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

There will be no 'truth & reconciliation" between the public and the legal profession under Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, according to replies received from the Scottish Government on this issue.

While some within the SNP are floating the idea of 'truth & reconciliation' as a way of resolving long standing cases of injustice, it is just one step too far for the public to be allowed any accountability against injustice caused not only by the legal system, but also by the very legal profession which has caused so much trouble & pain in Scotland.

Kenny MacAskill : lawyers money making will take priority over the public interest no matter what ...

I am not too surprised that Mr MacAskill, a lawyer himself who has publicly stated it will be his mission to defend his lawyer colleagues from any criticism or 'misrepresentation', over it seems, anything to do with the public interest, has ruled out a move to resolve the legal profession's sins of the past against clients, where poor or corrupt regulation of crooked lawyers has allowed so many solicitors to remain in practice while many clients have been financially ruined.

I am surprised however, the Justice Secretary so blatantly protects the legal profession from any possible reforms which would damage its monopolistic business model, as well as impugning its controlled regulatory model, the latter of which Mr MacAskill has felt so strongly to protect that he selected a group of lawyers and ex Law Society Committee members to ensure the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission continues the Law Society's valuable work of letting crooked lawyers off the hook.

You can read some of those reports on the demise of the SLCC before it has even begun its work here :

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

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

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

So, who thinks the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will do any different from the Law Society of Scotland after those revelations ?

The proposals for 'truth & reconciliation' were made in Petition PE1033, which called for the Scottish Parliament to form an independent commission to resolve the legal profession's long list of poorly handled cases of complaints against crooked lawyers, which have caused so much harm to clients over the years.

Petition PE1033 : a call to resolve lawyers 'sins of the past' against clients, and a chance to do something for Scots before lawyers ...

The Law Society of Scotland however, had other ideas, and ordered the Petitions Committee to close consideration of the petition, implying the SLCC may be able to deal with such issues, when we now see from how the SLCC will be staffed, it certainly won't be dealing with any cases of the past, with the revelation the same Law Society staff who have caused such terrible injustice against the public, are transferring to the SLCC themselves ...

Michael Clancy, Director of Law Reform - Law Society of Scotland demands no truth & reconciliation for ruined clients of crooked lawyers

Michael Clancy, who is the Director of Law Reform at the Law Society of Scotland, but doesn't want the law reformed against lawyers themselves, certainly gives the orders as you can see from the above letter, and the Parliament are only too willing, save the odd note of dissent, to comply and ensure that any call to bring solicitors to account for their injustice against clients does not get heard.

Not only do we have justice denied by the legal profession in Scotland, we also have democracy & accountability denied when it comes to politicians being asked to do something extra to heal injustice, which they should have done a long time ago, and so obviously left out of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which was brought in to heal some of the problems of biased complaints regulation by lawyers against lawyers.

It appears that Mr MacAskill shares the same chip on his shoulder against me which a few at the Law Society have, therefore I doubt I will revisit this issue with them again for now, as cutting through Mr MacAskill's 'I will support lawyers over people" bias is just impossible and I can't & wont offer the kind of incentives that the other Justice Secretary Michael Clancy along with his colleagues at the Law Society can offer the Scottish Government to keep such 'truth & reconciliation' proposals off the table.

Helping Scots victims of injustice is what being a Scot is all about ...

Of course, it is open to others to raise the same issue ... and perhaps you may be more successful than me, so give it a try please - it's an effort to help all Scots who use lawyers and legal services.

So, little wonder that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill supports his colleagues in the legal profession, when they are capable of ripping off earning so much from the taxpayer, as the following story on how much money lawyers took from the taxpayer for themselves in the miners compensation deal demonstrates.

Before anyone says, 'oh the miners compensation rip off happened mostly in England & Wales, and it couldn't happen in Scotland', well, the Law Society of Scotland and it's member legal firms have been doing the very same to Scots for decades, on a wide range of cases, and so far have got away with it because the politicians have sat back for so long and done nothing ...

The Herald reports :

10-year wait for ex-miners as lawyers earn £1.3bn

DANIEL BENTLEY

Former miners have been forced to wait more than 10 years for government compensation for pit-related illnesses, a powerful committee of MPs said yesterday.

