Legal Services Bill promises nightmare complaints scenario for consumers as Law Society campaigns to control regulation over ‘Tesco Law’ reforms

Holyrood's Justice Committee will consider MacAskill's Legal Services bill as arguments grow over who will regulate legal sector. Scottish consumers will be given a wider choice of who will represent their legal interests with the introduction of the Legal Services Bill, which seeks to promote alternative business structures within Scotland’s legal services sector. However, a gigantic flaw in the Scottish Government's proposals reveals confusion and poorly thought out plans to appoint ‘a regulator of its choice’ to regulate an expanded legal services market, leading to expectations the Law Society of Scotland will end up engineering its own appointment to regulate and manage anyone who seeks to enter Scotland’s legal services sector, irrespective of their professional background.

Regulation nightmare for consumers predicted as Scottish Government 'to choose' a regulator with the help of the Lord President, the OFT and others. A Consumer affairs insider while welcoming the improvement in choice of legal representatives, condemned the proposals over regulation, calling them "half baked" and claiming there will be little change in the usual closed shop complaints system run by the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. She said : "The Scottish Government's proposals over appointing a regulator to oversee the expanded legal services market after the bill becomes law are a bit of a joke, given it is widely expected the Law Society of Scotland will end up as the sole regulator of the entire industry yet again. I doubt consumers would benefit from any such arrangement when it is clearly evident consumers have never benefited from the Law Society's regulation in the past."

She continued : "There are some competent proposals to widen public choice in the legal services market, however, the Legal Services Bill as it currently stands is a long way off from the expectations of consumer organisations and doubtless the many law reformers who are calling for the full opening up of Scotland's monopolistic legal services market."

The Scottish Government’s Press Release described the main points of the Legal Services Bill as being to allow solicitors to secure external investment and business expertise and to combine with other professionals to offer legal services to the public in new ways, to allow the removal of restrictions on solicitors entering into business relationships with non-solicitors, to make it easier for Scotland's leading commercial law firms to compete effectively with other UK firms and internationally, while also allegedly (and laughably) creating a robust regulatory framework in which the Scottish Government will appoint approved regulators who will regulate the new business structures

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has chosen to concentrate on beefing up the legal profession's profits, sidelining the long standing problems of poor regulation. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "A strong and independent legal profession is part of the institutional framework of a modern democracy. The legal profession also contributes to the Scottish economy with an estimated turnover of over one billion pounds per annum. This new legislation will help Scotland's legal profession to grow and compete both in the UK and internationally.In developing these proposals, we have worked closely with the profession to ensure that we protect the profession's core values,at the same time as freeing solicitors to offer new services in new ways. Our proportionate and flexible approach will allow the profession to move quickly to respond to changes in the market by removing outdated restrictions on business models."

Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill again puts lawyers £billions before consumer protection & independent regulation.

The Government’s proposals for regulation laughably state : “There are six such principles to which persons providing legal services should adhere. These principles do not differ substantially from the professional principles by which solicitors and other legal professionals act, and are intended to ensure that the current standard of quality in the delivery of legal services is safeguarded. Licensed providers would be expected to “act in the best interests of their clients” meaning that they should, for example, observe the duty of confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest and safeguard a client’s money and property. Licensed providers would be expected to maintain good standards of work, meaning that they should act competently, communicate effectively, be diligent and show respect and courtesy.” Surely these claims must relate to another country, because they certainly do not describe the Scottish legal services market !

A representative of legal services users today branded the Legal Services Bill 'little more than window dressing for the legal profession which contains nothing for consumers'. He said : "This is all about bringing new money into law firms and giving regulatory control back to the Law Society of Scotland. I don't see anything beneficial or productive for consumers in these legislative proposals."

SLCC's Chair Jane Irvine offered no view on the new proposals. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's Chair, Jane Irvine was asked for comment, and replied : "I have not studied this yet." However, an SLCC insider said : "The Government's proposals over regulation of abs are messy and will cause more confusion for clients over who to make a complaint over problems with their legal representatives. The SLCC was given the role as single gateway for all complaints regarding legal services and funding that role comes from levying all entrants to the legal services market. It now looks as if the Government are now trying to undo the Commission's remit and hand regulatory power back to the profession which will be a bad thing as far as consumers are concerned."

