Video evidence shows Law Society Chief Douglas Mill lied to Parliament & Cabinet Secretary John Swinney over case memos

Don't you just love it when video evidence draws attention to inconsistency ... perhaps even a lie or two ?

Recent revelations of a Parliamentary Committee video hearing show just that as Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill who testifies before the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee, swearing 'on his granny's grave' he or anyone else at the Law Society has never intervened in a claim, is found in no uncertain terms to be a liar.

Everyone of course, knows the Law Society of Scotland, and certainly Douglas Mill, do interfere in claims, and complaints against solicitors ... far too often !

The latest report from Peter Cherbi's A Diary of Injustice in Scotland

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

Negligent or crooked lawyers in Scotland can be thankful for at least two weapons in their defence against complaints when a client realises they were ripped off.

The first weapon in a dishonest lawyers arsenal against such a complaint, would be the Law Society of Scotland, the legal profession's well known self regulator of complaints against solicitors, who act only as a control point to ensure their members are unaffected by even the largest client frauds, poorest levels of service, and in some cases, criminal charges.

The second, perhaps more sinister weapon a crooked lawyer can always seem to rely upon, no matter how crooked they are, is, Douglas Mill, the Law Society's very own Chief Executive of now more than ten years.

Douglas Mill - The face of the Law Society's hate, rage & intervention against client complaints & claims against crooked lawyers

Douglas Mill, a man who last year threatened both the Scottish Executive & Scottish Parliament that if it did not do as he said, he would take it to court on his own insistence that it was a lawyers 'human right' under ECHR to regulate & control complaints against legal colleagues, has a long and consistent record of intervening in complaints and financial claims made against fellow solicitors, with the sole determination to prevent success at all costs.

While the law clearly does not allow the Law Society and it's officials to intervene in financial claims against crooked solicitors, Douglas Mill has established a regular policy to do just that - prevent successful client claims against the legal profession at all costs, and intervene at-will in complaints against solicitors to guard against the possibility of a claim after a complaints investigation finds a solicitor guilty of poor service or conduct offences towards their client.

Douglas Mill has used the Law Society's policy of consistent intervention in both complaints and financial claims against solicitors many times, and continues to do so unashamedly, in an unrivalled anti consumer, prejudiced, and corrupt policy of ensuring that self regulation of solicitors in Scotland means no regulation of solicitors in Scotland.

During the Justice 2 Committee hearings on the now passed Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, an act I would remind you all the Scottish Conservatives tried to stop on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland, Douglas Mill was brought before the Justice 2 Committee to explain his involvement in cases of complaint & financial claims against solicitors.

Douglas Mill explained to the Justice 2 Committee he had no such involvement, and as you can see from the earlier except from those Committee hearings, swore on oath and on his 'granny's grave' he had never intervened in such a case.

Douglas Mill swore on his 'granny's grave' he was a liar ?

However, the Cabinet Secretary for Business, John Swinney MSP, has a different view of matters, which was revealed at that same Committee hearing, when Mr Swinney revealed a secret memo penned by Douglas Mill himself, seeking to intervene & collate information on claims made by Mr Swinney's constituent, Mr Stewart MacKenzie, in a case which has lasted now 22 years and still remains to be resolved to this day.

Douglas Mill, challenged by John Swinney over the content of that memo, had no explanation other than to lie to the Scottish Parliament and deny any such involvement, yet as John Swinney points out, the memo shows Mill's intervention to be the case, and what's more a consistent policy of intervention where none is allowed

John Swinney challenges Douglas Mill over his own secret memos, finds explanations lacking reality ...

There is little doubt from the evidence of Douglas Mill's own memos in the MacKenzie case, that a concerted & determined policy of intervention in financial claims against lawyers has existed at the Law Society of Scotland for many years, and has been widely successful in protecting a great number of crooked lawyers and the legal profession's insurance scheme from paying out huge damages awards.

Douglas Mill's memos - a policy of interference in claims & complaints :

It could even be that Douglas Mill learned his skills from his mentor, former Law Society Boss Kenneth Pritchard (now a Sheriff) who himself operated the same policy of intervention against clients claims & complaints against solicitors, even going so far as to order clients solicitors to cease their representation in critical legal cases which I reported earlier in the following story : Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

Law Society boss Kenneth Pritchard intervenes in a claim, ordering solicitors to cease representing their client who is suing firms of lawyers

I have of course, felt the wrath of Douglas Mill's direct intervention in my own case against crooked lawyer Andrew Penman, where Mr Mill even felt so spiteful & protective of his crooked colleague, he had to personally intervene in my claim for civil legal aid to pursue Mr Penman and the Law Society for damages over Mr Penman's plundering of my family's assets.

It was simply not in the interests of Douglas Mill, the Law Society of Scotland, and Mr Penman, that I be allowed access to justice or legal services, so they made sure the door was closed on my legal aid funding.

Douglas Mill intervenes with the Legal Aid Board to block legal aid

Douglas Mill's intervention in my case to block my legal aid was reported in the Scotsman newspaper here :

Douglas Mill spikes legal aid claim to get Andrew Penman off the hook

Not content with ensuring I had no access to justice or legal services, Douglas Mill dispatched Mr Philip Yelland, the Law Society's Director of Regulation, to order my own solicitors not to take instructions from me in any case I wanted to raise against crooked lawyer Andrew Penman or the Law Society itself.

Philip Yelland - Director of Regulation orders a lawyer suing crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman not to take instructions from clients

You can read more about the Andrew Penman case and the Scotsman's coverage of my battle with the Law Society of Scotland over how they failed to prosecute Mr Penman, then went on to obstruct me from getting to court here : Andrew Penman & Norman Howitt : Lawyer & accountant team up to ruin Cherbi executry estate

We are left with no doubt after reading the above, that Douglas Mill and indeed the Law Society of Scotland, operate a concerted policy of intervention against client complaints against solicitors and financial claims for damages, to the point that it is their unashamed policy to ensure complaints against solicitors, and claims for compensation as a result of negligence, dishonest, or other malpractice are obstructed to ensure no success whatsoever and that anyone who tries to raise such a case, or challenges the point of view of the Law Society of Scotland has their right of access to justice, access to the courts & access to legal services denied.

Douglas Mill and the Law Society of Scotland's intervention against client complaints & financial claims against solicitors doesn't stop there though, and reeling from the Scotsman's coverage of my battle with the Law Society in the 1990s over crooked lawyer Andrew Penman, Douglas Mill and others at the Law Society have on several occasions in a now regular policy of intervention with the media, called up newspapers & journalists even in person, to censor newspaper articles before publication and even threaten journalists careers.

Read the following for a run down on how the Law Society handle the Scottish press from time to time ...

The Law Society of Scotland's policy of censorship towards the media

and then there was the Law Society's media attempt to close down my blog and silence all critics on the back of the attack on the Law Society's Chief Accountant Leslie Cumming, which it seems was carried out by some of the Law Society's own crooked lawyers ...

John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Business in the SNP's Scottish Government understands and recognises both Douglas Mill & the Law Society of Scotland's concerted policy of intervention in claims & complaints against solicitors to ensure destruction of such client's chances of obtaining a measure of justice, to be the case.

John Swinney knows of such policies only too well. Mr Swinney has viewed piles of evidence, files, papers, media coverage, even revealing evidence in the Scottish Parliament himself, illustrating without a doubt, a general corruption in the Law Society's procedures & attitude against not only clients complaints & claims against solicitors, but also a generally prejudiced and provocative attitude towards & against the public interest.

John Swinney, after all, has a constituent who has been through some of the worst experiences of prejudiced anti client regulation from the Law Society of Scotland, much of it at the hands of Douglas Mill himself.

John Swinney, also understands a great many other people in Scotland have also had their complaints and financial claims against solicitors ruined, as a result of the same policies practiced by Douglas Mill, Philip Yelland, and others at the Law Society of Scotland.

Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, does not accept this to be the case, indeed, Mr MacAskill, an ardent supporter of Douglas Mill, self regulation by the Law Society of Scotland to ensure control of all complaints, and it seems, a supporter of the legal professions such hateful, harmful policies of anti client prejudice when it comes to complaints & access to justice, has went further and condemned anyone who takes issue with the Law Society's own point of view that it must do as it pleases without recourse, honesty, accountability, or transparency.