Some even died while their claims were being processed because ministers underestimated the size and complexity of the project, the Public Accounts Committee found.

Solicitors have earned more than £1.3bn in fees for handling the claims, with one firm alone collecting nearly £124m.

Average administration costs amounted to more than the claim itself in more than two-thirds of the cases.

In a highly-critical report the committee said the government had expected about 218,000 claims for lung disease and vibration white finger, with payouts totalling £614m.

There have now been about 762,000 claims which it is thought will cost about £4.1bn once they are all settled, as well as another £2.3bn in administration.

But tens of thousands of ex-miners are still waiting for an offer. Last September there were about 128,500 claims still awaiting settlement.

Some miners had waited more than 11 years between their medical assessment and receiving an offer.

Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, accused the Department of Business and Enterprise of having "seriously mismanaged" the schemes in their early stages.

Far too much money went into the solicitors’ pockets

"Its attempt to implement the schemes swiftly, combined with its underestimation of how many claims would be made and how complex some would be, resulted in many claimants having to wait a very long time for the compensation they were owed," Mr Leigh said.

"Some of these were elderly and ill and in no position to wait for years for compensation - in some cases 10 years or more. Some claimants even died while waiting. The taxpayer has also taken a big hit, with the cost of just administering the schemes expected to total nearly £2.3bn."

The restitution packages were arranged after British Coal was found to have been negligent in the cases of ex-workers who had developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from dust and vibration white finger from equipment in the pits.

But the government failed to get its own actuarial assessment of the likely number of claims and liabilities under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme, instead relying on British Coal's forecasts.

Ministers did not initially realise that deceased miners' claims would be payable to their widows and families.

The cross-party committee also criticised the government's dealings with solicitors, accusing it of "weak" negotiations on their fees which led to higher administration costs.

Of the £2.3bn administration expenses, solicitors' bills accounted for £1.3bn.

The average cost of processing each claim was £3100, more than what two-thirds of miners received in compensation.

Just 10 law firms collected between them £635.8m in fees. The highest earner was Thompsons, which received £123.6m.

The government is chasing up to £100m in repayments from solicitors after a court ruling that certain cases should have incurred a smaller fee.

Some solicitors also effectively double-charged for their services by taking a cut from their clients' compensation packages on top of their government-paid fees.

The Legal Complaints Service believes lawyers owe millions of pounds to tens of thousands of miners.

It is currently contacting every miner covered by the scheme urging them to check whether they had money wrongly deducted.

Mr Leigh said: "There are lessons aplenty here for other parts of government planning and implementing new compensation schemes.

"Far too much money went into the solicitors' pockets."

Scots Law should serve the public interest, not the legal profession's need for profit.

Members of the legal profession constantly talk about remaining 'independent' from Government, public scrutiny, and even independent from the law itself - although they use it as a business model for making themselves into an industry which ranks as one of Scotland's greatest money making enterprises .. or money making rackets, depending on your point of view.

Many members of the legal profession who have been caught up in complaints over the years, on serious matters such as fraud, embezzlement, etc .. hardly seem to think the law applies to them - and for the main they would be correct.

Just take a look at how many fraudsters & crooks are sent to jail who aren't members of the legal profession, set against those who are lawyers ... you will soon see a difference in the statistics, and come to the conclusion as many have, that lawyers can just about get away with blue murder.

To support this conclusion somewhat, a recent investigation into a lawyer who has poorly served his clients, brought about a response from the Crown Office to one of the complaining individuals saying no action would be taken against the lawyer concerned .. despite the Crown Office going on to apparently admit that crimes had taken place ...

Crown Office - crime maybe does pay, if you are a lawyer ...

How was the law serving the public or our society in that decision from the Crown Office and countless more like it over the years ...

In any case, this week has so far seen lawyers congratulating themselves in the usual way of defeating the efforts of reform, stirring up a fight between Scotland & Westminster via some sections of the media on legislation long since agreed between our two countries ... and lawyers talking about how the law must serve society.

If the law ever does serve society, instead of society having to serve it, I will have something much more positive to write about.

In a Scotsman article on how the law must serve the public, I noticed a particular reference to Freedom Of Information, and how it makes a 'valuable contribution" to public authorities being regulated in their conduct of public affairs.