A client with a complaint currently being investigated by both the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission rounded on both organisations, branding them "useless, prejudiced, anti-client, against the public, and part of the problem of crooked lawyers, rather than a solution to cleaning up the profession."

President Ian Smart of the Law Society of Scotland is campaigning hard to become the sole regulator of the expanded legal services market, by any means possible. Quick off the hoof, Ian Smart, President of the Law Society of Scotland reacted to the Justice Secretary's proposals, saying “The Society believes that Scotland’s legal profession should be able to adapt to best meet the needs of modern society and a global economy. Scots lawyers are well respected around the world and we want to ensure that our members have access to the opportunities that ABSs could present to adopt new practices, to deliver the services their clients expect and develop their businesses in Scotland, as well as elsewhere in the UK and overseas.”

"However it will be vitally important that the Bill ensures the independence of the legal profession, promotes access to justice and maintains robust consumer protections and high standards among those delivering legal services. Effective regulation will be key to any plans for change. We look forward to engaging with the Scottish Government, the Parliament and other interested parties in the future development of legal services in Scotland.”

An analysis of Ian Smart's comments of how the Law Society has handed the debate on alternative business structures indicate his claims are pure fantasy. In reality, the Law Society attempted to vote down the abs proposals, which only passed into the profession's overall policy after legal firms themselves took the initiative and demanded changes. Where Mr Smart speaks of 'promoting access to justice and maintaining robust consumer protections and high standards among those delivering legal services', the simple fact as we all know is these fanciful 'consumer protections and high standards of service’ have never existed in Scotland's justice system, nor has unrestricted access to justice, a fact which Lord Gill's Civil Courts Review more than adequately attests to, alongside the Lord Justice Clerk's own condemnation of Scotland's Justice system as being that of a Victorian justice system stuck in the past.

With Ian Smart's call for ‘effective regulation to be key to any plans for change', readers can take that to mean the Law Society of Scotland will be cracking the whip over Kenny MacAskill to ensure it is conveniently appointed as regulator of choice, and internal memorandums seen by this reporter do seem to suggest that will be the case, even before the bill has been debated at the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee.

Make no mistake, the Law Society of Scotland do not deserve any further regulatory function over the Scottish legal services market. This has been proved time and again over the decades, which have seen average complaints figures of around 5000 individual complaints a year made against less than 10,000 solicitors, leaving a trail of literally thousands of clients who have fell victim to crooked lawyers who mostly remain in practice to this day, through the protection of the Law Society's considerably corrupt system of self regulation, brutally enforced by its sinister Client Relations office.

Consumer group Which? criticised the Scottish Government for failing to bring in an independent regulator to protect Scots consumers. Which? principal public affairs officer, Julia Clarke, said : “This legislation will improve access to justice for people in Scotland and sweeps away outdated restrictions on how lawyers work.The Bill promises to breathe new choice and competition into legal services, which should lead to economies of scale and costs, and possible one-stop shops offering better service to consumers.”

She continued : “While we would have preferred an independent regulator, we are pleased that the Law Society of Scotland’s regulatory committee will have a lay majority and a lay Chair, introducing a much-needed consumer voice in this sector. It is disappointing that Advocates are not included in the new legislation, as we see no reason for them to be exempted from the opportunity to offer more choice to consumers.”

Consumer Focus Scotland broadly welcomes the Legal Services Bill. Sarah O’Neill, Head of Policy and Solicitor at Consumer Focus Scotland, said : “We have long campaigned for a more open market in legal services in Scotland and the creation of new ways of delivering them. The Legal Services Bill paves the way to open up competition in the market and widen choice for users of legal services.”