Why, one may ask, the radical differences between these two Cabinet colleagues ?

Kenny MacAskill is of course, a solicitor, and thus a member of the Law Society of Scotland.

John Swinney is not a solicitor and is not a member of the Law Society of Scotland.

Kenny MacAskill has stated many times it is his aim to defend the profession from anyone who misrepresents it - but Mr MacAskill really means he will defend the Law Society of Scotland against anyone who disagrees with it, for it is not with the general agreement of the unable-to-vote entire Scots legal profession membership that the Law Society of Scotland, and Doulgas Mill, drags it down into the gutter.

John Swinney has stated many times there are significant problems with the Law Society of Scotland's attitude towards handling client complaints and financial claims made against very obviously crooked solicitors. Mr Swinney accepts there are policies of direct involvement & intervention by the most senior Law Society officials made in efforts to thwart a client's access to justice & legal representation, to prevaricate & even destroy financial claims made against crooked lawyers, and Mr Swinney, importantly, does not accept, like most of us, Douglas Mill's so obviously false claim the Law Society has never intervened in cases to the harm & detriment of clients ...

Of the two Cabinet Ministers, which one is correct ? John Swinney or Kenny MacAskill ? Who as the bigger axe to grind to protect his professional colleagues, compared to the bigger axe to grind representing the community at large ?

Clearly, Kenny MacAskill, lacking impartiality, and in such awe of his legal colleagues, has of course, the bigger axe to grind in protecting the likes of Douglas Mill and the Law Society of Scotland from regulatory change in favour of the client ...

Clearly, Kenny MacAskill, a member of the Law Society of Scotland, will always, as he has said himself in the media & the Parliament, defend the Law Society of Scotland and the legal profession against anyone who disagrees with it's point of view.

Clearly, that is a dangerous position for a Cabinet Secretary of Justice - to be so overtly hostile against the public interest in favour of his own professional body who would benefit from no change at all, no reform, no transparency, no accountability, no honesty, no will to review & resolve the sins of the past ...

John Swinney, on the other hand, is doing nothing more than his duty - to represent the community, the wider public interest of us, the Scottish people, and his constituents who sought his help and are receiving it against a monolithic, greedy, corrupt system of self regulation of lawyers which surely must fall, along with anyone daft enough to support it.

John Swinney understands clearly and accepts the need for change to the terrible way in which clients of crooked lawyers have been treated for years in Scotland. John Swinney has campaigned for and continues to seek a resolution to the terrible corruption at the Law Society of Scotland, while Kenny MacAskill seeks to protect it.

Perhaps its now time for Alex Salmond as First Minister, to show his badge of office, and clear up this terrible injustice, terrible inconsistency, and terrible protectionism by an SNP Justice Secretary of a terribly corrupt institution, the Law Society of Scotland.

Justice, fairness, fair play, accountability and trustworthy dependable legal services - it's not much for Scotland to ask and expect, is it Mr Salmond ?

Conflict of interest : Justice Secretary protecting his own position at expense of Scots access to justice

Peter Cherbi's A Diary of Injustice in Scotland reports on the twists & turns of an obviously less than impartial Justice Secretary, far too keen on protecting his colleagues in the legal profession & it's governing body the Law Society of Scotland, presumably because he will someday have to work for a living as a lawyer instead of wasting the nation's time, money & name, as an MSP ...

Justice Secretary rejects independent regulation of lawyers and public right of choice in legal services market

For a political party which is supposed to pride itself in being Scottish, the SNP have left Scots high & dry when it comes to the legal system and access to justice.

The SNP if anything, are fast becoming the party of injustice, in exponential quantities as the inadequacies of the Scottish legal system constantly come to the fore in daily doses of scandal after scandal with the Government seemingly unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

The spectacular failure of the World's End trial and the infighting it generated between the Lord Advocate & members of the Judiciary, the persistent refusal of the Crown Office to hand over evidence in the Lockerbie Trial, the consistent failures of the Crown Office to disclose evidence in many other criminal cases, leading to retrials or outright collapse of prosecutions, the lack of measures to address Police recruitment & legal reforms .. you name it, the SNP have failed it, when it comes to Law & Justice.

Based on the above, and continuing problems in the Scots justice system, you could be forgiven for thinking the SNP are not a party of law & order, despite having a number of lawyers within their ranks.

The latest SNP failure in the field of legal reforms surfaced this week (among many others) where Justice Secretary MacAskill rejected calls for an independent regulator of legal services in Scotland.

There is nothing wrong with having an independent legal services regulator. In fact, England & Wales has an independent legal services regulator, and wider access to justice as part of the Clementi reforms to open up the legal services market in England & Wales.

However, there is a problem for the SNP with having an independent legal services regulator and that seems to be because Kenny MacAskill, himself a solicitor, is afraid of an independent regulator of legal services and what it will do to his colleagues, especially the ones who fiddle & rip off their clients.

You can read Justice Secretary Douglas Mill Kenny MacAskill's response to the OFT here : Regulation and business structures in the Scottish legal profession: Scottish Government policy statement on oft response to Which? super-complaint (pdf)

Full of bitterness, xenophobia & unashamed protectionism for a lawyers right to charge the public through the nose for anything and get away with it, the SNP's response to the OFT closes the door firmly on hopes for a fully opened legal services market and a much needed independent regulator for solicitors.

So, Mr MacAskill doesn't want an independent legal services regulator. Does that mean he supports letting lawyers off the hook when they are caught swindling their clients ?

Maybe examples of the likes of solicitor & Tory party luminary Iain Catto's swindles towards his disabled client is the stuff which Mr MacAskill is supporting by not allowing an independent legal services regulator ?

Do we need a few more Iain Cattos, Mr MacAskill ? Is that why you don't want an independent regulator to police the legal profession ?

Maybe examples of the likes of solicitor John G'O'Donnell and his 25 or so negligence claims from clients is the stuff which Mr MacAskill is supporting by not allowing an independent legal services regulator ?

Do we need a few more solicitors still in practice with 25 plus negligence claims against them and clients unaware of who they are getting as a lawyer Mr MacAskill ? Is that why you don't want an independent regulator to police the legal profession ?

For a clue on Mr MacAskill's motives for protecting a monopolistic business against the public interest reforms of a competitive legal services market & independent regulation, we must examine a solicitor's values who stands firmly by the policy statements & direction of the Law Society of Scotland, who for years, have lobbied against any change to regulatory practice and the legal services market.

In general solicitors who support the Law Society of Scotland's policy of maintaining a monopolistic legal services model, where the public are forced to choose a member of the Law Society of Scotland to represent their legal interests, and who support self regulation of the legal profession, are hostile to change, will play every dirty trick in the book to stall or thwart legislative reforms, and will lash out & attack anyone who seeks to challenge their views.

There are sadly, a good number of members of the Law Society of Scotland who subscribe to these protectionist views, and Mr MacAskill seems to exhibit quite a few of them himself. Additionally, as a member of the Law Society of Scotland, Mr MacAskill will no doubt have a vested financial interest in leaving the regulatory side of things as they are with the Law Society of Scotland, should his political career fail or end, and he has to return to the legal profession.

Mr MacAskill, perhaps for those reasons, would rather herd the Scots public who may need access to legal services, into the willing open arms of the Law Society of Scotland, who for now maintain the exclusive monopoly on access to legal services in Scotland, and of course, want to keep that huge money making business which also generates convenient political influence over the likes of Mr MacAskill for themselves. A good deal, for Mr MacAskill, and his lawyer friends, and a good deal for the SNP too as they get to control who gets access to justice in Scotland. Not a good deal for Scots though.

This much is clear - The Scottish Government's attitude to the OFT seems to be that Scots have less of a right to access to justice & legal services than the rest of the UK.

Did Scotland expect to hear such talk from an SNP administration which seems to be more concerned with protecting the rights of lawyers to regulate their own complaints and dominate the legal services market, than investing in the Scots public interest & Scots independent freedom of choice for who represents their legal interests ?