To quote the article itself :

"The objective of an efficient public law is that public authorities should be regulated in their conduct of public affairs. Freedom of information makes a valuable contribution to the attainment of this objective because unless there is openness in decision-making it is all but impossible to scrutinise whether any public body has proper reasons for the decisions taken.

Freedom of information gives the public access to background papers shedding light on the factors that have in fact been taken into account and the weight attached to them, facilitating challenge to unlawful, arbitrary decisions."

Well I would agree that at least, these were the intentions of FOI legislation, but as we see across many cases of disclosure, and refusal of disclosure ... FOI does not always live up to the mark, and it certainly does nothing for the legal profession itself, because the Law Society of Scotland saw to it they have an exemption from FOI - so, FOI seems of little use against lawyers, or anything to do with the legal profession which could cause significant change.

Earlier this week for instance, I was told by a source that yet again, the Scottish Government has been prevaricating FOI requests on information relating to disclosures sought on the relationship between Marsh UK, the Royal & Sun Alliance PLC insurers, and elements of the Courts Service and other parts of the Scottish Government, on the grounds of costs of disclosing the information.

I found that slightly strange, given John Swinney's revelations of serious corruption at both the Law Society of Scotland and Marsh UK - who are financially involved with many departments of the Scottish Government, and including the GLSS - the Government Legal Services for Scotland, who themselves will I assume, be advising against disclosure for fear of the conflicts of interest and cosy financial relationships which should be revealed to the public.

Perhaps Mr Swinney could help the situation along and see the relevant information disclosed without censorship & dictates from the Law Society of Scotland, and see that the law again, serves society rather than serving the legal profession .. where sadly our Justice Secretary will not act ...

The Scotsman reports on how the law should be serving the public :

Public law must serve our society

By GERRY MOYNIHAN QC

SCOTLAND has a vibrant public law, which is undergoing rapid change through a number of influences unique to our country – change to which practitioners can contribute if they recognise the full scope for innovation that these influences present.

The first stimulus was the introduction of the procedure of Judicial Review, but that was a case of the tail wagging the dog – a change in procedure influencing the development of substantive law.

Nonetheless, it has opened the courts to participation in the principled development of public law that arrived with the New Labour agenda of constitutional reform in the shape of the Scotland Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Their interaction has given potential for a peculiarly Scots dimension to public law.

The essence of the constitutional change effected by the Scotland Act is that it brings more of a legal content to the control of legislative and executive power in Scotland.

Subject to the exception of EU Law, English law remains grounded in the principle of parliamentary (that is, Westminster) sovereignty. Scotland is different because the Scottish Parliament is not sovereign and it is expressly provided by the Scotland Act that an Act of the Scottish Parliament "is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the parliament", which embraces any incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Courts can accordingly go beyond the political act of issuing an advisory opinion that legislation is incompatible with the convention (which is all that English courts can do relative to Westminster legislation), right up to the ultimate legal remedy of quashing legislation enacted by the Scottish Parliament.

In Scotland, this fundamental shift from the supremacy of legislation goes further and affects even the implementation of Westminster legislation. The Scottish Government does not have the power to infringe human rights, irrespective of whether the infringement is based on Holyrood or Westminster legislation.

These arrangements are not, however, undemocratic, because the rule of law does not mean rule by lawyers. In the litigation concerning the validity of the ban on fox-hunting, the courts did not ask whether the ban was a good or a bad idea.

Rather, the courts scrutinised whether, in enacting the ban, the Scottish Parliament took proper account of the human rights involved and struck a fair balance between the rights of the individuals who participate in hunting and the interests of the community. To date the ban has been upheld by the courts on the view that a fair balance was struck by the democratically elected legislature whose task it is to resolve controversial questions.

The need for a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community runs through the ECHR and now lies at the heart of Scots public law.

There has been a suspicion in some quarters that Scottish judges went too far in deciding that a person charged with a criminal offence should be automatically acquitted in the event of an unreasonable delay in being brought to trial. That result seemed to give undue precedence to the rights of accused persons over the rights of victims of crime and the general public, who under the convention are entitled to the protection of an effective criminal justice system.

