Saturday, June 28, 2008

Law Society's 'standards consultation' builds no expectation of improvements in service to clients

After bringing the Scottish legal profession into widely accepted disrepute & disrespect, the Law Society of Scotland has instituted another of it's famous 'talking shop projects', with a 'consultation' on standards within the profession itself.

Of course, having the likes of a code of conduct where rules can apparently be varied on a case by case basis (resulting in even the most extreme offences committed by solicitors against clients being whitewashed), has never been good for the legal profession's image as many thousands of clients have found out over the years when trying to make a complaint against a 'crooked lawyer'.

Clients who are ruined by crooked lawyers have faced the spectre of making a complaint to even more lawyers who end up making sure those members of the public never get proper access to justice again .. and for what reason as these maligned clients have done nothing wrong other than protest against a lawyer ripping them off either financially or with poor legal service.

It should be a crime for a lawyer to rip off a client .. but it seems to be more of a crime for a client to report or complain against a crooked lawyer. How twisted is that ?

The Law Society of Scotland has made do with such advice as this imaginatively titled piece : "How the Law Society of Scotland can help you".

"Most people consulting a solicitor in Scotland will be fully satisfied with the service they receive. Occasionally, there is a problem and you may wish to register a complaint.

The Law Society of Scotland's Client Relations Office has a legal responsibility to handle complaints against Scottish solicitors. Our aim is to work with you to find the best solution to your complaint. We work to do that in a fair, thorough and impartial way"

Of course, that statement from the Law Society is complete rubbish and I have to wonder how the Law Society helped people in cases such as this :

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

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

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

The Law Society offers further advice here : What to do if you have a complaint

If you are having problems with a solicitor and you are the client, you need to raise your concerns with the firm in the first instance. Solicitors' firms have a Client Relations Partner or officer who will listen to your problem and try to resolve it. This is usually the quickest and most effective way of sorting out the problem.

You could contact the firm and ask for the name of the Client Relations Partner or contact the Law Society of Scotland's Client Relations Helpline on: 0845 113 0018 for that information.

Before considering a complaint to the Society, please make sure that you have done everything you can to resolve the matter directly with the firm"

Interesting .. but of course, another do-nothing rule, which has seen solicitors threaten clients families with physical assault in some cases, and even visits from the Police to clients houses on the back of 'anonymous tips' containing later proved false information.

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

Soaring cases of complaints against Scottish Lawyers

Complaining against a lawyer ? You should expect a knock from the Police

So ... rather than try to resolve the matter with the crooked lawyers themselves, it might be wiser and safer to go to a newspaper and publicise everything before attempting even to make a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland ... or in the future, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

So, if you want to participate in the Law Society's 'Standards Consultation', you can participate in it online here : Law Society Standards Consultation or you can download the * Standards Questionnaire (225k) (Word format version) and email it into the Law Society at : standards@lawscot.org.uk or send it to -
Standards Review
The Law Society of Scotland
26 Drumsheugh Gardens
Edinburgh
EH3 7YR

Finally, to add insult to injury, from the Law Society's website : "Client relations is a very important aspect of the Society's work. Consumer protection and quality of service are paramount. Most people who use the services of solicitors are satisfied with the service they receive. However, if you are dissatisfied, we view this matter very seriously"

They really do need to change some of that ... because no one believes it, especially when you get the likes of their Chief Executives pursuing clients and hounding them out of the justice system ... as happened here :

Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill lies to the Justice Committee over his relentless pursuit of clients of crooked lawyers :

Telling a bunch of crooked lawyers how they should improve regulating crooked lawyers might not do much good – and it hasn’t done any good so far, but by participating in the consultation, or publicising your woes with solicitors, it certainly gets more views across than the raft of pre-filled out forms which are apparently being sent in by ... lawyers !

Please note, comments for the time being are disabled, as I am working on a few stories and don't have time to keep checking in ....

Following is the Scotsman's take on the "Standards Consultation"

Those who want to wear badge of solicitor respond to new standards

By Jennifer Veitch

MORE than 100 responses have been received so far in the Law Society's flagship consultation to set new standards of service and behaviour for solicitors.

The regulatory body has produced draft guidelines on the appropriate standards of service and conduct that those who want to wear the "badge of solicitor" must uphold.

As well as updating the broad principles that all Scottish solicitors should follow, the review aims to clarify the level of service that the public can expect from lawyers.

