Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Law Society of Scotland should be made FOI compliant for added consumer protection claim critics

Make the Law Society of Scotland FOI compliant, suggests Peter Cherbi’s “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland"

Not a bad idea, and one which should be taken up immediately by the Scottish Government current review on FOI.

Consumer protection weakened by lawyers FOI exemption while new Legal Complaints Commission must comply to information laws

For ever and a day, the Law Society of Scotland has been exempt from any law which would or could have helped clients who were or who are still having difficulties with their lawyers.

Currently, even though we are about to enter a world of 'dual regulation' where the legal profession and an 'independent' commission will regulate Scotland's 10,500 solicitors, the Law Society remains exempt from key areas of legislation such as Freedom of Information laws, which have proved so valuable in dealing with not only errant professions & industries, but also a few wayward politicians along the way.

The Law Society of Scotland, however, is unsurprisingly content, to the point of seeing to it that, it retains it's FOI exemption, lest some client use it to disgrace the legal profession (again) for covering up its dirty laundry as it has done so frequently and successfully in the past.

The twists & turns of the Law Society in Data Protection requests over the years, have demonstrated as much, with no useful information ever leaking out to a client who had a complaint against a solicitor being investigated .. or for that, anyone who had tried to investigate the way the Law Society operated.

Understanding now why the Law Society of Scotland must be brought within the unlimited scope of Freedom Of Information legislation, one must reflect on the progress of legislation passed in 2006 which was brought in to clear up some of the damage the legal profession has done itself over the many years lawyers have investigated their own.

Two years ago this summer, the Legal Profession & Legal Aid Bill rumbled through the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament, amid threats of legal action from the Law Society to kill it, and even threaten the Parliament itself if the 'crooked lawyer' busting legislation was passed into law.

Despite the many problems the legal profession made for the LPLA Bill, and the many amendments thrown up from politicians who were so obviously in the pocket of the Law Society, the legislation was eventually passed by the Scottish Parliament during late December 2006, after some of the stormiest of Committee hearings ever relating to a new act of the Scottish Parliament - one such now famous televised meeting showing the Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland himself lying to all & sundry over not only his personal involvement but also Law Society policy on complaints and client claims against Scottish solicitors.

Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill telling a few lies to the Justice Committee & John Swinney at the Scottish Parliament.


We are therefore now in a 'new era' supposedly, with the looming start of duty for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on 1st October 2008, which is allegedly going to give Scottish consumers of legal services a new layer of consumer protection against the infamously poor levels of legal services in Scotland, which nowadays seemingly illustrate that most clients come undone at some stage in their dealings with the legal profession.

This 'new era' however, has already been dampened down by what appears to many as a Law Society 'take over' of the new 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission by way of not only transferring it's staff to the new body .. also transferring many of it's Committee members to key positions within the SLCC .. .positions which are likely to ensure there are no conflicts generated between the 'independent' regulator and the lawyers own version - the Law Society of Scotland, who will continue to regulate conduct complaints, while the SLCC it is claimed, will focus on 'service' complaints.

You can read some of the woes of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on everything from appointments scandals to conflicts of interest here :

SLCC news stories

So, we will have two regulators of the legal profession on 1st October 2008, but only one of those regulators will be forced to comply with Freedom of Information laws - that being the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

The Law Society of Scotland, will for now at least, until the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill decides to do something, continue to be immune from FOI legislation, so it can carry on being as secretive and corrupt as it has been for all the decades poor members of the public have been forced to deal with it.

Since we are now in late July 2008, I would have thought by now, the Scottish Government would have done something on this matter - because there has been enough advance warning the two regulators will exist side by side, one FOI compliant, one not ..... so why the wait ? is it perhaps because the Law Society is bargaining hard with the Scottish Government to retain certain exemptions so it can go on giving consumers of legal services a raw deal, sanctioned by the Government itself ?

I recall as far back as January 2006, the then Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson was saying the Scottish Executive was looking into the matter of the Law Society’s FOI exempt status, after queries from myself & others .. as can be seen from her following letter :

Cathy Jamieson : Reviewing the FOI Act - we might do something ..