That imbalance has now been corrected by the Privy Council, which recently decided that an unreasonable delay does not necessarily require an acquittal.

The objective of an efficient public law is that public authorities should be regulated in their conduct of public affairs. Freedom of information makes a valuable contribution to the attainment of this objective because unless there is openness in decision-making it is all but impossible to scrutinise whether any public body has proper reasons for the decisions taken.

Freedom of information gives the public access to background papers shedding light on the factors that have in fact been taken into account and the weight attached to them, facilitating challenge to unlawful, arbitrary decisions.

We are at the start of a dynamic process that could lead to a distinctive public law built on a fusion of the new constitutional arrangements for Scotland, human rights and freedom of information.

The task we have is to formulate a constructive public law that is responsive to the key objective of producing a tolerant and broad-minded society which is respectful of the rights of the individual while attending to the needs of society as a whole.

• Gerry Moynihan QC is a member of Axiom Advocates. He gave last week's Third Thursday Lecture on public law.

Anyway, while some in the legal profession lecture us on the law having to serve the public, others in the legal profession seek to deny the public even an input into long needed reforms to the legal services market, preferring to spout forth the Law Society's policy of censorship and targeting campaigners & critics, rather than engaging the public and resolving their sins of the past, known to be many.

Here follows an article from the Scotsman, written by a lawyer, on how the legal profession view the rest of us, as we view many of them ....

The article ends with a vitriolic attack on critics of the legal profession and campaigners for change, proving perhaps that a little falling ice provides no seeing of the light .. and preferring to reinforce the Law Society's mantra of 'lets silence anyone who could be a threat or have input into reforms against lawyers interests'.

The Scotsman reports :

Lawyers … and other reptiles

By Donald Reid

IDLING on The Scotsman website, I found some feedback on my last piece. I'm so flattered. It's all hate mail.

One correspondent, however, inadvertently gave me a good bit of advice, namely to read Jess Brallier's (now out-of-print) book, Lawyers and Other Reptiles. It's wonderful. I have always loved lawyer jokes and quotes, and this book is full of them. All I can say is the title is a bit hard on reptiles. What have they done to be cast as bedfellows with the lowest form of living scum?

My favourite quote so far is from the New Yorker: "I told you that you should've got yourself some legal advice before running to a lawyer."

It hints at several of the reasons why such expressed vitriol against our noble profession so proliferates. The first reason is money. Lawyers are expensive. If you "run" to a lawyer, the chances are you'll get a bill, and a hefty one at that. No-one likes bills, and an easy way to externalise this dislike is to blame the biller rather than the billed. In the excitement of their initial consultation, I find it hard to get clients to face the financial reality of their principled crusade, or their precarious venture. I have to tell them that the practice of the law, and the results obtainable, are not necessarily the same as the client's perception of justice.

Yes you should think twice before going to a lawyer. The fact that the money you pay him or her is substantially to cover the overhead he or she has to maintain in order to give you the service you seek is not an easy swallow. After all, you've seen his/her Merc.

But the quote is tellingly ironic as well. How can you get legal advice on whether to get legal advice? The fact is you can't really. Lawyers are no doubt expensive, time-consuming, anxiety-broking vultures (now we're insulting scavenging birds), but they are necessary. You can't avoid them. One of the ironic outcomes of the political drive to treat lawyers like bad children is the enormous length of the engagement letter that solicitors are now required to issue before any work is done. My tongue is not entirely in my cheek when I say that clients should perhaps get a different lawyer to check over the intended lawyer's terms and conditions. But who checks the terms and conditions of the checker?

I think the main reason for books such as Brallier's is this: lawyers don't deserve it, and the lawyer-bashers know this full well. The jokes are only funny because they are jokes. They express the angers and frustrations of litigants and clients precisely because their lawyers have not caused the problems, but rather have earned a living out of them. I can understand the epithet "parasite" but it can be used, with greater or lesser justification, upon all sectors of service industry. Yes, there are some very serious cases of bent, greedy and self-serving lawyers. But if these were the norm, rather than demonstrably the tiny minority, the whole joke culture would collapse. After all, no-one makes jokes or collects pithy sayings about perverts or genocidal maniacs, bankers or any other persons held to be truly reprehensible. Do they?