Clearly the Legal Services Bill is flawed, in respect of regulation, and the number of alternative choices it offers Scotland's consumers in terms of who we wish to represent our legal interests. You can read two of my earlier reports on the flaws of the Legal Services Bill, here : Scottish Govt's Legal Services Bill 'must do more' to break Law Society's grip on legal marketplace & give public wider choice over access to justice and a topical one on the subject of the proposals over regulation, here : Consumers & Govt insiders brand Law Society ‘too crooked’ to regulate ‘Tesco Law’ expansion of legal services in Scotland

You can download the Legal Services Bill from the Scottish Parliament’s website using the following links :

• Bill (as introduced) (469KB pdf posted 01.10.2009)
  
• Explanatory Notes (269KB pdf posted 01.10.2009)
  
• Policy Memorandum (219KB pdf posted 01.10.2009)
  
• Delegated Powers Memorandum (111KB pdf posted 01.10.2009)

The opportunity to debate the Legal Services Bill, make submissions on personal experiences on dealings with the legal profession, and suggest changes & improvements to the Scottish Government's proposals should not be missed by the public, who can contact the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee when bill begins its path through the Parliament.

You can contact the Justice Committee by email on the subject of the Legal Services Bill, offering your thoughts, submissions and suggestions on the Legal Services Bill, here : justice.committee@scottish.parliament.uk or use their online communication form.

Scots Law 'shake up' as Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review supports McKenzie Friends, Class Actions & wider access to justice for all

Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill publishes his two year long Civil Courts Review. FORTY YEARS after McKenzie Friends were first introduced in England & Wales, the long awaited Civil Courts Review, undertaken by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, has finally ended the decades long discrimination against Scottish court users, by recommending the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland as well as a whole range of much needed improvements for Scots access to justice, including the introduction of simplified court procedures, more advice on legal rights, increased use of mediation, and finally and end to the infamous exclusion of Class Action litigation in Scotland’s antiquated civil courts system.

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review finally recommends the implementation of McKenzie Friends for Scotland. After a long hard battle fought by petitioners to the Scottish Parliament, law reformers,and consumer organisations throughout the UK who joined in campaigning for the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, Lord Gill's report finally recommends their implementation, stating : “If the court considers that it would be helpful in any case, a person without a right of audience (a ‘McKenzie friend’) should be permitted to address the court on behalf of a party litigant. The court should have discretion to refuse to allow any particular person to act as a McKenzie friend on grounds relating to character or conduct and to withdraw a permission to at as such at any time. The rules of court should specify the role to be played by such persons and should provide that they are not entitled to remuneration.”

Australian Barrister, Ian Hanger QC supported McKenzie Friends for Scotland. Lord Gill's recommendations on McKenzie Friends appear to be greatly influenced by a Holyrood public Petition Petition 1247, raised by Mr Stewart MacKenzie, which saw fantastic support from consumer organisations such as Which? and Consumer Focus Scotland, who both campaigned to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland. However, insiders at Holyrood and from the legal profession point to Ian Hanger's invaluable and timely letter to the Scottish Parliament's petitions committee as 'having sealed the deal' on McKenzie Friends coming to Scotland. Ian Hanger QC wrote in his letter : “In Australia, most of our courts have the power to permit a non-qualified person to, in effect, represent a litigant. A McKenzie Friend does not have a right to address the court. That right is confined to quietly assisting the unrepresented litigant. The Australian experience has been that it has worked successfully. … I cannot see that the floodgates would be opened by permitting, in appropriate cases, the presence of the McKenzie Friend to help the unrepresented litigant. In some cases you will get a brilliant law student who will provide enormous assistance to the Court .. I would urge the Parliament to permit the appearance of the McKenzie Friend."

McKenzie Friend petitioner, Mr Stewart MacKenzie, when asked for reaction on Lord Gill's recommendations on McKenzie Friends, said : "I am delighted the people of Scotland are to be finally made equal with the people of England & Wales, after forty long years of inequality in the Scottish courts system."

I can also exclusively reveal that Scotland's Court of Session is liable to see a quick test of Lord Gill's McKenzie Friend recommendations later this week. On the basis of Lord Gill's positive approach to the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, this Friday will see a test of the judiciary's resolve over the McKenzie Friend issue, where a request is to be made to judges to allow a party litigant the use of a McKenzie Friend in a long running civil case.

A legal insider said today : "On the basis of Lord Gill's unequivocal support for the issue of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, the court should now move on the Lord Justice Clerk's recommendations and allow the use of McKenzie Friends."