The society hopes that the standards – which could be in place by the end of this year – will help to prepare the profession for the new complaints-handling system, due to begin when the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission opens in October.

Clearer standards about service may help solicitors to communicate with clients and to manage expectations of the services that they will – and will not – provide. Recently, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman highlighted a lack of clarity surrounding the level of service offered to clients, particularly in conveyancing cases.

And, as competition is likely to increase following the vote in favour of moving towards alternative business structures, a new set of standards may also help to inform the public about the benefits of instructing a solicitor.

Philip Yelland, the society's head of regulation, said the standards would not offer a check-list for how solicitors should conduct their business, but should make expectations clearer for all concerned.

"We want to try to help clarify and make clearer for the users or potential users of legal services just what the standards they might expect are," he said. "In terms of service, we are going to be talking about very broad principles because every business does things slightly differently, but there are core issues in terms of service standards which need to dealt with.

He added: "What we are doing here is not producing a tick-list of things. We are trying to look at what's there and say: how can we improve this, how we can make it better so someone going in to a solicitor's office has a better understanding of what might happen?"

Yelland said he expected that the new standards would also help solicitors when faced with service complaints, soon to be dealt with by the new commission.

"The standards that will be set and the way they will be articulated will be very broad principles, and from that perspective if there is a complaint, I would expect the solicitor would have to show the commission – 'if that's the broad principle, this is how I met the broad principle'."

A group has been set up to develop the consultation, chaired by Dr Bronwen Cohen, chief executive of Children in Scotland.

Cohen has been keen to ensure that the review takes on board the views of vulnerable groups such as children and young people, and Yelland said further work to clarify standards for specialist legal services may arise from the consultation.

"There may be other things that flow out of this – for example, solicitors who are dealing with children," Yelland said.

"That is a very different market to dealing with adults. There are issues around language and the way you deal with them, and there may be things that fall out of the consultation that will enable us to look at particular areas and how we might deal with them differently."

The consultation responses will be reviewed over the summer with a final set of standards expected to be presented to solicitors at the society's Special General Meeting in September. If approved by the SGM, Yelland noted that the new standards could be in place by the end of the year.

"The reality is that what we are saying is not new – you could argue we are reviewing and restating and improving the wording on what people are already doing. But if there's part of the package that may become a practice rule, then that would need to be approved."

The new standards are being designed to work in tandem with existing rules on conduct and behaviour, in recognition of obligations not only to clients, but to the courts and the rest of the profession.

The draft standards on service are based on four broad principles – competence, communication, diligence and respect.

The standard of competence would require a solicitor to "know and apply the relevant law", "keep up-to-date" and "ensure that those to whom work is delegated are properly trained and supervised".

According to the draft standards, a solicitor would also have to consider "the nature and complexity" of any work, as well as whether he or she had the necessary knowledge and experience. Solicitors would also have to make an "ongoing commitment" to continuous professional development.

The communication standard would require solicitors to clearly explain and define services in letters of engagement, including costs and information on how complaints would be handled.

The standard on diligence would require the solicitor to "deliver on commitments, act in the best interests of each client, maintain and review systems of work and have prompt and transparent fee arrangements."

To uphold the standard on respect, solicitors would have to "treat each person as an individual" and "recognise diversity, different cultures and values".

Standards on conduct would reinforce the need for solicitors to be independent, giving advice "free from external influences or personal interests" and acting in the best interests of the client, balanced with their duties to the rest of the profession.

The draft conduct standards also cover conflict of interest, confidentiality, competence, communication and diversity.

Yelland added that he was pleased by the level of response to the consultation so far, but encouraged more lawyers and members of the public to take part in the consultation, which ends next Monday.

"The standards consultation is on the society's website, and we really want people – both solicitors and users of legal services – to fill it in. It looks at what is already in the Code of Conduct in terms of behaviour and the issues around service standards and asks people to confirm basically whether what we are thinking about saying is what they would expect.

• More information: www.lawscot.org.uk

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Members interests show Scottish Legal Complaints Commission lacks intended independence from lawyers vested interests

As the days count down to the first of October 2008, when the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission takes over regulation of service complaints from the Law Society of Scotland, new details emerge of the [sadly] lack of any effort on the part of the Scottish Government to appoint wholly independent individuals to oversee and adjudicate complaints against Scotland's 10,500 solicitors.