Rejection of calls for independent regulator of legal system criticised

CONSUMER groups last night criticised the Scottish Government for not backing calls to appoint an independent regulator to monitor the legal system.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, has already made it clear that the status quo is "not an option" for the profession following the Office of Fair Trading's decision to uphold a complaint by consumer group Which? that the current set-up hinders market innovation.

But the minister's official response to a series of OFT recommendations revealed no plans for a new regulatory body like the Legal Services Board in England.

Mr MacAskill said he was "hugely encouraged" by the profession's response to his call for change earlier this year.

At present, lawyers cannot go into partnership with non-lawyers, but the OFT believes consumers would benefit if these "alternative business structures" were overhauled.

Julia Clarke, a campaigner with the Which? group, said: "This is a missed opportunity to put consumers at the heart of reforms to the Scottish legal profession.

"We feel that, unless an independent body is created to regulate lawyers and advocates, consumers will be let down."

and now for the Herald's report on the same story :

Minister keeps alive chances of superstore lawyers

ALAN MACDERMID

The Scottish Government has not ruled out the possibility of supermarket solicitors or legal firms run by people who are not lawyers, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said yesterday.

Third-party ownership of legal businesses are among the options being considered for reform of the Scottish legal system demanded by the Office of Fair Trading.

Currently, lawyers cannot go into partnership with non-lawyers, but the OFT believes consumers would benefit if these "alternative business structures" were overhauled.

This has raised the spectre of supermarkets offering legal services as they do with in-house pharmacies and optician services.

But Mr MacAskill affirmed his stance that Scotland will not be pushed into a new professional framework based on reforms in England and Wales.

After a meeting with Philip Collins, chair of the OFT, he made clear Scotland's legal profession had to change in the light of a changing marketplace, nationally and globally. However, a Scottish solution needed to be found, he said.

The controversy has been brewing since Which?, the magazine of the Consumers' Association, issued a complaint to the OFT that the legal set-up in Scotland disadvantaged the consumer, and called for reforms including a new supervisory body.

The government's response makes clear there are no plans to set up a new regulatory body like the Legal Services Board in England. But Mr MacAskill set out four possible models for multi-disciplinary practices and third-party entry to legal services.

They are - law firms with a minority of non-lawyer partners to assist in the management of the firm; law firms with a minority of non-lawyer partners offering alternative legal services; lawyers in a multi-disciplinary practice who are not in majority control; and third party ownership of legal businesses.

He said: "We consider some forms of alternative structures could well provide benefits to consumers."

But Which? campaigner Julia Clarke said: "This is a missed opportunity to put consumers at the heart of reforms. Unless an independent body is created to regulate lawyers consumers will be let down."

Following is the Scottish Government's weak timid response to the OFT recommendations, blindly following the Law Society of Scotland's policy which is so obviously pro legal profession and anti public ...

Scottish Government policy statement on OFT response to Which? super-complaint

Scotland's legal profession

18/12/2007

The Scottish Government today published its response to the Office of Fair Trading report on alternative business structures for the legal profession.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made clear that Scotland's legal profession had to change in the light of a changing marketplace, both nationally and globally, and that a Scottish solution needs to be found to the issues affecting the Scottish legal profession.

The response sets out how the Government is working with the profession and others to take forward reform, and the timetable for future action.

The main issues highlighted by the response are:

* No plans to set up a new regulatory body like the Legal Services Board in England
* Early progress needs to be made on potential new business models for legal services
* Expect Law Society and Faculty of Advocates to put forward detailed proposals for consideration by the Government and approval by their members by Spring 2008.

After a meeting with Philip Collins, Chair of the Office of Fair Trading, Mr McAskill said:

"This Government is committed to a strong and independent legal profession. We are determined that Scottish law firms should be able to compete internationally and that our legal system should be more attractive to major businesses.

"Hand-in-hand with this aim, we must improve access to justice for our citizens, and ensure that consumers of legal services are properly protected. People's needs for legal services are very different from what they were 50 or even 20 years ago, and legal services need to reflect that. At the same time, we must protect quality and the core values of the profession.

"Since becoming Justice Secretary, I have made reform of the legal profession one of my personal priorities. As a former partner in a law firm myself, I am very proud of the profession I once practiced in. It has already changed and must change further so it continues to provide an excellent service to consumers and businesses.

"However, in considering changes to the profession we will not blindly follow an English model. I therefore welcome the OFT's conclusion that the Scottish legal market requires an appropriate Scottish solution. We are a small country with a small legal profession - we need to use the advantage that gives us in being able to adapt quickly to new challenges.

"Last September, I challenged the leadership of the profession to bring forward firm proposals for change. I am hugely encouraged at the way in which they have responded so far. It is vital that we keep up the momentum, and the Government will be working with the profession in the early months of 2008 to turn the emerging ideas into real and practical reform."

'Which' submitted a super-complaint to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) asserting that the current regulation of Scottish legal forms restricts choice to consumers and prevents the formation of alternative business structures. In its reponse the OFT has not assumed that the changes currently being proposed in England and Wales through the Legal Services Bill will be automatically suitable for the Scottish market.

The OFT recommended that by the end of 2007 the Government should publish a statement which details its policy views on:

* How it considers legal services in Scotland should be regulated
* How the restrictions outlined in the super-complaint can be lifted
* A timing commitment for these aims

The OFT further recommended that the legal professions in Scotland take full advantage of these opportunities and that the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland lift any of their own practice rules which contribute to the restrictions discussed in their response.

On November 1 this year, the Law Society of Scotland published a consultation paper entitled 'The Public Interest: Delivering Scottish Legal Services - A Consultation on Alternative Business Structures.

The issue was debated in the Scottish Parliament on November 15, when the Government's approach was unanimously endorsed.

MacAskill's changing views on legal reform cause confusion, consternation among lawyers & clients alike

Scotland's Justice Secretary can't make his own mind up on anything these days, not least legal services reform ...

The only thing the current holder of the Justice portfolio in the Scottish Government has achieved is, amazingly, to veto an independent legal services regulator, at the behest of certain 'leading lights' at the Law Society. Anything else seems to be unachievable for now ... odd position to be in for an elected representative ?

The Herald reports :

Minister keeps alive chances of superstore lawyers

ALAN MACDERMID

The Scottish Government has not ruled out the possibility of supermarket solicitors or legal firms run by people who are not lawyers, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said yesterday.

Third-party ownership of legal businesses are among the options being considered for reform of the Scottish legal system demanded by the Office of Fair Trading.

Currently, lawyers cannot go into partnership with non-lawyers, but the OFT believes consumers would benefit if these "alternative business structures" were overhauled.

This has raised the spectre of supermarkets offering legal services as they do with in-house pharmacies and optician services.

But Mr MacAskill affirmed his stance that Scotland will not be pushed into a new professional framework based on reforms in England and Wales.

After a meeting with Philip Collins, chair of the OFT, he made clear Scotland's legal profession had to change in the light of a changing marketplace, nationally and globally. However, a Scottish solution needed to be found, he said.

The controversy has been brewing since Which?, the magazine of the Consumers' Association, issued a complaint to the OFT that the legal set-up in Scotland disadvantaged the consumer, and called for reforms including a new supervisory body.

The government's response makes clear there are no plans to set up a new regulatory body like the Legal Services Board in England. But Mr MacAskill set out four possible models for multi-disciplinary practices and third-party entry to legal services.

They are - law firms with a minority of non-lawyer partners to assist in the management of the firm; law firms with a minority of non-lawyer partners offering alternative legal services; lawyers in a multi-disciplinary practice who are not in majority control; and third party ownership of legal businesses.

He said: "We consider some forms of alternative structures could well provide benefits to consumers."

But Which? campaigner Julia Clarke said: "This is a missed opportunity to put consumers at the heart of reforms. Unless an independent body is created to regulate lawyers consumers will be let down

Lord Advocate 'reprimanded' over Crown Office refusal on Lockerbie disclosure

Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge has been forced to 'reprimand' the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini over the 'delays' on handing over evidence in the Lockerbie bombing case to the defence team of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who was convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 under Scots Law.

Delays some may say, but most feel the Crown has been prevaricating from the very start, with no intention of handing over any documents whatsoever ...

Playing for time seems to be a habit at the Crown Office ... playing with justice a merle triviality ...

