, the strings of the major players in this battle are being pulled by those at the Law Society of Scotland's HQ in Drumsheugh Gardens.

Helen Hughes, the Chair of the Family Law Association, is the latest of many from the legal profession to join the fray over who gets what from the legal aid budget - blaming the Executive for the alleged failure of the 'Block Fees" system of legal aid payments and taking the easy way out .... but the reality of the situation is that it's the lawyers who are causing what are now called 'legal aid deserts', as the Herald newspaper reports quoting Helen Hughes :

"Hughes, a partner in Paisley-based law firm McAuley McCarthy & Co, said: "It is, today, impossible for private individuals to find a lawyer prepared to take on interdicts on a Legal Aid basis in the Highlands and Islands, Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders, Edinburgh, Glasgow and East Kilbride. My firm is getting numerous calls each day from would-be clients in these regions pleading for representation."

Yes .. well, of course, the problem with all this is that the legal profession has been used to getting it's way for so long, it got used to charging what it wanted for work, getting the money from the legal aid budget and hence we have this situation today where long overdue limits on the milking of taxpayers money have been turned against the public by the legal profession, in the form of denying legal representation to those who most need it - in order to get more money. Some, would call that blackmail.

I'm sure the legal profession think their tactics are doing them a lot of good in their fight to get more money - after all, everyone at some time or another, needs legal representation - but this battle over legal aid, with all the dirty tricks, sleazy meetings with political allies & spin from the legal profession itself, just makes the argument greater for fully independent regulation of all legal professionals, and the immediate implementation of sections of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Act 1990, to open up access to the courts in terms of who can represent clients - currently restricted to lawyers & advocates due to some 17 years worth of lobbying from the legal profession to keep it that way.

Maybe the family lawyers should choose a new representative in their quest to gain more legal aid. How about Donald Findlay QC ? After all, he is Scotland's top legal aid earner - and who better for the Law Society of Scotland to head such a campaign to get even more money out of the taxpayer for lawyers pockets ...

Some may speculate, the apparent problems of the Law Society and the publicity drive to portray lawyers as overworked and poor .. may well be linked in the battle over legal aid ....

Here is the article from the Herald, and a couple of others I failed to mention recently - one amazingly reporting that the Law Society of Scotland is virtually broke - probably an indication of the price of keeping all those crooked lawyers away from clients they ruined - and perhaps even the rather costly battle over the LPLA Bill .. with all those favours & bungs flowing like a river I hear ...

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/law/display.var.1284691.0.0.php

Jamieson urged to turn clock back and abolish ‘block fees’
IAN FRASER March 25 2007

Family law in Scotland is under threat, says Helen Hughes, chair of the Family Law Association.

She lays the cause of the crisis firmly at the door of the Scottish Executive's "block fee" payment system for civil legal aid work.

Since the itemised fee system was scrapped in 2003, solicitors have been earning less for civil legal aid work than they did before 1992, and families at the lower end of the social scale are finding it nearly impossible to find legal representation across a range of major family issues from child custody to divorce settlements.

Hughes has written a highly- critical letter to Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson urging her to turn the clock back and scrap the "block fee" regime.

In her letter, Hughes said: "Many ordinary Scottish people are finding that they are unable to instruct a solicitor to deal with their separation/ divorce or child care issue on a legal aid basis.

"To enable the people of Scotland to access the rights available to them by law we need a Legal Aid system which provides sufficient remuneration for solicitors. The block fee system does not provide such remuneration."

According to Hughes, the block payment system, introduced in October 2003, has made law firms increasingly reluctant to take on civil family law cases and interdicts on a Legal Aid basis. As a result, victims of domestic violence are finding it virtually impossible to persuade a solicitor to represent them. And in recent months large tracts of Scotland have become virtual legal deserts.

Hughes, a partner in Paisley-based law firm McAuley McCarthy & Co, said: "It is, today, impossible for private individuals to find a lawyer prepared to take on interdicts on a Legal Aid basis in the Highlands and Islands, Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders, Edinburgh, Glasgow and East Kilbride. My firm is getting numerous calls each day from would-be clients in these regions pleading for representation.

The situation has become so acute that SLAB - the Scottish Legal Aid Board - is to finance its own directly employed network of solicitors in Legal Aid offices in the worst-hit areas. The first of these is expected to open in Inverness this autumn. A SLAB spokesman said it is being introduced as a "safety net."

According to Hughes, "block fees" take no account of the fact that many family law cases are what she describes as "high maintenance". She said: "Most such cases are complicated factually and often involve complex legal argument. In addition, we're often dealing with people who are highly stressed, who require not only legal advice but additional guidance when their marriage or relationship ends. When such cases also involve domestic abuse and child-related issues, the time spent on a particular file rises immensely. The issue is one of access to justice."

