Consumers urged to give their views as Civil Justice Advisory Group launches consultation on key proposals of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review

Consumer Focus Scotland launches consultation on Civil Justice reforms. CONSUMER FOCUS SCOTLAND’s Civil Justice Advisory Group, chaired by the Right Honourable Lord Coulsfield, have launched a consultation to debate some of the key proposals of Lord Gill’s Scottish Civil Courts Review report and determine the best way forward for implementing the many recommendations made by Lord Gill in his damning two year study & report on the state of Scotland’s “Victorian” civil justice system, a justice system which is famed worldwide for crippling Scots access to justice.

The Civil Justice Advisory Group (CJAG), which was re-convened in January 2010, is seeking views on practical solutions to ensure that people with legal problems have real and effective access to appropriate, affordable and fair dispute resolution processes, particularly for claims of low financial value, housing cases, family cases and children’s hearing referrals. It will focus principally on the recommendations of the review relating to pre-court measures, including improving access to justice for party litigants, the proposed ‘third -tier’ of judicial office, and the proposed new simplified procedure.

To support the consultation process, the CJAG will also host a free consultation seminar on Monday 13th September at the Roxburghe Hotel in Edinburgh. The event will be interactive, with roundtable discussions and feedback sessions. Professor Dame Hazel Genn, Dean of Laws and Professor of Socio-Legal Studies at University College London will be the keynote speaker. If you have an interest in reforming Scotland's justice system, be there.

The seminar programme can be accessed by clicking here. Places can be reserved by using the online registration form or sending the booking form to the address listed below.

The consultation and seminar feedback will help the Group in formulating a detailed report to the Scottish Government on how it should take forward some of the recommendations of the Scottish civil courts review report.

The consultation paper can be accessed by clicking here : Civil Justice Consultation Response Paper (pdf)

Responses to the consultation should be submitted to Consumer Focus Scotland before 24th September 2010 by email to : civil.justice@consumerfocus.org.uk or via the online response form

By post to :
Civil Justice Advisory Group Consultation
Consumer Focus Scotland
Royal Exchange House
100 Queen Street
Glasgow
G1 3DN

I would urge as many readers as possible to take part in this consultation, for the benefit of yourself and all Scots who need access to a fairer, much improved Civil Justice system in our own land. Access to justice for one, access to justice for all !

Commenting on the consultation, the Right Honourable Lord Coulsfield, Chair of the Civil Justice Advisory Group, said: “I was very pleased to be invited to Chair the re-convened Group earlier this year. It is important that the recommendations of the civil courts review be fully debated and understood before they are put into effect.”

He continued : “I would strongly urge anyone who has any relevant experience, good or bad, of the operation of the court system or other means of resolving disputes, or any comment, criticism or suggestion to contribute to this important debate by responding to this consultation paper. The greater the level of participation, the better placed the Group will be to make a strong and useful contribution to the debate over the Gill proposals and the decisions as to how they are to be carried out.”

Sarah O’Neill, Head of Policy and Solicitor at Consumer Focus Scotland, which provides policy and secretariat support for the CJAG, added: “The Scottish civil courts review set out a bold range of challenging but pragmatic recommendations, presenting a vision of a civil justice system fit for the 21st century. We are keen to encourage debate on the proposals and how they can best be implemented for the benefit of those individuals who find themselves having to use the civil justice system, whether they are pursuing a claim against someone else, or defending a case brought against them.

Ms Neill continued : “The outcome of the Civil Justice Advisory Group’s work will be influential in taking this agenda forward. The consultation, and accompanying seminar, provide opportunities for everyone with an interest in achieving a more user-focused and accessible civil justice system to contribute their views and help shape the Group’s report to the Scottish Government. We hope that all of those with an interest in these issues will take the opportunity to get involved in this debate.”