The Herald reports :

Judge raps law chiefs for delays to Lockerbie document

LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter

The row over the Crown's refusal to disclose a top-secret document vital to unearthing the truth about the Lockerbie bombing has descended into "farce".

At a special procedural hear-ing yesterday, Scotland's most senior judge was forced to reprimand Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate, and Neil Davidson, the Advocate General, for their failure to provide adequate reasons to the court and the defence.

Lord Hamilton, the Lord President, said he was "deeply disappointed" with the delays.

The Advocate General, a legal post intended to link the Westminster Government with the devolved Scottish administration, asked the three appeal judges to regard his arguments as "a work in progress".

Lord Hamilton said it was "quite unsatisfactory" that lawyers on the Crown side were not better prepared.

The hearing raised serious arguments about devolution and the interference of the UK Government, as the Advocate General, its most senior legal adviser on Scottish legal issues, argued that he should make the decision.

In a written submission to the defence, he claimed that the document should not be disclosed for reasons of public interest immunity but failed to provide the required reasons or certificate.

The defence team argued that the Lord Advocate, the chief prosecutor in Scotland and the holder of the document, should make the decision and provide reasons if she chooses not to disclose.

As the court discussed why the document has still not been disclosed, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, spoke of his disappointment with the UK Government for failing to deliver on a promise to ensure Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, would be excluded from any prisoner transfer deal.

He warned that, without an exclusion clause, any prisoner who was refused a transfer could seek a judicial review by going to the courts, taking the matter out of government hands.

The row comes on the eve of the 19th anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing, in which 270 people died when PanAm 103 was blown up in 1988.

The secret document from an unnamed foreign country is thought to be about the MST13 timer which allegedly detonated the bomb.

The document was discov- ered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission team, which spent three years investigating his conviction. Using its enhanced powers, the commission compelled the Crown to show it the document and decided the contents were sufficiently important for a court to have concluded the conviction could have been a miscarriage of justice.

The commission referred the case back to the court in June after ruling that there were six grounds on which a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, including non-disclosure.

Margaret Scott, defence QC, said: "When it comes to criminal proceedings, it's for the Lord Advocate to assert public interest. There are not two chief prosecutors in Scotland, there is one."

Advocate-depute Ronnie Clancy, QC, defended the position, claiming it was an issue reserved for the UK Government as it involved international relations.

"The view was taken by the Lord Advocate that the public interest immunity should be left to the UK Government because the subject matter of the plea was likely to be a reserved matter," he said.

Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, said: "This is turning into a complete farce. The whole thing is a shambles and shows the weakness of the Lord Advocate. That she should be prepared to abrogate her decision on disclosure and public interest immunity is disgraceful."

A number of further hearings are planned for January and February for lawyers to argue about public interest immunity, defence access to items of evidence being stored by police, and about how wide the scope of the eventual appeal will be.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, said: "I cannot see why the Advocate General is getting involved in this irrelevant attempt to delay the court proceedings. The Lord Advocate is the head of the prosecution and should be handling this."

Northern Constabulary Chief 'considers' new investigation into Wick harbour death.

After damning reports on the disgraceful conduct of Northern Constabulary towards the family of Kevin Mcleod, who is thought to have been murdered at Wick Harbor over ten years ago, the force's Chief Constable claims he is 'considering' a new investigation into the case.

Surely a "Yes, there will be a new independent investigation" would be the correct thing to say ...

The Herald reports :

Police chief ‘considers’ new inquiry into harbour death

IAN GRANT and DAVID ROSS

The mysterious death of a young Scot almost 11 years ago could be the subject of a new police investigation.

The prospect emerged yesterday at a meeting between Northern Constabulary's Chief Constable Ian Latimer and members of Kevin McLeod's family.

Mr Latimer apologised for the shortcomings of his force in the initial inquiry and in its response to the family's subsequent welter of complaints.

He also agreed to consider the family's request that an outside force review the circumstances surrounding the 24-year-old's unsolved death in his home town of Wick in February 1997.

After his body was recovered from the town's harbour, a post-mortem examination revealed severe damage to some of his internal organs.

His parents, Hugh and June McLeod, and uncle Allan McLeod are convinced he was brutally beaten shortly before he ended up in the water.

Police investigations failed to find evidence of foul play and a fatal accident inquiry recorded an open verdict.

Yesterday's meeting in Wick Assembly Rooms was convened after a recent report by Scottish Police Complaints Commissioner Jim Martin.

Mr Martin accused Northern Constabulary of "institutional arrogance" in its dealings with the family and called on Mr Latimer to tender an overdue apology.

MP John Thurso, who chaired yesterday's two-hour private meeting, said: "Mr Latimer apologised unreservedly to the McLeod family in the manner recommended by Mr Martin.

"It's an apology which the family have accepted in full."

Mr Latimer had told the family he would contact the Crown Office early in the new year to discuss the family's request for a new inquiry.

Law Society accused of pulling MacAskill's strings as Justice Secretary vetoes independent regulation

What is it with lawyers in politics, no matter which political party they are in, all they do is dance to the tune of their colleagues in the profession, and once again, Justice Secretary Mr Law Society himself, Kenny MacAskill, misses a chance to heal the deep divisions between the legal profession & client base, by vetoing an independent regulator to oversee the legal system.

Good enough for England & Wales, but seen as too risky for Scotland, given the poor regulatory history of many solicitors and poor quality of Scottish legal services, Mr MacAskill has decided to side with the insurance lobby and deny Scotland the same rights as the rest of the country.

Maintaining a closed legal services model, vetoing independent regulation of the legal system .. Scotland seems to have the wrong person in the justice portfolio ... too busy protecting his own colleagues instead of taking the country's interests into account ...

The Scotsman reports :

Rejection of calls for independent regulator of legal system criticised

CONSUMER groups last night criticised the Scottish Government for not backing calls to appoint an independent regulator to monitor the legal system.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, has already made it clear that the status quo is "not an option" for the profession following the Office of Fair Trading's decision to uphold a complaint by consumer group Which? that the current set-up hinders market innovation.

But the minister's official response to a series of OFT recommendations revealed no plans for a new regulatory body like the Legal Services Board in England.

Mr MacAskill said he was "hugely encouraged" by the profession's response to his call for change earlier this year.

At present, lawyers cannot go into partnership with non-lawyers, but the OFT believes consumers would benefit if these "alternative business structures" were overhauled.

Julia Clarke, a campaigner with the Which? group, said: "This is a missed opportunity to put consumers at the heart of reforms to the Scottish legal profession.

"We feel that, unless an independent body is created to regulate lawyers and advocates, consumers will be let down."

Fiscals suspend 'bluff' strike action after talks

Scotland's Fiscals have suspended what many saw as a 'bluff' strike action threat.

Anything for more wages, but they must have been astounded to see the fat cheques, freebie expenses tickets, bungs, favours & bonuses going to their colleagues in the GLSS .. so who wouldn't think they deserved a little more ...

The Herald reports :

Scotland’s prosecutors suspend threat of strike action

WILLIAM TINNING

Scotland's prosecutors last night suspended their threat of strike action on January 3 over pay following last-minute negotiations between a trade union and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).

More than 80% of fiscals balloted by the First Division Association (FDA) voted in favour of strike action coupled with a work-to-rule earlier this week.

The move would have significantly disrupted custody courts on one of the busiest times of the year.

Intensive negotiations in recent days resulted in an initial agreement to delay industrial action being accepted last night by the FDA's Procurator Fiscal Section Council.

The FDA, which represents four-fifths of fiscals, gave the Crown Office written notice of its plans to ballot members last month.

It followed concerns expressed by fiscals that the Crown Office had reneged on a promise to equalise pay grades made after a unanimous ballot in favour of strike action last February.

An independent report commissioned by the Crown Office, published in 2002, highlighted a pay gap between prosecutors and other lawyers while suggesting that Scottish Government lawyers and fiscals were doing equivalent work.

Recent figures show a procurator-fiscal depute on a basic grade earns £31,365, compared with £36,203 for an equivalent government lawyer.

Following yesterday's agreement, Jim Caldwell, Scottish secretary of the FDA, said: "What we want is agreement and a fair resolution to the concerns we have been raising for a number of years.

"There is no doubt about the strength of feeling among our members about career prospects and the failure by the COPFS to reward its lawyers commensurately with those employed within the wider Scottish Government.