Hughes said, if the current regime is allowed to persist, "not only will the people of Scotland find it increasingly difficult to obtain a solicitor on a legal aid basis but those that do will increasingly find that their cases are dealt with by less experienced solicitors, which will undoubtedly have an impact in the way cases are presented to the court and in the long term adversely effect the development of family law in Scotland. Not to mention the impact on the lives of clients.

"The Executive deserves to be congratulated on their efforts in developing family law through legislation such as the Protection from Abuse act and the Family Law act.

"But if the people of Scotland are unable to find a solicitor to undertake their case on a legal aid basis one has to ask the question, "What was the point of introducing such legislation?"

A motion was unanimously carried at the Law Society of Scotland's annual meeting in early March urging the Executive to review the rates of Legal Aid.

A spokesman for the Executive said: "We have been aware of concerns expressed by the Family Law Association in respect of fees for civil legal aid Following a recent report into civil cases by SLAB, ministers have announced that civil legal aid fees and eligibility levels will be reviewed."

"The Executive needs to ensure public funds are used to their full potential and although it can encourage, it cannot compel private sector firms to provide legally aided services.

"A number of steps are being taken to ensure that there is a nationwide supply of legal aid services to provide access to justice for individuals."

.. and now, the rather embarrasing story that the Law Society of Scotland is short of money ... or, is it ?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/news/display.var.1256624.0.0.php

Wage bill pushes Law Society into the red
PAUL ROGERSON, City Editor March 13 2007

The Law Society of Scotland slipped more than £500,000 into the red last year and has revised its budgetary plans in a bid to restore depleted cash reserves.

A steep hike in the Edinburgh-based body's wage bill was largely to blame for the loss.

In its annual report, the governing body for Scotland's 10,000 solicitors reported a deficit of £537,000 for the year to October 31. Income climbed £365,000 to just over £6m, mainly as a consequence of increased subscriptions. However, spending soared by £762,000 to £6.6m, after salary costs rose by £495,000 to more than £3.7m.
advertisement

This increase came despite a slight fall in total full-time equivalents from 121 to 116. It includes some £88,000 in severance payments. Accounting rule changes also triggered a sharp rise in the costs of servicing staff pension plans.

Society treasurer Jamie Millar stressed in the report that although the balance sheet shows a cash surplus of £581,000, this is only because higher subs relating to the next financial year were banked early. He added: "If the advance income had been received (after the year end) there would have been a cash deficit of £851,000 at October 31. This deficit is hidden in the accounts due to timing...as the cash deficit worsens the bank overdraft is being utilised earlier and for longer each year."

Millar told The Herald: "The Society has stringent budgetary policies and procedures in place to manage our overheads and expenditures and is presently reviewing our strategic direction. We are planning further changes to improve our effectiveness."

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Dean of Faculty attacks legal aid & regulatory reforms as a threat to lawyers independence as prospect of political meddling by legal profession looms

Politics is alive & well in the legal profession it seems, with Roy Martin QC, the Dean of Faculty, using a recent admissions ceremony for new solicitors entering the Scottish legal profession, to attack the reforms of independent regulation brought forward in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, as well as having a rant at the drying up of the legal aid river of money flowing into his colleagues pockets.

Mr Martin, QC, is, of course,quite upset that the traditional practice of lawyer covering up for lawyer, has been thrown on it's head by the recently passed but long over due LPLA Bill, given that around 5000 plus complaints a year are made against solicitors in Scotland by clients on everything from embezzlement to fraud to theft of property, negligence, inflated accounts, falsified work, and just about every other crooked practice one could think of.

Unlike Mr Martin and his colleagues, those who don't have the convenience of professional self regulation' would normally be facing criminal charges and jail sentences on many of those complaints made by clients to the Law Society & Faculty of Advocates, but the convenience of self regulation by the Faculty & Law Society has certainly been successful over the years in protecting the many crooked lawyers in the profession from justice, while also making sure the client who has lost out at the hands of their legal representatives, gets little or no compensation .

The right to sit in judgement on one's colleagues & friends, to make sure they only get a slap on the wrist when caught with their hands in the till, is of course, why Mr Martin & his colleagues in the legal profession have for so long, fought tooth & nail to protect their self given right of self regulation - which the legal profession sought & gained from governments long ago.

We all saw, in the following examples of previous articles, how the legal profession & it's 'leading lights' attacked the proposed LPLA Bill, to make dealing with legal agents much fairer for the consumer, and we also saw how the Chief Executive of the Law Society, Douglas Mill, went one step further & threatened our Scottish Parliament with a Court challenge should the LPLA Bill not be amended to it's liking (although Mill actually preferred the legislation be killed off completely).