Readers can view my earlier report on Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review here : Scots Law 'shake up' as Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review supports McKenzie Friends, Class Actions & wider access to justice for all

Readers can download the Civil Courts Review 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)

Background to the Civil Justice Advisory Group :

In 2004, the Scottish Consumer Council, one of Consumer Focus Scotland’s predecessor bodies, established the Civil Justice Advisory Group, supported by the then Scottish Executive and funded by the Nuffield Foundation. The Group, chaired by the Right Honourable Lord Coulsfield, held six seminars between September 2004 and April 2005, structured to mirror a user’s journey through the civil justice system, from seeking advice on their dispute, through the dispute resolution process, to the enforcement stage. The Group published its final report, The Civil Justice System in Scotland – a case for review? (available as a PDF by clicking here) in November 2005. The Group recommended that there should be a review of several important aspects of the civil justice system in Scotland, the majority of which were then taken forward by the civil courts review.

Following the publication of Lord Gill’s civil courts review report, Consumer Focus Scotland has reconvened the Civil Justice Advisory Group, under the continued chairmanship of the Right Honourable Lord Coulsfield. The CJAG’s membership includes representatives from the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Citizens’ Advice Scotland, Scottish Legal Aid Board, Scottish Association of Law Centres, Scottish Mediation Network, Scottish Committee of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and the Scottish Government, as well as Professor Alan Paterson from the University of Strathclyde.

Given its instrumental role leading up to the civil courts review, the Group felt it was very well placed to react to the review’s proposals, and also to make its own recommendations about future courses of action. The Group’s deliberations will focus principally on those aspects of the review of most direct relevance for consumers, namely those recommendations relating to pre-court measures, including improving access to justice for party litigants, the proposed ‘third -tier’ of judicial office, and new simplified procedure.

Insult to victims of Nazi holocaust as Scots Banker Grossart claims former RBS Chief Sir Fred Goodwin endured 'shades of Kristallnacht'

Scots Banker Sir Angus Grossart claimed his friend Sir Fred Goodwin has suffered over public attacks & broken windows. SCOTS LAWYER TURNED BANKER SIR ANGUS GROSSART has claimed former RBS Chief Executive Sir Fred Goodwin, the man dubbed as the “World’s Worst Banker” after his takeover of the Dutch banking giant ABN Amro, lead to the near collapse of RBS and subsequent multi billion pound bailout by UK taxpayers, has been treated as bad as the victims of Nazi Germany’s holocaust. where millions of Jews were rounded up and sent to Concentration Camps.

An insult to victims of Nazi Germany : Sir Fred Goodwin’s suffering compared by Scots Banker to victims of holocaust. Sir Angus Grossart, speaking in an interview in the Scotsman group’s Scotland on Sunday newspaper, and widely quoted in today’s Telegraph newspaper claimed the attacks on his friend Sir Fred Goodwin, who Grossart maintains has been made a “scapegoat” for the banking crisis, believing Sir Fred has apparently suffered effects from the public attacks on his character and actions as former Chief of the Royal Bank of Scotland, as bad as the suffering of Jewish victims of the terrors of Nazi Germany.

Grossart shockingly compared the broken windows of Goodwin’s Edinburgh mansion to “Kristallnacht”, (the Night of Broken Glass), an anti-Jewish pogrom in Hitler’s Nazi Germany which took place in November 1938 where up to 30,000 Jews were arrested and placed in concentration camps while 91 victims were murdered, 267 synagogues were destroyed and thousands of Jewish homes and businesses ransacked.

An insult to victims of Nazi Germany’s Kristallnacht : World’s Worst Banker’s broken windows brought little sympathy after banking collapse (Click on image to watch video)

Sir Angus, who is in regular contact with Sir Fred, said: “I think he’s very sad at the way he was victimised. Shades of Kristallnacht. Clearly he made a mistake as did most people in the financial world, most people in government, most people in regulatory organisations. “There is no doubt he was going to be criticised, but I think there is a deliberate attempt to polarise the criticism, to some extent, as a distraction, a scapegoat kind of thing.”

Sir Angus added: “A lot of people, including those in government, were also involved in mistakes and they did not have bricks thrown through their windows.”

I have news for you, Sir Angus – a lot of people in regulatory organisations make a lot less mistakes than we are led to believe.