He continued : "I welcome the news there is to be a test case this week for the use of a McKenzie Friend at the Court of Session. This request, coming on the back of the Civil Courts Review and much support from individuals & consumer organisations for assistance in the court will be an interesting challenge of the court's resolve on the McKenzie Friend issue. I wish the party litigant all the best in his request."

A consumer affairs insider however claimed that while Lord Gill's recommendations on McKenzie Friends were very welcome, there would be greater benefit to all court users if substantive rules and obligations were placed upon the courts by legislative means, to ensure the public had full & proper rights as per the application and use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland's courts.

She said : "There is no getting away from the fact that Scotland has missed out on McKenzie Friends for some forty years. I think that fact speaks for itself in that the courts and legal profession have resisted their use, on grounds of doing lawyers out of profits rather than worrying about the quality or availability of legal representation to those who seek it."

"I think consumers rights, and indeed the law itself would be greatly enhanced if a legislative approach was taken to the McKenzie Friends question, going one step further than the English courts, and making it an unequivocal right for a litigant to be able to request and receive the assistance of a McKenzie Friend, if so desired."

Consumer Focus Scotland welcomed Civil Court Review recommendations. Martyn Evans, Director of Consumer Focus Scotland, commented “This review sets out a bold range of challenging but pragmatic recommendations. It gives a clear and prominent voice to the interests of citizens as users of our civil justice system. The prize set out by Lord Gill is a civil justice system fit for the 21st century. There is bound to be a great deal of debate over his proposals. We hope the interests of individual users of the civil justice system are given due consideration and weight in that debate alongside the interests of judges, lawyers and business.”

Examples of recommendations from Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review that will increase access to justice include:

* introducing a new more user friendly simplified procedure for cases involving lower monetary value and housing matters, designed with unrepresented court users in mind.
* Promoting increased public legal education about legal rights and responsibilities and where to go for help.
* The extension of in-court advice services throughout Scotland.
* The introduction of ‘McKenzie friends’ to assist unrepresented parties in court.
* Encouraging parties to consider the use of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
* The introduction of a procedure for multi-party (class) actions in Scotland.

You can download the report in pdf format, from the Scottish Courts Website at the following links :

Civil Courts Review

The Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review was launched today Wednesday, 30 September 2009 and is available to download below:

• Volume 1 Chapter 1 - 9 (Covers McKenzie Friends, procedures, advice etc, 2.99Mb)
  
• Volume 2 Chapter 10 - 15 (Covers mainly the issue of Class (multi party) actions etc, 2.16Mb)
  
• Synopsis (215Kb)

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has proved resistant to reforming laws such as rights of audience & representation, which benefit the legal profession itself. Certainly, I am very happy to see the long overdue proposals to reform civil law in Scotland, but now the issue of bringing McKenzie Friends to Scotland rests with the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill and the Scottish Government, who have so far, proved thoroughly resistive to bringing reforms into Scots Law to make us equal with our English cousins.

Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates remain resistant to McKenzie Friends. There is also the question of opposition from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, who both opposed the McKenzie Friends petition at the Scottish Parliament, mostly because allowing McKenzie Friends into Scottish courts would introduce individuals who will most probably be outwith the influence and control of the legal profession. I reported on the legal profession’s opposition to the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, in two earlier articles, here : 'Control Freaks' at Law Society say “No” to McKenzie Friends as Holyrood submission signals resistance to Lord Gill's civil justice review & here : Legal profession ‘afraid of losing profits & control of access to justice’ as Faculty of Advocates protest against McKenzie Friends for Scotland

Such a welcome move of bringing in fresh blood to Scotland’s courts, who are motivated to assist litigants in a professional & capable manner, and who don't have a Law Society leash attached round their necks, will be of considerable help & benefit to all users of Scotland’s courts.

Revelations show Legal Aid paid to ‘crooked lawyers’ with criminal convictions as Law Society fears grow over 'regulatory disclosure'

Legal Aid has been paid to solicitors with criminal records & poor complaints histories. Sources close to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have today claimed that lawyers in Scotland who have criminal convictions for everything from driving offences to embezzlement, and even longer client complaints records on everything from fraud to habitual negligence, have, without any checks on their status, received public funding from the Scottish Legal Aid Board to defend accused persons, criminals and engage in copious amounts of expensive civil legal aid work usually resulting in unnecessarily long drawn out court cases.