Scottish Executive response on Law Society FOI Exemption removal Page 1Scottish Executive response on Law Society FOI Exemption removal Page 2

Here is an article I wrote at the time on this issue : Law Society of Scotland & Freedom Of Information - End the Exemption Now.

Now of course, with a change of Government, one meant to be better for the Scots public, and a new Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, surely the clock has spun round enough to actually do something for Scots consumers and bring the Law Society into compliance with Freedom of Information ? Well .. perhaps .. but Mr MacAskill almost repeats word for word, Cathy Jamieson's review of more than two years ago ...

Kenny MacAskill : To be or not to be ... Should we make lawyers FOI compliant or not ?

K MacAskill FOI policy response 19 June 2008

Two years is a long time to wait, and with there only just over two months before the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission takes up it's regulatory duties on complaints against solicitors, surely its time to make the Law Society FOI compliant, rather than continue to deny consumers the levels of protection they have in other 'required' services .. not to mention giving the public the right to inspect and question the way the legal profession regulates itself in a way which must be allowed to ensure much higher levels of honesty accountability and transparency which have never been seen before in Scotland's legal profession.

What could there be to gain from allowing the Law Society of Scotland to remain exempt from Freedom of Information legislation ? …. Nothing honest, that’s for sure !

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Rebranding of Scots legal firms fails to atttract clients or trust

Peter Cherbi’s “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland” reports on the poor state of Scotland’s legal profession .. you really would think there is something to worry about !

"Rebranding fails to raise client trust in lawyers as poor standards & negligence dominate Scots legal sector"

Imagine you needed a heart operation and you were just about to 'go under the knife' when you found out the surgeon had killed every single former patient in the same operation you were to undergo. Would you still proceed or would you ask for another surgeon ?

Chances are you would ask for another surgeon if you were told such a thing .. and thankfully in the medical world, there are plenty capable & qualified people who are not all a bunch of killers as some may put it so you might be in with a chance of finding the surgeon to your liking.

However, what happens if you come to sell your house and the lawyer you are using makes a complete mess of the deal to the point you only get half the value or less of your property .. or even worse, you find out the lawyer himself or one of his business partners bought your house on the cheap through a fiddled deal ? What would you do if that happened ? Would you try to find another lawyer to sort out the lawyer who ruined you ... or even try to take legal action against your former lawyer for fiddling your legal & financial affairs ?

Chances are you wont get another lawyer to do any of that .. because in the legal world, hardly any lawyer likes to 'sort out' another lawyer .. it just isn't on chaps, not only because lawyers don't usually sue other lawyers, but also because the Law Society of Scotland basically forbids such cases going to court in most instances or it might just have to start paying out huge sums of money from the profession’s Master Insurance Policy for professional negligence which you can read more about here : How to sue a lawyer in Scotland and get nowhere

So the lesson is .. any other profession, or industry (minus perhaps accountants) where a professional mucks up the task you set them .. you can normally find another to put it right .. not with a lawyer though .. no .. not a chance.

Try and complain against a lawyer after they have done you wrong, fleeced your finds, ruined your life .. you will find the legal profession itself will turn on you with a vengeance and ensure it is you who are the ruined one ... and oh my, there are just so many examples of that, it would take weeks to go through them all.

Suffice to say, lawyers don't sue other lawyers, and lawyers wont see their colleagues put out of their jobs, simply because they are crooks .. and with no way to find out how crooked your lawyer might be .. you are taking as big a chance going to a lawyer these days as you are attempting to walk blindfold across water.

So, which of Scotland’s legal firms have client complaints ?

Well the answer to that is of course, all of them. All legal firms and most or all lawyers have complaints made against them, in varying severity of course.

So, which legal firms or lawyers will tell you how bad they have been to clients ?

Obviously the answer to that one is : None of them ! Not one ! Ever !