There are quite a few characters in those regulatory organisations who, rather than make mistakes, deliberately let those they regulate off the hook, even when some of them have caused deaths. In fact, some of those people in regulatory organisations have covered up deaths and benefitted financially from them, an issue I reported on earlier with regard to the Scottish legal profession, here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

This latest attempt to rehabilitate Sir Fred, who amazingly still retains his kighthood for services to banking yet those services led to the biggest banking collapse in the UK’s history, affecting millions of people across the globe in a financial crisis which has seen many lose their jobs, homes, livelihoods, is a mark of the determination of some around Goodwin to bring him back into public life.

Former Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive Douglas Mill defended Sir Fred Goodwin after RBS banking collapse. Others around Sir Fred such as Douglas Mill, the ex Law Society Chief Executive who was himself brought down after the now infamous "Granny’s Grave” Holyrood confrontation with the Scottish Government’s Finance Chief John Swinney over corruption at the Law Society of Scotland, have publicly defended Goodwin, preferring to blame the lack of regulation of banks for the failures which led to the public vilification and attacks on Goodwin’s character which Sir Angus Grossart referred to.

“It wasnae him” : Former Law Society of Scotland Chief Douglas Mill defended Sir Fred Goodwin, blamed lack of regulation rather than ‘World’s Worst Banker’ (Click on image to watch video)

There seems to be no depths some people will go to rehabilitate or defend those who have brought our banks, and the country to its knees.

Comparing the broken windows of Sir Fred Goodwin’s mansion to the suffering of German Jews in the holocaust is an insult unrivalled so far in anything I have seen written about Sir Fred Goodwin and the banking crisis.

We should all beware those who would use such unrivalled evil from world history to rehabilitate those whose actions have caused so much calamity in our modern times, actions which spring from greed, and deserve no sympathy.

Law Complaints Chief secretly lobbied, met Information Commissioner Dunion over FOI investigation into Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine secretly lobbied FOI Commissioner’s office to produce favourable investigation results. DOCUMENTS REVEALING A SECRET WORLD of public bodies directly lobbying the Freedom of Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion and his staff to produce favourable outcomes against FOI requests from the media, amid expectations of transparency & public accountability through the use of FOI legislation, have exposed attempts by Jane Irvine, the Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to pressure the Information Commissioner’s office over the results of several critical investigations carried out into FOI appeals against the SLCC’s refusal to disclose information on its now highly questionable role of investigating complaints against Scotland’s legal profession.

Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion’s office was pressured by SLCC. The controversial cases being investigated by the Information Commissioner which provoked such a storm at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s headquarters at the Stamp Office, Edinburgh, eventually leading to demands of direct meetings between the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine & FOI Chief Kevin Dunion, related to heavily censored Board meetings minutes of the SLCC during 2008, when the law complaints quango was publicly funded to the tune of a whopping £2 million while its Board Members claimed a staggering £130,000 in expenses from the public purse, and also included issues surrounding the SLCC’s Master Policy research, carried out in mid-2009 which linked client suicides to claims against the Law Society’s infamous Master Policy insurance scheme, which is supposed, but fails to compensate victims of ‘crooked lawyers’.

Emails from SLCC Chair Jane Irvine reveals FOI staff were badgered by the law complaints chief to produce favourable outcomes so the SLCC could prevent appeals against non-disclosure. Details contained in a slew of emails between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & the FOI Commissioner’s staff show Jane Irvine, the SLCC’s Chair was desperate to ensure Mr Dunion’s staff produced favourable outcomes to enable the law complaints quango to prevent the media appealing to the FOI Commissioner’s office each time the SLCC refused to disclose information being requested. Jane Irvine said in her email : “We have asked you about this case. I will however have to keep raising it with anyone dealing with our appeals. We are keen that the Commissioner appreciates the link between the cases. In short terms, your Decision on this first appeal is vital in either setting fundamental precedents for us, pointing to a need to appeal or affecting the way we operate and so pushing up our budget costs which we need to be setting now.”