The Law Society of Scotland is not obliged to inform clients or the Scottish Legal Aid Board of solicitors criminal records. At the root of the problem seems to be the Law Society of Scotland’s exemption to Freedom of Information legislation, which I have covered before HERE. However, and quite astonishingly, according to sources at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, there is no official requirement on the Law Society of Scotland or even the SLCC itself to inform the publicly funded Scottish Legal Aid Board that solicitors, paralegals and other workers employed in the legal profession who have their fees paid for by legal aid funds, have criminal records or are currently charged with criminal offences or have poor complaints records in their service & conduct towards clients.

A legal insider today claimed the lack of any statutory agreements between the legal profession and the taxpayer funded Scottish Legal Aid Board was no accident. He said : "It has never been in the legal profession's best interests to disclose to anyone the fact there are a growing number of its members and employees who have been convicted of criminal offences. It should therefore be of little surprise to the public that no requirements for disclosure to bodies such as the Legal Aid Board exist, due to the fact the Law Society has continually resisted legislation or agreements which would require it to disclose any information on its members."

He continued : "This issue doesn't just relate to criminal convictions. The number and types of complaints against solicitors and their respective law firms should quite properly be disclosed to the Legal Aid board as it may be the case that a particular solicitor who is currently under investigation for financial irregularities as a result of client complaints, is perversely receiving vast amounts of legal aid funding to continue what he is doing. That just has to be wrong."

A senior solicitor, asked for comment said : "The Law Society seems to feel if such information was obliged to be disclosed to the Legal Aid Board, those affected solicitors and their legal firms would, quite rightly in my view, be excluded from receiving legal aid funding.”

He continued : “Client applications for civil legal aid contain a wide variety of questions, to ensure a claim is justified. If the client wilfully conceals information, they may be subject to a criminal prosecution. It therefore seems justifiable to ask solicitors more about themselves before legal aid is handed over enabling them to represent their client. For instance, it may be the client has a good case but a bad solicitor. Perhaps introducing checks on solicitors backgrounds would improve services offered to clients and increase the chances of success in litigation funded by legal aid.”

Insiders at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, appalled at the situation, have today revealed there are secret moves currently underway to ‘improve’ information disclosure on 'crooked lawyers' to organisations such as the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which is a start in the right direction. However, one example being referred to in the secret discussions, as a basis for increased disclosure from the Law Society to statutory bodies, being the 'Memorandum of Understanding' between the Law Society and the troubled Financial Services Authority, has produced little results over the many years of its existence.

A financial expert claimed the Memorandum of Understanding which exists between the Financial Services Agency and the Law Society of Scotland has not succeeded in its desired effect. She said : "Compared with the numbers of media reports we see on lawyers engaged in financial frauds and the sheer numbers of complaints made to the Law Society of Scotland by disgruntled clients, the numbers of solicitors brought to the FSA's attention under the Memorandum of Understanding are very few, raising questions about the Law Society’s honesty."

She continued : "To be effective, I would recommend a legislative approach to oblige the Law Society and SLCC to disclose such information directly because MOU's basically don't work and have too many get-out clauses."

The Financial Services Authority reports only one matter referred from the Law Society of Scotland. A Freedom of Information request made to the Financial Services Agency seems to support the view the Law Society is not maintaining its side of the agreement, as the number of reported cases of complaints containing allegations of financial irregularities involving Scottish solicitors do not match those reported by the Law Society to the FSA in London. The FSA disclosed : "The Law Society of Scotland has not reported any solicitors to the FSA within the last 24 months, but it has informed the FSA of one matter regarded as a material concern within the same period."

The FSA went onto explain : "The Society is classified as a Designated Professional Body (“DPB”) and this enables it to regulate licensed firms for certain financial services business that arises out of legal work. The FSA maintains an oversight role, and much of the MoU sets out the framework of co-operation in relation to this regime. The other principal focus of the MoU relates to those member firms directly authorised by the FSA. As a consequence not all practising solicitors or the law firms they work for fall within the scope of the MoU. For example the FSA would not generally expect to be notified of concerns relating to a solicitor working in a firm that was neither licensed under the Society’s DPB regime nor directly authorised by the FSA."