You can’t find out any of the above information because of course, Freedom of Information isn’t allowed when it comes to lawyers, as the legal profession currently have an immunity from FOI as I reported in my earlier article of this week : Consumer protection weakened by lawyers FOI exemption while new Legal Complaints Commission must comply to information laws

With the eventual opening of Scotland's legal services market, after Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's go slow approach lifts, there would of course be no need for the public to be forced to use any of Scotland's current framework of legal firms, because new entrants to the legal services sector could take a more honest approach, disclosing their full & up-to-date client service histories to all consumers .. something you will never find a Scots legal firm doing .. and I will tell you why.

Earlier this week, in a conversation with a senior lawyer, the extent of negligence claims against solicitors in Scotland was brought home to me where I was shown details of cases showing in twenty 'big name' legal firms from one city alone, at least one of the partners had no less than five negligence claims made against them.

Unsurprisingly most of those negligence cases remain unresolved, some stuck in court after eight years, due to 'intervention' from the Law Society of Scotland which of course, the outgoing Law Society Chief Executive claimed did not occur.

Here’s a couple of links to show what the Law Society do when it comes to stopping negligence cases going to court :

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

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

Not to be outdone by the written word, you can also see Douglas Mill claiming the Law Society of Scotland never intervened in complaints or claims against lawyers in video form here

Douglas Mill – It wisnae me who fiddled cases against my fellow lawyers even though my memos say so !

Yes .. before you say it, I do use that clip quite a lot .. but it is rather unique footage .. a Law Society Chief Executive lying to a Justice Committee over the content of his own memos and how he intervened in cases to stop people obtaining a measure of justice … even my own !

Now to get back to what I was saying, twenty lawyers from twenty legal firms with 100 negligence claims against them is quite a lot .. despite what the legal profession may have you believe. If you think of how many lawyers and legal firms there are in Scotland and how that statistic may repeat itself .. it must mean the Scots legal profession has a problem, to say the least.

The detail and severity of cases which were disclosed in that conversation showed to me we are talking serious figures here on serious complaints ranging from poor or fraudulent management of litigation for both private & corporate clients, to theft from deceased's estates to just about anything you could imagine ...

How indeed could anyone trust a 'big name' or perhaps 'brand name' legal firm again after that ? ... because really you don't know what you are getting when you go to them, despite the 'aura' of their 'name' and reputed proficiency .. which in reality does not exist.

Here's an example of how one solicitor can build up a history of negligence claims ... in this case we are talking about over twenty negligence claims against one solicitor but it seems that five or ten negligence claims against just about any lawyer you could name are not unusual these days in Scotland - thanks to the way the Law Society of Scotland has poorly regulated the legal profession over the past few decades.

A solicitor with 21 negligence claims against him – normal enough in today’s Scots legal services sector : Law Society of Scotland covers up history of crooked lawyer as new President indicates little change on pro lawyer anti client policies

There are it seems, many lawyers almost equalling the above reported case walking around with the full support of the Law Society of Scotland, still offering their poor legal services to unsuspecting members of the public who don’t know one thing about the person they are about to commit the most important legal aspects of their life to.

Would you use a lawyer who told you they had 21 negligence claims made against them for poor legal work ? Probably not !

What can you do to avoid these kinds of lawyers ?

Well at the moment, not much .. because the Law Society certainly wont be disclosing any regulatory records to enquiring members of the public .. should they do, I doubt anyone in the country would use a Scots lawyer after that.

Here’s an article I wrote a couple of years ago on disclosure of a lawyer’s regulatory history, which would benefit consumers and add to that level of consumer protection we all must surely expect from our legal representatives : Disclosing the regulatory history of lawyers in Scotland to help give choice to the consumer

You can, as clients, start insisting on seeing a lawyers regulatory record before you do business with them .. and really that isn't such a bad thing to ask or expect to receive, given the tasks you give a lawyer probably include or affect the most important details of your life.

Put it this way .. plenty of you look at the ingredients on your packaged food before you buy it ... so why not look at the ingredients of your lawyer before you hand over the keys to your life .... and just because you might be buying into a 'brand name' legal firm, doesn't always mean you are getting good quality or the promise of a successful outcome.