Ms Irvine’s email concluded, leaving little doubt she wanted Mr Dunion’s staff to produce a favourable investigation result, darkly suggesting to Mr Dunion’s staff if the investigation fell in favour of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, all further freedom of information appeals to the SLCC by the media or members of the public could be dealt with or thrown out by the SLCC itself instead of being investigated by the Information Commissioner’s office. Jane Irvine stated : “Put very simply if we had the answer on your case we might be able to halt the flow of appeals to you !”

The FOI Commissioner’s staff reminded the SLCC Chair in their reply each appeal to Mr Dunion is considered on a case by case basis. Responses from Mr Dunion’s staff to Jane Irvine’s desperate bid to interfere in their investigation appear to show Ms Irvine being reminded on how cases are investigated. The reply from Mr Dunion’s office states : “I am required to consider each redaction in turn and consider each exemption applied to this information. this has been a time consuming process … However, I must also advise you, noting your comments regarding the importance of this case, that each application considered by the Commissioner is treated on a case-by-case basis and therefore the conclusions reached in this case may not be the same for similar information in a different set of circumstances.”

Further emails reveal the SLCC Chair put extra pressure on investigating FOI staff to produce favourable outcomes, citing high costs to the SLCC of dealing with information requests. In a blistering response to the email from the Information Commissioner’s staff, Jane Irvine, the SLCC Chair rebuked Mr Dunion’s staff for failing to produce a desired outcome for the SLCC, as information requests had allegedly incurred considerable costs to the law complaints quango. Ms Irvine stated in her email : “I’m very aware of the necessity to look at each redaction individually & of the time it takes! I’m also aware that each case and issue is to be considered individually. Equally I am very that we Know what tramlines we’re working within. ****** has caused us to incur considerable costs as have his colleagues this year and our overall FOI case load shows no signs of reducing. Under current law we simply have no option other than to bear the very high costs.”

A further email from Jane Irvine to the Information Commissioner’s staff also alleged the SLCC had “involved legal advisors” in compiling FOI disclosures & responses to the Information Commissioner’s office.

However things were to take a more direct turn as papers now reveal Jane Irvine insisted on a meeting with the Information Commissioner over his office’s investigations of the SLCC’s FOI disclosures.

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine, not content with badgering the Information Commissioner’s staff, lobbied the FOI Commissioner himself in a meeting ‘to discuss’ his office’s investigations of the SLCC. A letter only now released from Mr Dunion’s office portrays a desperate situation at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in March 2010, provoking the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine, accompanied by the SLCC’s Acting Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew to meet the Information Commissioner Mr Dunion to lobby for the SLCC’s position with regard to the investigations being carried out by Mr Dunion’s staff. The letter read : “You may recall when we met on 19 March 2010; we discussed the three appeals currently with your office. I think I emphasised that the SLCC was keen to learn of your conclusions. We have chassed since and were last told they would be with us this week. I am disappointed they have not arrived and this is because as we explained to you when we met, the outcome of the appeals could significantly affect how we deal with future FOI requests and might also have a knock-on effect to our business. I should be grateful if you could let me know when I can expect to receive your decisions.”

A legal insider studying the papers released from the Information Commissioner’s office was of the opinion the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission had attempted to pressure the Information Commissioner and his staff for outcomes of their investigations which would be favourable to the SLCC.

He said : “The wording of the letters from Jane Irvine to the Information Commissioner and his staff should leave no one in any doubt the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are determined to put a stop to Freedom of Information requests which appear to have revealed significant shortcomings at the SLCC.”

He continued : “Anyone reading the letters from Ms Irvine to the Information Commissioner and his staff could easily conclude there was an atmosphere of undue pressure put on Mr Dunion and his team by Ms Irvine, to come to conclusions which favour the SLCC while disadvantaging those making Freedom of Information requests or appeals to the SLCC.”