It appears almost, the Law Society of Scotland, which has succeeded in overpowering both the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 and the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, has simply cloned itself into the new Commission.

I note for instance this week, with the announcement of the new Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - Elieen Masterman, was also a member of Law Society of Scotland's the Professional Conduct Committee, evidence of which you can see here in the Law Society's annual report of 2004

You can read the Journal of the Law Society's announcement of Eileen Masterman's appointment to the Chief Executive's position here : Complaints Commission has chief executive

Not a very thorough report from the Journal though - they missed out she served on Law Society Committees too ... tut tut ...

Now, I'm not saying the new Chief Executive shouldn't be in her post just because she sat on Law Society Committees .. but I am saying that surely, with the public spirit & intentions of the LPLA Act .. that people entirely independent from the legal profession .. entirely independent from the Law Society of Scotland and it's many regulatory branches .. could have at least been found to staff and run the new [but no longer independent] Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ...

Of course, the problem comes in such a situation we have here in the formation of an entirely new regulatory body, where there is a lack of political leadership or incentive to do other than what has done before.

Where for instance, there is no political leadership or political intervention in an industry to reform or change its ways .. that industry will do as it pleases as so many industries have done in the past when it came to disrespecting the rights of consumers.

Here we have that same situation, where the legal 'industry' in Scotland seems to be able to do as it pleases, because there is no political leadership or political intervention to ensure that the public interest is kept paramount over that of the industrial interest.

The legal profession’s interest in this case, is to keep control of regulation at all costs, to the point of co-opting what was intended to be a new 'independent' complaints commission, now staffed by the very same people, many who have corrupted the regulatory process for many years ensuring clients got nowhere against crooked members of the legal profession.

Sadly in this instance, there appears to be almost no political leadership at all coming from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has simply sat back and allowed the Law Society to put forward its people to staff, run and enforce the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. and absolutely nothing has been said about it at all ..

If you actually sit down and think about it, the Justice Secretary has failed to show leadership, raise comment, or even just raise an eyebrow on umpteen more issues facing Scots Law today, from corrupted disclosure practices of the Crown Office, to the failures of the Lockerbie Case, to the failure of Law & order up and down the country itself ..

Kenny MacAskill : Scots Govt ‘great debt’ to legal profession ensured SLCC was taken over by the Law Society & vested legal interests

Do better Kenny ? We Scots deserve better on Justice, I’m sure …

You can read some of my earlier articles on the formation & appointments process of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here :

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

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

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

Here is the register of Members interests from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. see if you can spot anyone who hasn't had dealings with lawyers or been part of the legal profession's self regulatory set up over the years .. you will be very hard pressed to do so, and it is that difficulty which gives rise to the fact the SLCC is not the independent complaints commission which Scots were promised …!

Scottish Legal Complaint Commission

Members Register of Interests (link opens as a .pdf document)

SLCC members interests Page 1SLCC members interests Page 2

Jane Irvine :

• Currently Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman.

• Professional contact with solicitors' firms Burness, Leslie Deans & Co and Allan McDougal.

• Professional contact with advocates Derek O'Carrol and John Campbell QC.

Douglas Watson :

• Former lay member of a Law Society of Scotland Committee dealing with Access to Legal Information. The role was unpaid.

• A cousin, Bruce Minto, is a partner in Dickson Minto, Solicitors.

• Formerly a Chief Superintendent with Lothian and Borders Police.

Linda Pollock :

• Executive Nursing Director (1989 -2006).

• Interim Board Nurse Director (2002-2003).

• Chief Nursing Officer’s Professional Advisor on nurse prescribing (2005-6).

• Past External Examiner with Robert Gordon’s University and Queen Margaret University.

• Research Honorary Fellow in the Social Science Faculty of Edinburgh University.

• Formerly, a part time nurse member of the Mental Welfare Commission (1997-2005).

• Currently, working as a Primary Care Consultant, undertaking research work commissioned by the Queen’s Nursing Institute in Scotland.

• Registrant member of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Appointments Board.

• Member of the Royal College of Nursing.

• Has accepted hospitality from Gillespie MacAndrew.

George L Irving CBE :

• Director of Social Work North Ayrshire Council 1999-2000.

• Board Member of Ayrshire Council on Alcohol.