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

Law Society of Scotland & Lord Lester QC challenge new legislation to protect Scottish public against crooked lawyers

Scotsman responds to Peter Cherbi and the Herald with a living eulogy of Douglas Mill

Law Society of Scotland claims success in gagging the press over Herald newspaper revelations of secret case memos

Scottish legal profession campaigns against open debate in Scottish Parliament on independent regulation of complaints against lawyers

Who is a greater threat to the Parliament in that one then ? the public, or the legal profession ? ... seems the lawyers can even get away with threatening court action against our elected representatives, while any such attempt by a member of the public is laughed off ...because of course, the public would never be able to secure legal representation to actually take on such a case against the Parliament & win ...

However, Roy Martin's blast at the LPLA Bill may be more than just the rant of an upset lawyer because he didn't get his way ...

I understand several on-the-side meetings have been held between some members of the legal profession and some of Scotland's Political parties, with ideas being raised regarding limitation of the implementation of the LPLA Bill and scaling back of some of it's provisions - in exchange for possible donations & political support .. and no doubt some favours down the road .. such as those sticky secret mortgages on the side which quite a few ministers of the current Scottish Executive enjoy, paid for by us, the taxpayer, through their Parliamentary expenses allowances.

Two Scottish Executive Ministers revealed to be charging mortgage interest payments to the public

Scottish Labour Politician rents his own son's flat for £7000 a year, charging it up to taxpayers

I wonder if the major political parties involved in the Holyrood elections may wish to comment on that one ?

Could this be a fundamental shifting of the power base perhaps in Scottish politics, where the legal establishment might just be setting out to make sure it's favored candidates get in after the elections, and that indeed ... all those promises contained in the LPLA Bill of independent regulation for lawyers & higher compensation payments to ruined clients, might just go the way of those provisions in the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) Bill 1990, which were to open up the rights of Courtroom representation to the client and break the monopoly of solicitors & advocates - who are still the only authorised representatives of the public in our courts.

Scottish Executive thought to be blameworthy for allowing restrictive practices in legal services

Scottish Executive fails to block FOI disclosure on records of restricted access to Courts

We therefore have an example of that already in the above case ... so, no one can say it hasn't happened before ...

In an interesting development though, Roy Martin's tenure as Dean of Faculty proves yet again that nothing changes ... with only just last week, a complaints hearing against one of Scotland's most famous Advocates rigged so that the client wouldn't be able to attend ... certainly a sad indictment of regulatory practices as they stand .. and yet again more evidence, if required these people need to be left to educate their colleagues in the ways of honesty, transparency & competency, while someone else, outside the legal profession, handles the regulatory side of things.

A reminder to you all ... If you have experienced poor treatment from the Law Society of Scotland in a complaint or lost money to a crooked lawyer and nothing was done about it, Please sign Petition PE1033 and begin the campaign for redress and resolution to the way clients have been discriminated against by crooked lawyers & the Law Society of Scotland under their decades old prejudiced self regulatory complaints system.

Related article from the Herald newspaper with link :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1270776.0.0.php

Lawyers’ independence 'undermined by politicians'
DAVID LEASK March 19 2007

Scotland's top advocate has accused politicians of undermining the independence of his profession.

Roy Martin, QC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, warned of a creeping threat to lawyer's freedoms - just as they are needed most.

Mr Martin, in a hard-hitting message to Scotland's latest crop of young lawyers, fired a broadside against new regulation and legal aid funding problems eroding their time-honoured and cherished independence from the state.

He told an admission ceremony for newly-qualified solicitors at Edinburgh's Parliament House: "There is a danger that interests which do not properly recognise the importance in a civilised society of an independent legal profession are taking steps which have already undermined, and will continue to undermine, that independence. In a society where the individual citizen is increasingly subject to regulation and control by the state, what the lawyer does is unique because it is he or she who has the responsibility of standing between the citizen and the state in all its guises - and it is essential that the lawyer can do so, and be seen to do so, independently."

Mr Martin's speech, said to be the most controversial delivered at the event in a generation, summed up simmering discontent on what some lawyers see as interference from Holyrood, Westminster, and even Brussels.

The dean has already joined with other senior law figures in warning of what they see as a threat to the independence of the justiciary and attacking the executive's Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which, widely welcomed by lay people, will effectively end centuries of self-regulation.

However, a spokesman for the Scottish Executive last night dismissed any suggestion recent reforms would do anything to take away lawyers' freedoms.

He said: "The last four years have been a time of unprecedented reform in the justice system.

"New laws and procedures have laid the platform for a more efficient, more effective justice system that treats victims, witnesses and consumers with increasing care and respect."