"We have been in talks for many months and the anger of members at the failure to make sufficient progress led to our strike ballot."

He added: "We are pleased to have been able to hammer out an agreement.

"Hopefully this will lead to a business case being presented to ministers in February 2008 that will define a new pay and career structure to take the COPFS in the face of the rapidly changing criminal justice landscape in Scotland We have suspended the action in line with legislation, but it could still take place if the COPFS management team fails to deliver a solution."

A statement issued last night by the Crown Office said: "We are pleased that an agreement has been reached and that industrial action has now been suspended.

"This is the right decision for staff and the public."

MacAskill's attack on Transport Police searches seen as political distraction for own's sake

Poor Kenny MacAskill, as Justice Secretary in Scotland, and doing a terrible job at that, it must be frustrating to have a Police Force on his soil whom he cannot meddle with ...feeling so frustrated he has to lash out at 'stop & search' procedures being exercised by the BT Police.

Thankfully, the British Transport Police are still UK based, instead of falling under what many see would be the interfering control of the Scottish Government ..

MacAskill attacked on stop-and-search power

DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor

A row between Holyrood and Westminster over stop-and-search powers being exercised by British Transport Police has deepened with a strongly-worded attack by a Labour minister on the Scottish Justice Secretary.

Kenny MacAskill has been attacked by Tom Harris, the UK Transport Minister who is also Labour MP for Glasgow South, after the SNP minister had warned the extensive use of anti-terrorist laws for stop-and-search at Scottish railway stations was threatening to undermine good community relations with Scottish-based police. Mr Harris accuses the Justice Secretary of undermining morale and insists he should apologise.

Since the June 30 terror attack on Glasgow Airport, the British Transport Police (BTP) - the only force to be part of a UK-wide service - has carried out nearly 15,000 checks. Of these, 12% on people were counted as being on people from ethnic minorities. Over the past year, the other eight Scottish forces have used these powers fewer than 150 times, and last year only six times.

Mr Harris has written to Mr MacAskill in the strongest language used by a Whitehall minister against a counterpart in the SNP administration over the past seven months, saying it was "unacceptable and inappropriate for anyone in ministerial office to launch such an attack on police officers on the basis of hearsay".

He argued that the vast majority of rail travellers in Scotland feel reassured by the checks rather than threatened, and added: "Your attempts to invoke the prospect of discontent in community relations is cynical and irresponsible". Mr Harris demanded an apology.

He is to go on patrol with BTP officers in Glasgow tomorrow and warned Mr MacAskill: "I hope your ill-judged comments will not succeed in undermining the morale of the men and women of the BTP in Scotland or the confidence that the travelling public should rightly have in them."

Mr MacAskill responded that the public need an explanation why 230 BTP officers carry out so many checks when 16,200 other officers are involved in so few.

Scots Law suffers injustice over Lockerbie appeal as Crown Office refuses to hand over Lockerbie evidence

The appeal of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi against his conviction over the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 has again been brought into the spotlight by the refusal of the Crown Office to hand over vital documents to the defence team.

So much for respecting the laws of disclosure, a problem which is affecting many cases in Scotland, and notably which the legal profession itself is not doing enough to challenge in the courts ...

The Herald reports :

Crown refuses to reveal secret Lockerbie paper

Exclusive by LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter

The Crown Office has refused to hand over a secret document vital to unearthing the truth about the Lockerbie bombing.

The defence team of the Libyan convicted of the bombing has now called for a procedural hearing to discuss the Crown's refusal to disclose the document from an unnamed "foreign" country.

At the hearing, in the High Court in Edinburgh on Thursday, the defence will ask the three judges to decide whether the document should be disclosed.

It is understood to be about the MST13 timer which allegedly detonated the bomb over Lockerbie in 1988 which killed 270 people. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is currently serving a 27-year sentence for the bombing.

The document was discovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) team, which spent three years investigating his conviction.

Using its enhanced powers, the commission compelled the Crown to show it the document and decided the contents were sufficiently important for a court to have conclude the conviction could have been a miscarriage of justice. Proving the MST13 timer found at the site was purchased by the Libyans was pivotal to the conviction at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

The SCCRC referred the case back to the Scottish courts in June on six separate grounds, including non-disclosure.

Two months ago, the Crown Office was instructed to pass on the document or provide substantial reasons as to why it could not be given to the defence.

However, The Herald can reveal the Crown has since opposed the petition and suggested it has no duty to disclose. It has refused to reveal, even to the defence, the country from which the document originated, or its full reasons for not sharing the information.

The defence team is understood to be seeking the document which relates to supply of timers and an additional paper.

At a hearing in October the Crown asked the court for more time and agreed to come back with a response within six weeks.

At the time, Ronnie Clancy, QC, the advocate-depute, said the documents were handed to prosecutors on the basis they remained confidential.

He told the court: "The documents were passed on the basis they were regarded as being confidential by the authority that passed them over. That being so, the Crown has taken the position that, if possible, confidentiality should be respected and there are public interest considerations in regard to keeping the confidentiality of information coming from a foreign source."

Legal experts expected the reasons for non-disclosure to centre around the foreign country's refusal to hand over the documents on national security grounds. This does not appear to be the case.

Professor Robert Black, QC, one of the architects of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist, said: "The Crown was given six weeks to provide the document or to produce valid reasons as to why that would not be possible. The fact they are neither providing a detailed explanation nor the document seems a bit fishy to me.

"Ultimately it will be for the court to make up its own mind."

The full grounds for the appeal will be lodged by the defence team by Friday and are expected to include details undermining the reliability of the Crown's key witness and forensics evidence. It will also contain arguments based on the Crown's failure to disclose documents to the defence at the time of the trial.

A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: "We have lodged our response to the court within the time limit set by the court and this response sets out our position in relation to the material sought by the defence."

Ex lawyers who were targeted by Law Society dirty tricks squad come back to haunt the legal profession once more

Gordon & Maria Thomson, the famous solicitors who were ruthlessly targeted by the Law Society of Scotland for removal over claims from more preferred legal firms they took too much legal aid business, are again back in the news with the launch of Maria Thomson's book, titled "Dark Angels"

While some within the legal profession enjoyed considerable financial benefits from the Law Society's ruthless pursuit of Gordon & Maria Thomson's legal firm, there are a few who saw the whole episode as a warning to anyone who would dissent from the line of Drumsheugh Gardens and the big legal firms with partners on Law Society Committees who dictate the course the Scottish legal profession must follow without question ...

The scandal of the Law Society's prosecution of Gordon & Maria Thomson before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal saw the SSDT willingly accept any 'evidence', fabricated & otherwise, thrown at it with orders to strike off the legal duo, so that legal firms who had made complaints about their firm taking too much of the legal aid client share, would then be handed the Thomson's business on a plate.

Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive Douglas Mill, famous for his outbursts within the Scottish Parliament Committee rooms, interviews in newspapers speaking of suicide, and issuing the occasional legal threat against legislation, also featured heavily in the Thomson's case .. something of perhaps a vindictive pursuit perhaps ? my my .. and people wonder why the Law Society of Scotland has descended into such a corrupt institution ...

Still, Maria's book makes for interesting reading - an excerpt from the Press Release follows :

In 1976, a thirteen-year-old girl is held hostage in a wealthy Edinburgh townhouse while she gives birth. Handcuffed to a bed, the girl is rewarded with a lethal injection from the midwife and the baby abducted.

28 years later, when top-ranking lawyer Lord Arbuthnot is murdered outside an infamous gay haunt, his alleged killer is named as notorious dominatrix Kailash Coutts. Within minutes of her arrest, she demands the services of Brodie McLennan, rising star of the Scottish bar, who is bewildered by this request, due to the animosity between herself and Kailash from an earlier clash in court.

As the case progresses, Brodie cannot understand why her court appearances are watched over by Moses Tierney, enigmatic leader of the infamous Dark Angels.

She is dismissive when she is warned by journalist Jack Deans that darker forces than Kailash are involved in Arbuthnot's murder. However, when Brodie is attacked, and receives a chilling photograph dredging up memories of murders past, she realises that there is much, much more going on than she has even begun to realise.