• Ex-President of the Association of Directors of Social Work ( Scotland ).

• Chair of NHS Ayrshire and Arran from 2001-2006.

• Led the National Support Team, Management of Offenders 2005-2007.

• Visiting Professor to Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health and Social Care.

• Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.

• Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

• Member of the Rotary Club of Alloway.

Ian Gordon OBE, QPM, LL.B (Hons) :

• Retired Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside Police.

• Associate Professor in Policing for Charles Sturt University (Australia).

• Formerly Chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) Professional Standards Business Area.

• Vice-Chair of ACPOS General Policing Business Area.

• Director, Quaere Ltd

Margaret Scanlan :

• Consultant, Russells Gibson McCaffrey, Solicitors.

• Member of the Law Society of Scotland and holder of current practising certificate.

• Husband is a senior partner Russells Gibson McCaffrey.

• Husband is a member of the Law Society of Scotland and holder of current practising certificate.

• Past Chair of the Family Law Association.

• Former member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

David Smith :

• Member of the Law Society of Scotland and holder of current practising certificate.

• Former member/partner of Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP, Solicitors. Retired on 30/04/08.

• Wife is a Senator of the College of Justice and a non practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.

David Chaplin :

• Former member of Anderson Fyfe LLP, Solicitors. Retired on 30/04/08.

• Member of the Law Society of Scotland and holder of current practising certificate.

• Director and shareholder in Baliol Properties Limited.

Alan Paterson :

•Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Professional Legal Studies at Strathclyde University.

• Research adviser to the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

• Lay member of the Judicial Appointments Board.

• Co-opted member of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland.

• Member of the Law Society of Scotland.

• Professional contact with Guild & Guild, Solicitors

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 June 2008

Dear Jane

Rules of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 2008 - consultation draft

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

General comments

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

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

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

Specific comments Rule 3 – making a complaint etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Rules 13-14: hearings

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

Rule 21: quorum

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

Rule 22: reasons for determination

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

Draft application form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that these comments are helpful.

Martyn Evans Director

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Law Society ‘writes rules’ for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as confidence drops in new regulator

Now that the Law Society of Scotland has seen to it the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is staffed by many members of staff from the Law Society itself, along with lay members from it's own complaints committee framework, there should be no further need for the open hostility expressed by the outgoing Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill, against the new Commission and the very legislation which created the SLCC in the first place.

For a sample of that 'hostility' expressed by the Law Society, read my earlier report on Douglas Mill deciding whether to sue the Scottish Government & Parliament over taking regulation of complaints against lawyers, away from the lawyers : Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

Well, the Law Society has found a new way to undermine the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, as I have reported above, by simply assimilating it - in short, taking it over with its own work crew who have caused many of the complaints disasters over the last couple of decades.

The same people who considered and frittered away week after week, month after month, year after year of clients lives making sure their complaints against well known crooked lawyers, got nowhere, will now be working for the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Can such an individual who has operated for years on the notion of ensuring corrupt colleagues escape regulatory penalty, and all the while, ensuring that clients cannot progress their complaints or financial claims for damages, be working for what is supposed to be a new 'independent' complaints commission designed to give the public confidence in regulation of the legal profession ?

Obviously not, and both the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission know it .. it's just a matter of moulding the public perception of the new Commission, and who better to do that, the Law Society of Scotland itself, who now take on the campaign to 'inform the public' on what exactly the new Commission is, what kind of complaints it will handle, and what it will do for the public which the Law Society has never done in the past.

Indeed, the Law Society is also apparently handling advice to the new Commission on what complaints it can and cannot handle .. apparently with the full knowledge of the Justice Department of the Scottish Government.

So, taking all that into account, and some previous articles on the Commission I have written about here : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - a poor record so far

Has there been a changing of the guard at all ?, or just a take over of what was to be a new hope for consumer protection by the Law Society's old regime of lawyer covers up for lawyer once again ...

Surely the Scottish Government can do better for Scotland than this ... or is it the case of the tail wagging the dog when it comes to all things law again ?

Here we go for the legal profession's view of things, reported in the Scotsman in an amusingly titled article … however to bring in a new Sheriff in town for sorting out complaints against lawyers, and ensuring the poor old public get a fair hearing for once, I fear we will need more of a Clint Eastwood or John Wayne approach, than the Elmer Fudd version the new Commission is rapidly turning out to be …

There's a new sheriff in town

Published Date: 16 June 2008
By Jennifer Veitch

FROM 1 October, the Scottish legal profession will have a new sheriff in town. On that date, the controversial Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will begin its work dealing with the grievances of unhappy clients across Scotland.