SLCC now want to handle investigations into FOI appeals against themselves ? A law reform campaigner who has made Freedom of Information requests to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission said the letters between Jane Irvine & Mr Dunion’s staff amounted to a clear attempt to ensure the investigation of the appeal went the SLCC’s way. He said : “From the sounds of Jane Irvine’s emails & letters it looks like she wants to do the investigating of the FOI appeal and reach the conclusion herself instead of letting Mr Dunion and his staff do their job. This is not how Freedom of Information is supposed to work, is it ?”

A Scottish Government insider commented on the situation, saying : “We all know the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have been caught out several times with information obtained under FOI legislation. However, if this contact with the Information Commissioner’s office is the SLCC’s attempt to cover up their own failures which have come to light through the use of FOI, it is an entirely inappropriate way to go about it.”

He continued : “If the SLCC want to avoid an unduly high workload on FOI requests & appeals, I would suggest they become more open and publish more of what they do rather than attempting to blame Freedom of Information for their own failures and poor reputation.”

Blacked out FOIs are preferred by the SLCC. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have been ‘caught out’ several times with information obtained under Freedom of Information legislation, among those instances, several of which I have reported earlier, such as : MacAskill’s SLCC lied over secret meetings with Law Society & Marsh as quango announces £15k 'study' into master policy & guarantee fund, also here : Officials pull FOI disclosures as Guarantee Fund "chancer" emails show Law Society anti-client bias has migrated to Legal Complaints Commission, here : Fresh appointments sleaze at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as FOIs reveal protests against independent oversight of board member recruitment & here : Censorship & ‘frequent flyers’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal attempt to write off consumers evidence in Master Policy report. More can be found HERE

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its Chair, Jane Irvine, refused to give any comment or explanation for their attempt to lobby the Information Commissioner on the investigations involving the SLCC. However, a legal insider close to the law complaints quango claimed late last night the SLCC had now embarked on “a policy to delay, prevaricate and refuse further Freedom of Information requests it considered may be damaging to its operations”.

This latest claim seems to support a recent slew of decisions by the SLCC to intimidate journalists making requests for information as to whether they are requesting it on their own behalf or for someone else.

Curiously, the SLCC is also now operating a policy of terming many FOI requests as “vexatious” even if the subject matter requested has only come to light through the Information Commissioner’s own investigations. However, this latest attempt by the SLCC to stall the flow of information into the public arena will doubtless only result in more appeals to the Information Commissioner’s office, something the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine, was keen to prevent as she expressed in her emails to Mr Dunion’s office.

Given we are now at the stage where the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission feels it must manipulate Freedom of Information legislation to protect its secrets, it must now lose any lingering trust of consumers forced to approach it over complaints against the legal profession.

It is now time to call time on the grave mistake the SLCC has turned out to be, and give Scots consumers the level of protection which only a fully independent regulator of legal services can provide.

Law Society consultation changes ‘a grab for elitist dictatorship’, leaving public in need of independent consumer body to protect client’s interests

Law Society’s latest constitution consultation is viewed by solicitors & clients as attempt to consolidate power at the top. SCOTS CONSUMERS OF LEGAL SERVICES are again effectively being thrown to the sharks in the latest consultation exercise organised by the Law Society of Scotland, billed as an attempt to reform the solicitors governing body’s constitution, but more darkly revealed to be little more than the latest attempt to shore up the Law Society’s powerful position as self regulator of Scotland’s 10,000 plus solicitors, along with its ‘dual role’, mandated in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 of representing the client’s best interests – the latter duty of which the Law Society is infamous for failing to carry out in any shape or form.

The Law Society launched the consultation earlier in June, asking its members for their views on a revised constitution and its standing orders. The Law Society claimed its constitution “is being updated as part of a review and modernisation of the Society’s procedures to enable the Society to better represent and support its members”. However, and perhaps more dangerous from the consumers point of view is that the changes proposed by the Law Society, will, in its own words, “allow the Society to adapt to changing conditions in the future, without having to resort to further legislative change” – thus escaping any legislative scrutiny in the elected Scottish Parliament of changes which many expect will be counter to the consumers best interests.