She needs real protection, so turns for help to Glasgow Joe, a dear friend with a murky past. It seems a serial killer is on the loose and Brodie is next on the list…

For further information or to interview either Maria Thomson or Linda Watson-Brown, contact Katrina Power at Midas Public Relations on 020 7590 0802 or katrina.power@midaspr.co.uk and for more information go to http://www.gracemonroe.net

So, not too far from reality then as many an anonymous lawyer could tell you, particularly given the likes of who among the legal fraternity, especially some of the married types, haunt those particular haunts referred to in the book...

Here's the scoop from the Sun newspaper, followed by the venerable Scotsman's report, written no less by the same reporter who wrote Douglas Mill's embarrassing, almost sectionable as some would say, 'suicide rant' last year ...

Revenge is sweet - Maria Thomson's "Dark Angels" - The Sun

The Scotsman reports :

Will the pen prove mightier than the brief?

By JENNIFER VEITCH

SHE was never one for doing things by the book, so perhaps it is not surprising to see Maria Thomson taking an opportunity to thumb her nose at the legal profession.

While a bookshop browser might not immediately realise that Thomson is one of the writers behind the nom de plume Grace Monroe, her dedication inside offers a big clue to a chequered past: "Thanks also go to the Law Society of Scotland, without which this book wouldn't have been possible."

This would be the same Law Society of Scotland that ensured that Thomson and her motorcyle-riding husband, Gordon – remember those adverts? – would never work as solicitors again.

Lawyers of more than ten or so years' standing will recall that the Thomsons made Scottish legal history after being struck off not once, but twice by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal following complaints about their Edinburgh-based firm.

They were first struck off in 1995, but a protracted and increasingly bitter dispute ensued as they sought to clear their names of allegations of dishonesty after the then president of the Law Society suggested they deserved to be jailed. At one point, Maria Thomson went on hunger strike outside the society's Drumsheugh Gardens HQ.

An appeal to the Court of Session finally led to the Law Society publicly acknowledging in 2001 that the Thomsons had not been guilty of dishonesty. A settlement was reached, wiping out £190,000 in costs, but it did not restore their practising certificates.

In the 12 years since her legal career crumbled away to nothing, Thomson has worked variously as a hypnotherapist, a stage hypnotist, badminton coach and fertility counsellor "among other things." She can now add writer to the list, with the publication of her first novel, Dark Angels, a fast-paced crime novel set in Edinburgh and peppered with murdered lawyers.

So why not be content to write under the nom de plume with her co-writer, her friend Linda Watson-Brown, and keep her head under the parapet? Thomson shrugs and smiles and says there is no point in trying to escape her past: "It's about dealing with it and laughing about it. If I didn't speak about it, it would have had power. The most powerful thing for me was when I went on hunger strike, because up to that point, I treated them with complete disrespect. I didn't realise how powerful they were, naïvely.

"Afterwards, when I lost everything it was like the rug had been pulled out from under me. I couldn't drive past Drumsheugh Gardens without actually wanting to vomit."

As far as Thomson is concerned, she and her husband won their battle when they reached the out-of-court settlement with the Law Society. Her take is that they apologised, though the society might take issue with that, as their 2001 statement about the settlement certainly did not include the word "sorry".

"Yes, they did apologise," she insists. "That was a huge thing for them. It all gets really technical, but we took them to the nobile officium. They opposed it although they knew that what they had said was wrong. Lord Rodger said they had to give publicity to the fact that there was no dishonesty involved in our case. They wouldn't do that, so I felt I had no other option. That's when I did the hunger strike."

But questions of dishonesty aside, two sittings of the tribunal found enough evidence to strike the pair off. Surely Thomson cannot argue that they were innocent victims of a conspiracy to oust them? "What I accept of the tribunal is that there were administrative errors, which is what we pled to," she says.

Thomson adds that their faces didn't fit; the TV ads, their leafleting outside courts, their informal style with law cafés, and their lack of shame about trying to run their practice as a business all ruffled feathers, she says. "It was just that we grew so quickly and because we had annoyed the legal profession so much," she says. "It is like a cake, it doesn't get any bigger, so if someone else is taking a bigger share of the cake, that means you are bringing home less to your family.

"That was very threatening to them. They came from a time when they had a client for life. What they were faced with was just an entirely different way. We believed that people had freedom of choice."

She adds: "I would never accept that we were not good lawyers. Gordon, in particular, was fantastic. The reason I can't accept it is your fundamental training as a lawyer is to be dispassionate about it. At the time I just couldn't understand it. Then I came to see their side of it, which was that they were threatened economically. It wasn't a way that they wanted to go."

Thomson claims it was suggested they could resolve the issues if they agreed to merge with a bigger firm. But they decided to fight their case, believing that if they admitted having made "administrative mistakes", the slate would be wiped clean. "I thought that meant we would get to start again, but in practice it meant they would strike us off."

Listening to Thomson talking about what must be one of the worst experiences any solicitor can face, she is so upbeat that it often sounds like she is talking about events that happened to someone else. Surely this was her darkest hour?

"The day they said they were going to strike off us off, it was a big blow," she concedes, suddenly turning serious, before adding, with a smile: "One of the things I am most proud of is the photo of me and Gordon as we walked out because it actually looks as if we've just got married and not just had the most devastating blow. What I said was, 'We've just been drummed out the Brownies'. I make no bones about it, I'm into positive thinking and you have to minimise any disaster that happens to you."

After their case hit the headlines, the Thomsons met other solicitors who had fallen foul of the complaints process. Some had their lives ruined, she says, but insists: "I would never allow that to happen to me."

So don't the couple miss their careers and the trappings of a lucrative income, including their big house in leafy Bonaly, the two cars and the Harley Davidsons?

"We do not have anywhere near the disposable income that we had," admits Thomson. "It was forced upon us, so we had to think, 'Isn't it great to have a simple life? It would be horrible to always be hankering after having lots of money.'"

Thomson recalls that one journalist who interviewed her ten years ago gave her a medal of St Jude, the patron saint of hopeless causes. Perhaps it worked because she certainly gives the appearance of having no regrets. "Our marriage went through the worst circumstances, yet we stayed together," she says. "Believe it or not, anyone who knows us would say that we are very happy."

• Dark Angels by Grace Monroe] is published by Avon priced £6.99

Compliance rules viewed as ridiculous as the Law Society who enforce them

Good old rules, where would be we without them but lawyers can certainly bend them to suit as many have found out over the years.

While some are calling for the legal profession & public to heal the problems of the past, others would rather continue with full steam ahead against the client ...

The Scotsman reports :

Ridiculous nature of the compliance rules

By DONALD REID

"DO AS I say, not as I do" seems to be the motto of politicians. They love making life difficult for everyone but themselves.

Compliance is the growth industry fuelling the public sector with its armies of watchdogs and paperpushers.

There are hosts of examples but let's stick with the legal profession. Since the lawyer-bashers first arrived in their free taxis at Holyrood, they and their Westminster counterparts have had their knives into us, and into the contracting and commercial freedom of our clients. An elderly spinster can't sell her house without having to answer nosey questions about her private affairs – whether, despite a life of impeccable respectability, she has in fact been harbouring a husband, or a "bidie-in", of her own or the opposite sex.

If we don't suppress our civility and invade her privacy in this impertinent manner, we are negligent. The fact that she submissively accepts our questions and answers them politely does not mean the inquiry is fair, it simply demonstrates her resigned acceptance of government-driven invasiveness. "You can't fight city hall" and all that.

Suppose the same lady is strapped for cash and has decided to downsize her house, which is not in a sought-after area. Before she can do so, our enlightened legislators are going to force her to cough up £600 for a "single survey report" on the house she might not get an offer for at all, and she won't recoup the cost from the buyer if she does sell.

Still, the beaks know best. Hardship for one old dear is in the interests of the fat cats allegedly paying for multi-surveys in the posh areas. It's Edinburgh justice. And any solicitor who dares to try to avoid her incurring this cost will be jumped on from a great height by the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

The vindictive second-raters queuing up for appointment to this quango are salivating at the chance to catch us out. Like all such bodies, compliance to the letter of the legislation will be their priority. You may provide the fastest, cheapest, politest service in history, but if you can't show them your engagement letter, of suitably incomprehensible length, and your money-laundering documentation, proving that you made all the cheeky inquiries expected of you, then you will be the deadest of dead meat.