These critics will say that they are the victims of bad lawyers whose actions have damaged or ruined them beyond any joking. Perhaps they are right; certainly they are humourless; but they are a minority. They allege corruption at the very core of the profession and its governing body, which is surely beyond credibility. Is it right to allow them such influence in current demands for reform? There may be a few rotten apples. But the tree is still healthy.

I'm not joking

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

Calls seem to be growing for full disclosure of the backgrounds, previous work and investigations into certain appointees to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, after my breaking the story earlier this week that the same Law Society of Scotland staff who have betrayed so many members of the public in complaints against rouge & crooked lawyers are to be migrated to the new 'independent' complaints body.

The Justice Directorate, in days reminding us of earlier times when Government was continually accused of stage managing appointments, covering up scandals, backgrounds and conflicts of interest so those with political affiliations could find their way to quango heaven, has embarked on the same path of cover up, in an attempt to thwart any proper investigation into the murky appointments scandal of members to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

In a letter released today, the Justice Directorate fails to apply any transparency or accountability to the continuing furore over the appointment of lawyers and ex Police Chiefs to the new 'independent' SLCC, choosing only to continue the cover up over what many are viewing as a fairly successful attempt by the Law Society of Scotland to take over the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for its own purposes - that of continuing to protect lawyers from any possibility of independent regulation and a fair hearing for public complaints.

Justice Directorate - Lawyer who was panel solicitor for corrupt insurance scheme and ex cop who was lay member of Law Society committees have no conflict of interest. What ?

You ask whether Mr [David] Smith's current firm, Shepherd and Wedderburn, are panel solicitors for Royal Sun Alliance as you consider this to be a conflict of interest. As you may be aware from their website Shepherd and Wedderburn are indeed panel solicitors. As with all holders of public office the Commissioners are required to act solely in terms of the public interest and display integrity, objectivity and honesty. I do not therefore anticipate any conflict of interest. Furthermore I understand that Mr Smith will be retiring from Shepherd and Wedderburn on 1 April.

You also express concern about the appointment of Douglas Watson. Mr Watson no longer sits as a lay member on the Law Society of Scotland's committees."

The Justice Directorate's reply admits Mr Smith's involvement with the Royal Sun Alliance after earlier revelations in this blog that David Smith is a panel solicitor for the Royal Sun Alliance, who are main insurers to the infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy scheme operated by Marsh UK and the Law Society of Scotland to protect lawyers from negligence claims.

During the Parliamentary hearings on the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, which created the 'independent' complaints body which Mr Smith, a lawyer, has been appointed to, the now Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, revealed evidence that systemic and endemic corruption existed in all aspects of the Master Insurance Policy, culminating in a very public confrontation with Law Society Chief Douglas Mill, who lied in evidence to the Justice 2 Committee and to Mr Swinney the Law Society did not interfere in negligence claims - when in fact the secret memos revealed by John Swinney showed a culture of intervention and interference to protect crooked lawyers and ensure their continued practicing while clients got nothing.

Law Society Boss Douglas Mill lies to John Swinney & Justice 2 Committee on evidence of endemic corruption by the Master Insurance Policy and a culture of denial of access to justice

You can read more about Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney's confrontation with Law Society Chief Douglas Mill over corruption at the Master Insurance Policy here :

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

The Justice Directorate, despite the fact of revelations that SLCC appointee Mr Smith is a member of the legal teams which support the Master Insurance Policy which Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney exposed as being totally corrupt, claim in their letter that " As with all holders of public office the Commissioners are required to act solely in terms of the public interest and display integrity, objectivity and honesty. I do not therefore anticipate any conflict of interest."

Does anyone believe that ?

A lawyer who spends a career being part of the Master Policy Insurance team which Law Society Chief Douglas Mill's memos reveal is totally corrupt, can change his ways and act solely in the public interest ?

Is it possible ? I don't think so. Not after having learned first hand of what happens to clients at the hands of the lawyers who represent the Master Insurance Policy and the insurers ... everything from your health records, bank records, title deeds, employment, the lot, all used to effectively wipe out someone who dares make a claim to the Master Insurance Policy against a negligent lawyer.