The Law Society dressed up its proposed changes to the constitution as “measures which will also ensure that the Society is well placed to become a regulator of those wishing to adopt alternative business structures as defined by the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill once passed”. Clearly the Law Society wishes to regulate just about every aspect of Scots legal life … much to the danger of fee paying clients, who, once the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is passed, will continue to have as little protection against poor legal services in the future, as is currently, and historically been the case in Scotland.

Is your lawyer crooked ? Chances are the answer could be “Yes” but you’d never know it ! As far as the Law Society representing the client’s best interests, anyone who has been put in the position of being forced to make a complaint about their solicitor to the Law Society of Scotland, or the hapless Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will probably by now, realise the futility of their position, where from the outset, their complaint, no matter its seriousness, had been treated by the Law Society with disdain, ending in up in a grand paper chase, sometimes lasting years, where often the solicitor being complained against escaped any punishment for their crimes or actions against clients.

This great service, of protecting its member solicitors from thousands of client complaints each year, is what the Law Society regards as its duty under Section 1 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 where the Law Society of Scotland is mandated to undertake the promotion of (a) The interests of the solicitors’ profession in Scotland ; and (b) The interests of the public in relation to that profession. Clearly as far as the Law Society of Scotland are concerned, the interests of the solicitors’ profession have long come before the interests of the public, a charge backed up by earlier articles I have written on the subject, one of which readers may be interested in, here : Toxic levels of complaints, poor standards of service & soaring fraud by solicitors makes Law Society of Scotland 'World's worst regulator'

The Law Society of Scotland did not represent the interests of ‘crooked lawyer’ John G’O’Donnell’s clients, considering Mr O’Donnell, and thousands like him are still working as solicitors. However, as the years have gone by, many consumers, consumer protection organisations, critics and even some sections of the legal profession have questioned & campaigned against the Law Society’s dual role of representing solicitors and clients, a dual role viewed by many as posing an inherent conflict of interest, where as countless media reports over the decades have documented, the interests of solicitors have always overshadowed any regards for client protection from the likes of the John O'Donnell's of the legal world, of which there are a growing number.

The Law Society, seeing the flow of these reports, and our changing times where the word ‘regulation’ is now mostly viewed as another word for ‘cover up’ is simply trying to consolidate its grip on power with this latest ‘consultation’, ensuring it continues to be in charge of regulation and representing the clients ‘best interests’, because the Society and the profession well know, if it loses one role to the other, its grip over Scotland’s legal services market and the public’s access to justice is doomed.

However, the consultation has drawn some criticism from some parts of the legal profession itself, with the Glasgow Bar Association highlighting the conflict of interest in Section 1 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 where the Law Society represents both clients & solicitors. It should be borne in mind however, the criticism from the Glasgow Bar Association is from the point of view of protecting its member solicitors, rather than making ‘consumer protection’ paramount … perhaps an obvious point of view, given the GBA is the bar association for law firms on Scotland’s west coast.

The response from the Glasgow Bar Association to the Law Society’s consultation states : “It is the view of the Glasgow Bar Association (the "GBA") that there is an irreconcilable conflict contained within s.1 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (the "Act"). That section legislates that it shall be "the object" of the Law Society of Scotland, inter alia, to "promote" the "interests of the solicitors' profession in Scotland" as well as "promoting the interests of the public in relation to that profession". It is impossible for the promotion of both interests to be mutually consistent, beneficial or indeed legitimate.”

The response from the GBA continues : “In the view of the GBA, the LSS has for decades failed to recognize the inherent and obvious conflict that arises in representing the public and the profession. The dilemma at the heart of the conflict can be put simply: how can the LSS represent or advise a solicitor that, for example, is the subject of a misconduct complaint to the LSS from his/her client? The answer too is simple: the LSS does not, and will not, offer advice, guidance or representation to that solicitor, under explanation that it is investigating the solicitor's alleged misconduct. Thus, the solicitor against whom perhaps serious, false and defamatory allegations have been made by a member of the public, will enjoy no "promotion" of his/her "interests" by the LSS in relation to that complaint; yet the "interests" of the member of the public making the complaint are "promoted" by the very investigation of that complaint itself. This conflict, in the view of the GBA, is irreconcilable.”