But, surely, you might think, our political masters are more interested in real sin than mere technical infringement – it's the spirit that counts, not the letter. If you act in good faith, you'll not get spanked. Oh no? Here's a hard-pressed solicitor up before the Commission. The complainer says he has been charged an extortionate £200 for his house purchase. He lies (yes, this is the first time a complainer has ever lied) that he wasn't told he would have to pay so much.

The solicitor did tell him at the first meeting, but, in the hurly-burly, overlooked sending the client a letter confirming the fee. Never mind, the solicitor thinks, "I am confident I will be exonerated of any intentional wrongdoing". What chance the Commission will be interested in such an excuse? I would say zero at best – the words "cloud" and "cuckooland" come to mind.

Which is why it is diverting to see such a line being pled by one of our masters, whose party in government presided over introduction of much of this bureaucratic oppression.

I'm ready to accept, if demonstrated, an absence of personal moral guilt. But that's not the point: if good faith doesn't get the rest of us off a hook, it shouldn't excuse the ones who made the hooks in the first place. Merry Christmas to all my fans.

Increases in legal fees may also reflect poor workers performance

Advice on how to tackle poor performance in the workplace ...

The Scotsman reports :

The real costs of poor performance in the workplace may be legal fees

By KIRSTY AYRE

WITH the latest annual report from the tribunal service revealing that the number of employment tribunals in the UK increased by 8 per cent last year, it is not surprising that increasing numbers of business owners and line managers are worried about challenging staff over poor workplace performance for fear of becoming embroiled in a costly tribunal claim.

Recent high-profile cases, such as Helen Green vs Deutsche Bank, have raised the profile of bullying in the workplace. In this case, the judge stated that "employers could be held vicariously liable for any harassment caused by workers in the course of their employment", significantly shifting the onus for monitoring staff behaviour firmly on to the company concerned.

Failure to tackle poor performance, however, can prove extremely costly for businesses, with UK employers wasting more than £30 million a year on under-performing staff, according to a survey by Personnel Today magazine.

If 96 per cent of HR managers admit to facing issues with poor performance, and 29 per cent admit it is a serious problem, just what can companies and line managers do? According to ACAS guidelines, bullying may be characterised as "offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient". The definition does not include legitimate and constructive criticism of a worker's performance or behaviour or reasonable requests made of workers.

As a manager or employer, it is important to remember that managing other people's performance is a legitimate part of your job and one that can have a significant impact on office morale and, ultimately, the company's financial performance.

While it is never pleasant to be involved in work-place disputes, provided you treat staff fairly and adhere to the company's disciplinary and grievance procedures, the risk of claims can be minimised. In some cases, an informal word in an under-performing worker's ear will quickly resolve the problem.

If this fails to resolve the situation, it may be necessary to begin a performance management process. Following the correct procedures can increase the chances of an improvement in performance and go some way to protecting managers against bullying or harassment claims.

In the first instance, you should arrange to meet with the employee to discuss the issue and agree an improvement plan and a realistic timescale, details of the support they will be given and the date of a follow-up review. When giving negative feedback on performance, ensure that it is given in a constructive way, and refer also to the positives – ie things they are doing well. If their performance fails to improve, employers are then entitled to issue performance related warnings and, ultimately, move on to dismissal.

Anyone preparing to commence this process should take legal advice early to ensure they are up to date with the latest legal procedures. Training sessions and multimedia services, such as Pinsent Masons' i-pod-based HR Network TV, can prove particularly useful at these times, allowing managers to review the legal requirements of the performance management process before embarking on a meeting.

Handling awkward situations is all part of the job when you are a manager, but, if handled correctly, any spurious tribunal claims of bullying or harassment are likely to be thrown out at an early stage.

• Kirsty Ayre is an employment partner at Pinsent Masons

Dunblane inquiry Judge who ordered 100 year secrecy over school massacre papers awarded Order of the Thistle

Lord Cullen of Whitekirk, the Judge who chaired such confidence inspiring inquiries as the Dunblane school massacre where gun fantasist & 'writer' to some politicians,Thomas Hamilton murdered 15 children & a teacher, then slapped a 100 year secrecy order to cover up various still unresolved aspects of who did what, and allowed Mr Hamilton to have his arsenal of weapons ...receives the Order of the Thistle, amid a very strange lack of publicity ...

Could it be some would be less than honoured the Order of the Thistle had been given to Lord Cullen in the circumstances of many people's doubt over the likes of the Dunblane massacre investigation ?

Scotland on Sunday reports :

Judge honoured

A FORMER senior judge has been given Scotland's highest honour, it was announced yesterday.

Lord Cullen of Whitekirk was appointed a Knight of the Thistle on St Andrew's Day.

He led inquiries into the Piper Alpha disaster and the Dunblane shootings, and in March 2002 led the five-judge tribunal which heard the failed appeal of the Lockerbie bomber.

The Order of the Thistle represents the highest honour in Scotland. It honours Scottish men and women who have held public office or who have contributed in a particular way to national life.

Law Society of Scotland cited as obstacle to change & reform, regularly acts against public interest.

In a recent post on A Diary of Injustice in Scotland, Peter Cherbi discusses the growing resentment of the Law Society of Scotland and how it has failed both solicitors and clients for too long to be trusted.

As people ponder the future of the Law Society of Scotland, amid it's consistent failure to address the worst problems of the Scots legal profession, thoughts turn to what will replace it and how solicitors & the public can get together again in a more trustworthy & dependable relationship not seem for many years ...

Law Society 'obstacle to change' as solicitors & clients hope for better relationship & trustworthy legal services

There is no doubt that solicitors & clients alike, can do without the Law Society of Scotland - the current state of Scotland's legal services market, the general disrespect and lack of trust the public afford the legal profession, and the numerous scandals which consistently rock Scotland's legal system and solicitor base, are evidence enough.

What good has the Law Society of Scotland done for solicitors over the years ?

Well, the Law Society would claim it has raised standards of service & conduct within the legal profession. However, with five thousand plus complaints a year made against less than ten thousand solicitors in Scotland, many of those complaints relating to serious frauds, poor service & conduct, even embezzlement, fakery, corrupt schemes to swindle clients out of even their property, there can be no doubt that standards of service & conduct are at an all time low.

What good has the Law Society of Scotland done for clients & the public over the years ?

The answer to that one of course, is none - no good at all.

The Law Society of Scotland, particularly it's current leadership under the likes of Chief Executive Douglas Mill, has concentrated fully on protecting solicitors from client complaints, ensuring when issues of serious complaints arise, the client loses out each time, while the solicitor goes on practicing.

Take for instance, a complaint where a solicitor had falsified a house & land sale - the client provided all kinds of evidence, even letters which fell into his possession from his own solicitor to a bidder on the property in question .. .scheming a deal so the solicitor & bidder would successfully gain a three million pound property for one tenth of its value, as the solicitor was holding his client for so long in the property sale, the client would go insolvent. The complaint went nowhere, the solicitor still practices, still has three houses of his own, still swindles clients, and hasn't a care in the world.

The client who made the complaint - He received no compensation even through he tried to pursue the case through the court. His new solicitors who took on the case trying to recover damages for theft & negligence worked against their client all the time, acted on instructions from the Law Society to delay the case and ruin it so there would be no settlement - which is in fact what happened. The client & his family lost their home, their lives were destroyed, and he now has cancer.

A situation repeated time & again, in the world of complaints against solicitors in Scotland. If you use a lawyer, the very same could happen to you just as easily, and there is nothing you will be able to do about it while the Law Society of Scotland exists.