You can read some of my earlier coverage of the Master Insurance Policy and how it has been used as a weapon against the public and clients of solicitors here :

Lawyers negligence insurance branded corrupt, anti-consumer as evidence reveals only one per cent of clients get chance of payout

Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

Lawyers complaints system thought to have caused intimidation of clients for years

There must now be a full investigation of Mr Smith's work as a solicitor involved with the Master Policy insurers, which legal firms he and his own firm defended against negligence claims, what happened to those cases & claims, and the client's access to justice and full public disclosure of all the facts to see that old habits and conflicts of interest wont be transferred to the new 'independent' SLCC - disclosure which must be in the public interest.

The other disputed appointee to the 'independent' SLCC, ex Policeman Douglas Watson - who suffered a series of internal investigations into personal conduct and other issues, reported in an earlier story I covered here : Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

Douglas Watson also gets the same whitewashing treatment from the blundering Justice Directorate in today's release with the following; "You also express concern about the appointment of Douglas Watson. Mr Watson no longer sits as a lay member on the Law Society of Scotland's committees."

Simply because Mr Watson "no longer sits as a lay member on the Law Society of Scotland's committees" is not a good enough reason prevent any investigation of his appointment.

When did Mr Watson resign anyway ? This seems to be new information. Did it come as a result of him recognising there may be a conflict of interest or was it because of public exposure of his previous position ?

Indeed, the fact remains that both Douglas Watson and David Smith will inevitably face issues involving legal firms and lawyers who have been before the Law Society committees during their respective terms in Mr Watson's case as a 'lay member' of a complaints committee and in Mr Smith's case as a panel solicitor for the insidious Master Insurance Policy.

What particular aspect of being a lay member of a Law Society complaints committee qualifies Mr Watson to be migrated into what was supposed to be the new 'independent' complaints body to resolve the problematic, corrupt self regulation of the legal profession carried out by the Law Society of Scotland.

Along with the 34 members of staff who have helped countless crooked lawyers escape any punishment over serious client complaints such as embezzlement, theft of property, theft of deceased client's wills and even re-writing them, negligence to the nth degree, altering case evidence and faking up clients files, falsifying clients accounts and accounts for work, to name but a few of the habits of the legal profession, what qualifies ex Law Society committee members for transfer to a body created to be a 'break from the past' ?

There should now also be a full disclosure and investigation of all Mr Watson's work as a lay member of the Law Society complaints committees, and also full disclosure of all the internal investigations by Lothian & Borders Police into Mr Watson's conduct, in investigations reported in the media, which seem also to have escaped the appointments process.

You can read more about Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's favoured SLCC appointee ex-Police Chief Douglas Watson from the Scotsman newspaper here :

Inquiry into police chief who promoted his lover

By Stephen Rafferty

A POLICE chief has been accused of jeopardising a £1 million-plus project by having an affair with a female officer he promoted.

Chief Superintendent Douglas Watson is facing an internal inquiry after he walked out on his wife to be with an officer he hand-picked for a specialist squad.

Allison Strachan was personally selected by Watson to be part of a 22-strong team which is carrying out a complete review of the way Lothian and Borders force operates.

Strachan, who had twice failed to win promotion, was plucked from an administration job at police headquarters and promoted to Inspector but senior officers are angry after it was revealed Watson has been having an affair with her.

The affair has been the talk of the force since Watson left his second wife Anne and Strachan left her police constable partner, John Donoghue.

Watson, the former head of CID, was picked by Chief Constable Paddy Tomkins to head up the Capital Project, which will completely change the way Edinburgh is policed and create a single 1,000-officer super-division.

The cost of the project is put at over £1 million, including wages, computers, travel and cars and Watson was expected to be appointed commander of the new division but senior sources say an inquiry into his behaviour is now inevitable.

Chief Supt Watson left his first wife 11 years ago when he began an affair with his current wife Anne, who was then a 19-year-old secretary at police headquarters.

A Lothian and Borders police spokesman refused to comment

Anyway, this is an interesting turn of events, as earlier this week, the Justice Directorate had continued to refuse any explanations over the SLCC appointments scandal, insisting somewhat unbelievably, that ex police and lawyers constituted an 'impartial' appointments process to a body which was to consider complaints against lawyers.