“The conflict is obvious and serves as a source of frustration to the profession. Solicitors, who currently pay over £1200 per year to the LSS (40% of which the LSS says is spent on "representation" of its members) cannot benefit from that representation in circumstances where their conduct is called into question, almost always on the basis of uncorroborated ex parte statements, by clients, former clients or members of the public. The individual solicitor is, in practice, left to his/her own devices. By contrast, the conflict which is embodied within s.1 of the Act, serves as a source of frustration to a public, rightly unconvinced that any such complaint can be fairly investigated, given that s.1 of the Act allows the very body to which the member of the public has complained, to "promote the interests of the solicitors' profession in Scotland".

The GBA went on to attack the Law Society’s proposals for its newly created ‘Board’, which allows a more "senatorial" role for Council, claiming the ‘Board’ distances ordinary solicitors further from the Law Society’s decision making process and branded it a result of the elite culture existing within the Law Society of Scotland.

The GBA said in their consultation response : “The establishment of this "Board" is, in the view of the GBA, typical of the "elite" culture existing within the LSS. The creation of the "Board" makes the LSS less accountable as a decision making body, inevitably increases costs for members by its creation, and is, ultimately, unaccountable in any direct sense to the LSS members. This elitism, and lack of any worthwhile accountability at the heart of the LSS, is manifested by the current refusal by the Council member for Hamilton, who is the Convener of the Legal Aid Committee, to address the hundreds of LSS members in Glasgow who practise criminal legal aid”

The GBA’s response to the consultation concluded : “The GBA believes that the "Proposals for Change" do not address in any way the conflict at the heart of the LSS highlighted herein. The GBA suggests that the proposed reform of the constitution will create an extra tier of unnecessary, costly administration, adding to the elitist development of the LSS. The reform proposals are proposals that the LSS hopes will dissuade those critics seeking a separation of the statutory "objects" of the LSS. Nothing more.”

More information on the Law Society of Scotland’s consultation can be found at the Law Society’s website here : Law Society of Scotland Consultation on Constitution along with detailed information on the ‘Proposals for Change’ at the following links :

Letter from Jamie Millar (pdf 34k) Background Information (pdf 37k) Draft constitution (pdf 119k) Draft Standing Orders (pdf 144k) Draft transitional provisions (pdf 73k)

Law Society President Jamie Millar ‘will discuss’ proposals on consultation concerns. The consultation, now closed, was praised by the Law Society’s current President, Jamie Millar of the law firm Lindsays, who now own a Borders law firm which itself is infamous in the debate on regulation of the legal profession & the Law Society’s representation of client’s best interests. Mr Millar said in the Law Society’s Press release : "I am grateful to all those who have taken time to discuss with colleagues, faculties and organisations and respond, often in detail. The constitution changes have been planned since 2007. Recent events have brought the constitution into focus and feedback from the AGM in May was that change, particularly around voting procedures (including proxy votes), and bringing motions to the AGM was necessary.”

He continued : “Particular concerns about motions passed at Council and whether the changes should be held until the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill has completed stage 3 will be addressed and I am grateful to those members and organisations who raised these points. I also welcome the feedback given at meetings with some individuals and groups who took up the Society's offer to discuss the proposals, possible improvements to the draft and concerns to be addressed. "

Law Society & SLCC are both unfit to regulate the Scottish legal profession, leaving consumers without any real protection against ‘crooked lawyers’. While the legal profession bickers with itself over changes which amount to little more than window dressing, clients of solicitors & consumers of Scots legal services can be assured no changes which may benefit clients over the interests of their solicitors will take place until the Law Society is stripped of its regulatory role over complaints, with the duties passed to a new fully independent regulator, one which should be far and above the anti-client Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which is nothing more than a front company for the Law Society in protecting solicitor’s vested interests over consumers best interests.