At present, if they cannot be resolved by the firm’s client relationship partner – a compulsory post in each legal outfit – complaints are handled by the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates, and the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, and although these bodies will remain, there is confusion over how they will hand over power to the Commission and how it will operate after it begins. As the new body prepares to take charge, we look at the fine print.

What is the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission?

A new independent gateway for complaints about lawyers. The Commission will be a so-called “one-stop-shop” for consumers, and its main role will be to investigate legal service complaints.

Controversially, the Commission will have the power to award compensation of up to £20,000 if inadequate professional service (IPS) is shown to have caused “loss, inconvenience or distress” to clients.

What are the Commission’s powers?

Its powers are set out in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Apart from taking responsibility for handling service complaints out of the hands of lawyers, the most significant change will be that compensation for IPS will be four times higher than the current maximum paid out by the Law Society. The Commission can also compel lawyers to reduce fees, redo work or rectify mistakes at their own expense.

If complaints are upheld, the Commission will charge case fees of between £200 and £400 to firms if a settlement is reached through mediation.

Clients will not be charged if a complaint is not upheld, but the Commission will weed out complaints that are “vexatious, frivolous or totally without merit”. It will also promote early resolution of disputes between a firm and clients.

When will the Commission actually take over complaints handling?

Officially, it becomes the new gateway from 1 October, but there may be a significant time lag before it actually investigates and rules on any matters.

According to the Commission’s draft rules – currently out for consultation – it will investigate complaints if the service that is the cause of the complaint itself has been instructed after 1 October. It could look at historical complaints, but would not have the power to award the higher compensation and wants to avoid a two-tier system.

This means that it is likely that the old complaints system will continue to run for an indefinite period, handling any complaints about service that was instructed before 1 October.

Any consumers with non-urgent business who want the protection offered by the new system might wish to wait until after 1 October to instruct their lawyer.

What happens if a complaint is already being investigated on 1 October?

The Law Society and Faculty of Advocates will continue to investigate any complaints that are already ongoing.

What will happen to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman?

This body has powers to investigate the handling of complaints by the Law Society and Faculty of Advocates and will be abolished when the new Commission begins work. Provisions are being considered to allow the Commission to take on the Ombudsman’s function in relation to complaints instructed before 1 October.

What will happen to conduct complaints?

The Commission must refer conduct complaints about solicitors or advocates back to the Law Society or the Faculty as appropriate, but it will review the professional bodies’ handling of misconduct cases. It is also likely to be closely involved in cases where there is an overlap between service and conduct. For example, repeatedly poor service may become a conduct issue.

Who will run the Commission?

It will be chaired by Jane Irvine, the current Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, and made up of four lawyer members – Professor Alan Paterson, David Smith, Margaret Scanlan and David Chaplin – and four lay members, Douglas Watson, Linda Pollock, George Irving and Ian Gordon. The Commission is independent of government, although member appointments are made by Scottish Ministers.

Who is paying for the Commission?

Apart from start-up costs from the Scottish Government, the short answer is the legal profession. It will be funded by a compulsory annual levy paid by all practising solicitors and advocates, and case fees from upheld complaints.

The Commission has set a budget of £2.6 million to cover the first nine months of operation. The levy will be collected by the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates and invoices will be sent out this month. Most solicitors – with three or more years’ experience – will pay £307; around 50 per cent higher than first estimated. The levy has been adjusted to give discounts to trainees and newly qualified solicitors, who will pay £153, and in-house lawyers, who will pay £102. Advocates will pay £248.

How many complaints will the Commission get?

This depends on a number of factors. If clients perceive that it has an enhanced ability to resolve disputes – as well as a higher level of compensation – there may be an upsurge in complaints. Yet recent figures suggest the number of legal complaints has been falling. The Law Society’s last annual report stated that complaints about solicitors dropped by almost 30 per cent between 2006 and 2007.

Is any more information available?

The Commission has a new website that sets out its remit and includes consultation documents on its draft rules: http://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.com , and The Law Society is publishing regular updates for solicitors on its website: http://www.lawscot.org.uk