Just how bad things are with the Government's blunders surrounding the SLCC was indicated to me this morning when a source connected with events commented that no one could really trust the disciplinary records of any of these people, even those appointed to the Commission themselves, as they were the work of the Law Society staff who are well known to falsify complaints files and disciplinary issues to protect lawyers.

He said : "Would you trust any of these papers from the Law Society after your own experience ?". I, would certainly not - particularly after what happened in the Andrew Penman investigation, where the entire senior staff of the Law Society decided to fiddle my complaint against well known crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso - which you can read about here :

My source then went on to comment that details on appointments he had seen "could not be independently verified in any way whatsoever as the Government were having to solely rely on the Law Society to provide these papers due to the old system of self regulation of the legal profession, the lack of accountability to FOI and very poor oversight powers of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman"

So, the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be anything but independent.

It will be staffed mostly by Law Society staff who have had orders for the past twenty years to get lawyers off the hook at any costs, and the Commission itself is full of lawyer and ex Police appointees, some of whom even sat on Law Society committees themselves.

This sounds like a bad deal for Scots, a bad deal for justice, a bad deal for independence, accountability, transparency and honest, all being presided over by bad management of the Justice Secretary Mr MacAskill who is of course a lawyer and has indicated many times he favours the legal profession's priorities over that of the public interest.

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

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill continues to disappoint the public in terms of their consumer rights against lawyers & legal services as it was revealed today that telephone comments by staff at the the Scottish Government's Justice Directorate have revealed that a vast amount of staff from the Law Society of Scotland itself are to be migrated to the new 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where 'independent' means ... 'more lawyers than ever'.

At least 34 members of staff from the Law Society's headquarters at Drumsheugh Gardens in Edinburgh, are to work for the new SLCC, which was confirmed in a telephone conversation upon enquiries over the make up of the 'independent' complaints body.

The SLCC, which is yet to even start its work, but has suffered from constant attempts at the hands of the Law Society of Scotland to undermine its function, is rapidly losing it's independence from the legal profession at the hands of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, even though the aims of the new complaints body was to be a break from the past and ensure independent regulation of complaints against Scottish solicitors.

We were to be treated to a spin release from the Justice Directorate over the influx of Law Society personnel as a way of 'bringing into the SLCC the most capable staff of dealing with complaints against lawyers' but discussions on how to go about this still seem to be ongoing, as some are concerned over the 'more jobs for the lawyers to protect each other' image it brings to the SLCC.

Since I have now broken the story, that will ease the problems of telling the public I hope ...

A source at the Justice Department speculated that many of the members of staff from the Law Society had themselves been involved in mishandled complaints against some very well known solicitors, where clients rights and finances had been seriously breached by the conduct of their legal representatives, with the Law Society of Scotland taking a back seat and ultimately letting those solicitors, some who had been involved in serious financial frauds against clients, to escape penalty, while ensuring the client got no compensation.

As one lawyer put it this afternoon after hearing the Law Society staff were being squirreled into the new regulatory body - "that's like asking serial abusers to go into their victims homes when they are alone and abuse them again. I don't think the public will be very happy at that."

Oddly enough I have written along these lines before, being warned during the appointments process of the Law Society's wish to ensure its staff were "at the heart" of the new complaints body with the following articles :

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 'lacks impartiality' despite Ombudsman's appointment as Chairman

Legal Profession attempts fiddle against new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as wider review required on injustice in Scotland

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

update 20 February 2008

After contacting the Scottish Government for comment, the following was received :

“Scottish Ministers have directed that TUPE applies to those staff at the Law Society of Scotland affected by the creation of the SLCC. The number of staff transferring will be borne out of the current internal organisational review within the Law Society.”

So, TUPE saves the day for the same people who are responsible for getting as many crooked lawyers off the hook as possible ... for instance, the people who let John O' Donnell amass some 21 plus negligence claims, will be saved by TUPE and instead of getting paid by lawyers to knock off complaints against lawyers, they will be getting paid by the taxpayer to knock off complaints against lawyers ...good work if you can get it - but not one move to tackle the long line of victims left by their prejudiced anti-public work at the Law Society of Scotland.