You can download a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Law Society of Scotland and the Financial Services Agency here : MoU between Financial Services Authority & Law Society of Scotland. Clearly, there are too many escape clauses in this 'Memorandum of Understanding' between the Law Society of Scotland and the Financial Services Authority for the agreement to be of any use in terms of consumer protection. Legislation, as those in the know suggest, is therefore certainly the way to go to ensure a full regulatory disclosure including of course, the criminal records of those who are employed in the legal profession - from paralegals to solicitors themselves.

Scotland’s Crown Office are also left out of the loop on disclosures about ‘crooked lawyers’. Curiously, a similar ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office, over the notification of criminal activity which is reported to them by clients of rogue solicitors, or information discovered by the Society during the course of their own investigations, has also produced little by way of productive disclosure, indicating to many the Law Society is resistant to disclose any negative information on its members.

The Scottish Government’s Justice Department was asked for reaction on the revelations but had not responded by the publication of this article. However, a source close to the Law Society of Scotland said it would be “very angry” if information relating to solicitors criminal records or complaints investigations fell into the public domain but offered no reply when asked why consumers should not be allowed to judge if such information may affect their choice of legal representative.

Nevertheless, readers can help compile a register of solicitors in Scotland who have criminal convictions or poor client complaint records, simply by making a comment on this article, informing the name of the solicitor or law firm concerned, and adding any appropriate information which will then be passed onto consumer campaign groups for verification and inclusion in an appropriate register to be made publicly available to all consumers which may help & better inform their choice of legal representative in Scotland.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission misled media over taxpayer funding as calls grow for accountability over anti-client policies

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were told to hide the fact they receive public funds. Revelations today from interviews with senior legal insiders and documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation show the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been ordered around by the Scottish Government and the Law Society on many of its key decisions to-date affecting its consideration of complaints against ‘crooked lawyers, even to the extent the Commission was ordered to publicly conceal the fact it has so far consumed well over £2 million of taxpayers money.

SLCC told the media it was not publicly funded while actually receiving £2 million from the Scottish Government. While minutes obtained from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission show they had deliberately misinformed enquiring newspapers the Commission was not publicly funded, a disclosure received from the Scottish Government admitted that at least £1.7 million of taxpayers money had been lavished on the underperforming law complaints quango up to 29 September 2008, insisting that "...as the budget of up to 2 million at the time was managed by the Scottish Government, there was no need for the SLCC to provide accounting of how this money was spent.". The documents also contain references to questions asked by MSP William Coffey (SNP) in the Scottish Parliament on the SLCC’s performance, questions which rattled the SLCC’s board members.

A breakdown of the costs of the alleged ‘non existent’ public funding revealed that £608,991 was spent on staff & training, a further £245,165 was spent on furniture, £290,523 went on buying computers & information technology, £122,979 was used up on legal costs, a staggering £370,092 of taxpayers money was spent on rent of the SLCC's operational base - the Stamp Office at Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, and £72,977 bought advertising for the SLCC. This coming on top of the salaries of up to £100,000 & staggering expenses claims of up to £350 a day for SLCC Board members & officials.

Scottish Government civil servants blocked help for consumers with grievances against Law Society. However, a legal insider has today sensationally revealed the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was ordered by the Justice Department to conceal the fact it had received public funds to avoid any calls for public accountability over how the money had been spent. Even worse, the insider has also revealed the SLCC's controversial decision not to look at historical cases of complaints against crooked lawyers & the Law Society of Scotland which occurred before 1st October 2008 actually came about after civil servants at the Scottish Government and Law Society officials apparently insisted that people with long standing claims & complaints "should be brushed aside and given no help by the SLCC."

The source said : "The funding subject has provoked a number of enquiries from the media on how much public money the commission received after journalists had quoted online sources claiming around 2.5 million had come in from the taxpayer. Orders were given out not to admit to any public funding, and those in the know were told that such enquiries should be rebuffed by stating the SLCC is funded solely by levies from the legal profession itself."