If you want to read some more horrors of how the Law Society of Scotland have treated clients and stage managed legal services & access to justice in Scotland, here are a few links from previous posts :

Solicitors protecting themselves at all costs against accusations of wrongdoing, covering up complaints & scandals against colleagues

Solicitors ruining client after client who dared take issue with lawyers poor standards of service

Regular interference from the Law Society in court cases & client claims against corrupt solicitors

Solicitors found to be bribing clients to sign legal aid forms

Solicitors found to be smuggling drugs into prisons for clients

Solicitors with political interests stealing from disabled clients

Solicitors caught & jailed for sexual abuse of children

Solicitors allegedly hiring hitmen to attack & kill professional colleagues involved in the regulation of finance & complaints

Solicitors found to be ruining deceased clients wills in a common fraudulent practice

Solicitors with the worst standards possible, some facing as many as 21 negligence claims from clients, with complaint after complaint covered up by the Law Society of Scotland

The most senior Law Society figures threatening the Parliament & Executive with legal action over proposed independent regulation of lawyers

Legal firms with political influence in Government campaign against improvements in law such as a rise in small claims

Members of the Judiciary interfering in the course of implementation of law, preventing wider access to justice

and, has seen the Scottish Executive unmasked as a protector of the legal profession from clients ruined by solicitors, and complaints covered up to the most senior level

Good list, isn't it ... and there's lots more of course ... what appears above is only the tip of the Law Society's iceberg.

In this Monday's Law Section of the Scotsman, Jennifer Veitch wrote a piece entitled "Law Society must put house in order"

Nothing more than the usual line from Drumsheugh Gardens though, no room for substantive debate, and a distinct lack of reporting on how the Law Society notably achieved some amendments to the much feared & bitterly debated Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.

"The previous 12 months were dominated by the bitter debate over the Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill, and its proposals for a Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

When the Bill was finally passed last December, some of the sting was removed, with lawyers having the right of appeal against the commission's decisions. But if the Law Society's head honchos had known what 2007 had in store then they might not have seemed quite so cheery at the end of 2006."

Yes, indeed it was a bitter debate, with the dirty tricks brigade from the Law Society on duty seemingly 24 hours a day to threaten anyone who would put forward evidence to the Parliament on the inadequacies of the Law Society of Scotland and it's solicitor membership ..

The dirty tricks from the Law Society of Scotland fell out of control, with public skirmishes in front of the Justice 2 Committee between John Swinney & Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill over secret memos which clearly showed deliberate corruption & intervention in client claims against overtly corrupt solicitors.

Would [Douglas Mill's] granny swear by the Law Society ?

As the LPLA Bill debate progressed, and the Law Society of Scotland feared losing control of complaints and client claims, an English LibDem Peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC was drafted in to write the bizarre legal opinion that "it would breach the human rights of lawyers to allow anyone else except a colleague to consider & investigate complaints against themselves."

Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill, then used the Lord Lester opinion to threaten legal action against the Scottish Parliament & Executive if certain amendments agreeable to the Law Society were not put into the LPLA Bill.

Holyrood in solicitors' sights

Ms Veitch's version of that differs slightly from the reality of the legal threat, in that she simply does not mention it. Good stuff ... wholesome incomplete reporting seeking to misinform the public, and you can see a further example of such reporting here :

A lawyer's never loved in his own home land

Despite what some feel, if the Scottish Parliament & Executive changed legislation or amended it because of a legal threat from a profession with a vested financial interest in keeping such legislation restricted in its effect ... that is a big story. Big enough to be of significant public interest .... but not even a mention, as I'm sure if there was, Mr Mill would have been straight on the phone to have it removed.

The SNP Government are currently being attacked over a meeting between Alex Salmond and Donald Trump, over the calling in of Mr Trump's golfing development in the North East, as of course, Mr Trump has a vested interest in the proposals going through, and it does appear to some, that planning rules have been tossed aside in this matter, indicating a slight 'bending of the rules' to get the development through.

Well, if attacking the SNP over such a matter is good enough for the national press, then perhaps attacking the Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive's legal threat to Parliament & Government to bend & change rules or meet him in court, is just as significant a story ... and this is still a story, because as you may have guessed it, the dirty tricks brigade of the Law Society are at it again over the access to legal services debate, which you can read more about here :

Scotland fights political interests for wider access, choice of legal services over protectionism of lawyers monopoly

So, what the Law Society of Scotland has to do is not put its house in order.The time for that is over.

The Law Society of Scotland, has shown, it cannot change. It is too inflexible, too used to making threats to get it's own way, too used to delay to ensure nothing changes, too used to using dirty tricks to take out critics, opponents, and any client who may be a thorn in it's side, and too used to prejudice, protection of the guilty, and too used to having undue influence over public life.

The Law Society of Scotland should rather, jump off a cliff into extinction, and allow both solicitors & clients to get on with managing a relationship between the legal profession & public based on trust, accountability, transparency, and yes, even friendship.

If solicitors wish a representative body for their industry - yes by all means form one. Form one that gives you, each solicitor, a VOTE, in everything your new representative body will do for you. Make sure though, your shiny new representative body for the legal profession doesn't end up with the likes of the Law Society's current dictatorial leadership hell bent on protecting it's own political influence & power base, which has done exponential damage to the legal profession as a whole more than anything in history.

If the public wish a representative body for legal services, and by all means I would heartily advise it, ensure that such a body exclusively represents your interests as the client, has adequate powers to protect clients interests, ensure issues be tackled & publicised, and is able to ensure that complaints be dealt with properly, fairly, and with compassion.

We don't need the Law Society and it's dirty bag of dirty tricks any longer - it's time for a change - a change for solicitors & the public alike, a change for the better, a positive change for Scotland.

Law Society must put house in order

JENNIFER VEITCH

THIS time last year, the legal profession - or at least those concerned with plotting its direction - appeared to breath a collective sigh of relief. The previous 12 months were dominated by the bitter debate over the Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill, and its proposals for a Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

When the Bill was finally passed last December, some of the sting was removed, with lawyers having the right of appeal against the commission's decisions. But if the Law Society's head honchos had known what 2007 had in store then they might not have seemed quite so cheery at the end of 2006.

Thanks to the curveball of the Which? super-complaint to the OFT, this year has been dominated by an accelerated debate on the dreaded alternative business structure. Of course, everyone in the profession has been prattling on about Clementi for so long without similar proposals being seriously mooted for Scotland that perhaps the Law Society could have been forgiven for being lulled into believing it could escape the march of Tesco law.

To be fair, when the Research Working Group on the Legal Services Market in Scotland reported in April 2006, it recommended against intervention. But, after Which? forced the issue, the OFT turned its attentions to the Scottish marketplace, and soon the profession was presented with a list of recommendations for reform, just in time for the Law Society's conference on ABSs.

To say there was no shortage of opinions aired at September's debate would be putting it mildly. Lawyers from across Scotland offered the society plenty of food for thought about the impact of ABSs on legal services and particularly with regard to access to justice. The profession appeared divided into two camps: broadly speaking, there were those who make money, and want to stay competitive in order to keep doing so; and those who are struggling to keep afloat and fear the ABS would send them under. The big question was how the society would attempt to reconcile the two, and it promised the debate would inform its options paper, published with little fanfare on 1 November.

Yet this consultation paper stopped short of putting forward proposals that might give further direction to the debate. It certainly covered the pertinent issues arising from the main forms of ABS. It also stated that the society's council considers "it is now right to facilitate some changes", though it would prefer to see stepped or phased changes introduced. But it was surprisingly light on offering pragmatic solutions.

The society could no doubt argue its lack of prescription is a virtue - it is not prejudging the response from the public and will use the consultation, which ends on 31 January, to inform the process. But the Scottish Government still intends to respond to the OFT's recommendations by the end of this year. So is there a danger ministers will move ahead with their decision-making, without the benefit of clear directions emanating from the legal profession?

The profession has been looking to the Law Society to grasp the nettle on this issue, and provide leadership, and some much-needed certainty, for the marketplace.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, extended a clear invitation for the profession to take the lead, with the caveat that there was not the luxury of unlimited time. But the problem here appears to be that the Law Society is structured to need lots of time to respond to anything. Any decisions of significance need to be run past committees and its council.

And setting aside the current debate over market reforms, the Law Society's role is about to change markedly. When the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission opens next year, at a date still to be confirmed, it will be unburdened of its role in investigating service complaints from consumers.

Theoretically at least, this should free up resources and allow the society to focus on issues such as alternative business structures and the ongoing debate to overhaul legal education.

The society has statutory duties to regulate and represent the profession, bearing in mind the public interest. To have any hope of doing this effectively - in whatever brave new regulatory world we are about to enter - it will need to get its house in order in 2008.