Here's some examples of the work of the Law Society staff who are migrating to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission :

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

Lawyers negligence insurance branded corrupt, anti-consumer as evidence reveals only one per cent of clients get chance of payout

Lawyer caught in media sting bribing clients to defraud Legal Aid Board - the tip of an iceberg

and a few more crooked lawyers and from SACL, many more crooked lawyers who are let off the hook by these same people at the Law Society who are going to transfer to the new 'independent' SLCC ...

If you want to find out more about TUPE, go here : Transfer of Undertakings - TUPE

The conveniently placed review of the Law Society's workings, which have been geared for the last few decades to getting as many lawyers off the hook from public & client complaints, might see jobs protected but will deliver a final blow of dishonesty to what was to be a new hope for independent complaints handling against the legal profession.

On enquiring whether the Scottish Government would announce to the public that Law Society staff were to be taken into the 'independent' SLCC, the following comment was received :

"We have already announced the establishment, location and membership of the Commission.There are no plans for any further announcements at present"

Yes, I can see that would be a tricky announcement to make, and with no apparent thought to tackle the problem of an influx of 'negligence preserving lawyers' to what was to be an 'independent' complaints commission, the Justice Secretary is making a mess of things for the public, in favour of lawyers ...

end of update

The continuing demise of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission even before it begins its work, seems to be aimed at preventing clients of solicitors and the public getting a fair hearing of their complaints in the independent venue which the SLCC was designed to be.

Allegations of continuing interference in the SLCC's formation process by the Law Society of Scotland, and charges of an almost "clueless attitude" at the Scottish Government on how to go about forming the new independent body to deal with public complaints against lawyers, have helped the legal establishment see that everything down to even the SLCC's appointments process has seen many from the legal profession itself migrate into the new body designed to prevent the mistakes of the old.

It's almost like the Law Society of Scotland has now renamed itself the "New" Law Society of Scotland - in the form of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and is ensuring professional survival and control over regulation by getting their own staff into the new complaints body to prevent fair & proper hearings of public complaints against crooked lawyers.

Also today, the Scottish Government refused requests from myself and others to carry out an investigation into the appointments process, citing there was no such need and that everything had been handled correctly and above board with all appointees declaring their full histories and backgrounds.

However as you know this is not the case at all, and the new Chairman Jane Irvine, confirmed in writing she had not been given any prior knowledge of the appointees to the SLCC, even though they include lawyers whom her office has considered complaints against how the Law Society of Scotland has handled complaints against their respective legal firms and other solicitor partners, and the checkered histories of ex-Police appointees to the SLCC to which the incoming Chairman was also not made aware of.

See my earlier article for the call for an investigation into the SLCC appointments process after revelations of previous scandals of some of the appointees here : Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

A Justice Department civil servant today stated that "shortlisted lawyer candidates were subject to checks on their disciplinary record" but those records were themselves provided by the Law Society of Scotland - who are well known to fiddle a few complaints against crooked lawyers and legal firms ... so the records themselves have no validity whatsoever other than perhaps whitewash value, which the Justice Secretary seems to be using quite well .. when it comes to his friends in the legal profession.

Cover up or cover up ? - No need for an investigation into appointments scandal, says Scottish Government

As for the public, well, there is clearly a diminishing chance of getting your complaints heard properly at the hands of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, when it is going to be comprised of mostly migrated staff from the Law Society of Scotland.

The Law Society of Scotland have wasted no time in getting their spies into the new SLCC, and I say that with considerable ease, as given the performances I have seen from the Law Society staff against poor clients who had to complain against a crooked lawyer, I wouldn't trust anyone who worked at the Law Society to be able to change their conditioning and work in what is supposed to be a completely transparent regulatory environment at the SLCC, compared with the secretive, closed and corrupt regulatory environment at the Law Society of Scotland.

Not much of a public interest performance from Kenny MacAskill then, who doesn't seem to value Scots rights at all when it comes to dealings with lawyers.

There does seem to be a problem emerging now with the SNP on issues of Justice and public access to it. While I am fully supportive of many other Scottish Government policies in different walks of life, I am left to wonder, as many now are, why the SNP is failing on justice. Is that solely down to Kenny MacAskill and if so why is this being allowed to happen ?

Put Scots before lawyers for a change ... we deserve it, Mr MacAskill ...