She went on : "I think the public should also be concerned to hear that decisions such as refusing to look at complaints before 1st October 2008 are linked to the SLCC’s policy of avoiding mention of their public funding, because some felt if the Commission admitted to being publicly funded but had refused to investigate public complaints, there would be calls for accountability. While that may be bad enough, it is also true the proposal not to investigate complaints before October 2008 came from the current Scottish Executive and the Law Society who specifically did not want the Commission to become a gateway to resolving clients cases of long standing grievances against the legal profession."

"I personally found the momentum & discussions on that subject very bitter. It was clear many who took part in the decision to block the investigation of historical complaints had an axe to grind in preventing the resolution of cases which have haunted us for years. I do not believe this kind of decision would have been taken under the previous administration, who created the legislation and the SLCC in good faith to clear up the problems of poor regulation of solicitors in Scotland past & present."

A Scottish Government insider today confirmed the running total of taxpayers money thrown at the SLCC was in reality much higher than officials were willing to publicly admit. He alleged the true figure to be in the order of £2.5 million and continuing to rise, given the massive work that civil servants in the Justice Department have had to put in on hundreds of issues which have cropped up since the SLCC officially began its work on 1st October 2008.

He said : "It is shameful to see the SLCC trying to deny the incredible level of financial support they received from the Government. Taxpayers should be up in arms over the public money wasted on the SLCC, especially since the Commission has now had two years worth of complaints levies paid by the legal profession amounting to about £5 million which should enable repayment to the public purse."

He continued : "If the public had a vote on demanding back their money from some underperforming, credibility lacking lawyer complaints quango I'd say you might get a 99.9% 'Yes' ! £2 million of public funds spent on mishandling complaints against rogue lawyers could be better used elsewhere in Scotland especially since the economy is so bad and public services are facing cuts."

A spokesman for one of Scotland's consumer organisations also waded into the argument over the SLCC's funding by saying : "Until the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission pay back all the money it received from the taxpayer, which it can certainly now afford to do, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude the SLCC is jointly funded by the taxpayer and legal profession."

She went on : "However, it is very disturbing to learn that decisions taken by the commission such as their refusal to look at complaints involving legal issues which took place before 1st October 2008 apparently have a party political dimension to them. I can only conclude the present administration has no real wish to see the legal profession cleaned up in any way whatsoever. Consumers should be on their guard against their lack of rights with their errant solicitors and the rather unhelpful SLCC.”

It is of little surprise to me the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has, evidently a policy of dishonesty with the media and the public in all things from its funding to what it can and cannot investigate. So far the SLCC has consistently demonstrated it cannot be trusted to independently investigate complaints against the legal profession, and its attitudes towards the public as I have previously reported can only be described as anti-client, and most definitely, hostile.

Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney expected the SLCC would look at historical complaints against the Law Society. At least one voice in the current Scottish Government, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, has expressed his dismay to constituents over the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s refusal to investigate historical cases of complaints against the legal profession, as Mr Swinney had fully expected the SLCC to address many long standing cases which brought about the Commission’s very existence in the first place. These apparent differences in Ministerial expectations do lead to the feeling there are divisions in the Government on how the SLCC should implement its duties towards the public, and why ‘saving lawyers from complaints’ shouldn’t be such an apparent top priority for some in this administration.

This afternoon, a source close to Mr Swinney expressed anger over the denials the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had made regarding its public funding, which was of course paid out by Mr Swinney in his role as the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Finance Chief.

He said : “Mr Swinney has as you know, written to the SLCC on several occasions taking the view that members of the public are stakeholders in the organisation due in no small part to the huge financial input by the Scottish Government into the SLCC itself. I think it is very deceitful of the SLCC to try to conceal their debt to the public in this regard and I can imagine John will not be impressed with their conduct on this matter.”

“Perhaps as some are already saying it is time for the SLCC to pay the public back for the costs of creating the Commission, which the legal profession brought on itself.”

Giving a taxpayer funded £2 million gift to the Scottish legal profession is bad enough, but then having that gift turned around and used by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to dodge & avoid all the duties expected of it .. well, that in itself shows us there is long way yet to protect consumers from Scotland’s increasing ranks of ‘crooked lawyers’ out to ruin their clients for anything they can get.