Here follows an article from this weeks Scotsman on 'brand awareness' in the Scots legal sector .. which perhaps you might want to question much harder before you take the plunge into legal bills and the inevitable poor legal service which seems to dog just about all litigation in Scotland these days.

Of course, it could just be this rebranding exercise is all about firms positioning themselves to be sold off to banks & financial companies who may enter the Scots legal services sector once the market is opened up to competition … but such would-be buyers of what appear to be ‘famous legal names’ should beware of buying into what might just be a case of ‘bad rubbish’, better maybe to start their own legal services firms with more customer friendly clean slates

Brand awareness begins to make inroads in a very traditional sector

Change in markets is leading firms into new territory and altering the way they communicate, says Jennifer Veitch

IT IS bright pink, it is bold, and it is unashamedly trying to generate new business from female clients. Pagan Osborne's recent Beauty Secrets marketing campaign – which offers to "smooth out frown lines" and "reduce dark circles" by easing the stress of life's big decisions – is something of a departure for a law firm with 250 years of tradition.

But, according to Tania Hemming, Pagan Osborne's marketing and business development director, the campaign is just a taste of how law firms might look to promote themselves in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

As the UK economy slows and the regulations governing legal services look set to be relaxed, Hemming says that firms will have to look at their branding.

"Our market is changing and because of alternative business structures, we are going to have to change the way we communicate," she says. "People buy very differently these days, and I think the profession has, sometimes, a quite stuffy image.

"Our campaign was such a shock when it came out – it's bright pink, it's a very strong female image, and it's not what you would expect. But you have to talk to clients in the way they want to be talked to."

Hemming had the idea for the recent marketing campaign – which invites women to meet the firm over coffee at Edinburgh style bar Tigerlily – after recent reports suggested women were often the financial decision makers in the household.

She says Beauty Secrets is already bringing in new business and has inspired plans for future campaigns.

According to Nathan Fulwood, the business development manager of web design agency Realise, whose clients include Pagan Osborne, Drummond Miller, Dickson Minto and the Law Society, more firms in the sector are recognising the need to create a stronger brand, particularly online.

"We're seeing that there is a willingness from solicitors to think differently about their presence on the web," he says. "For instance, there is an openness to borrowing experiences from other sectors, particularly in terms of embracing concepts of customer journey and life scenarios to engage clients on a more emotive level, not just on a 'need' basis."

He continues: "The use of the web has changed from purely brand promotion. Some (firms] have successfully used websites to disseminate information and knowledge and so establish a leadership position which drives people to them.

"Others increasingly recognise that the website is more about the person visiting the website and less about the firm itself.

"The web is now the place where the customer searches for services, including legal services. Therefore any solicitor has to have a distinctive presence online if it is going to have a competitive edge."

Donald Shaw, managing partner of Dundas & Wilson, agrees that the changing legal market will require firms to reconsider how they communicate to prospective clients, rather than relying on tradition or quality.

"In a large, diverse market like legal services, a favourable perception of your reputation or brand leads to more opportunity," he says. "It's important to us that we build on our reputation as a market leader and so we're very careful to ensure the DNA of the great things our business stands for is reflected in everything we do.

"A changing legal services landscape means that law firms need to adapt to compete. Quality of service will continue to speak for itself, but it's more important than ever to ensure the market knows who you are and what you can offer.

"Smaller firms in particular may have to face up to the prospect of focused consolidation, especially if highly effective companies such as Tesco seriously enter their market."

But Shaw cautions that branding can only go so far: "Having a brand is a safeguard, but only if you can be seen as having a strong consistent and different proposition – the trade-off being that smaller independent practitioners, used to autonomy, will need to work in a much more consistently branded and organised way to maintain any kind of market presence."

Dianne Paterson, a partner with Edinburgh-based Russel + Aitken, says her firm has recently launched a new marketing campaign – "Bringing the Law to Life" – that focuses on the legal services clients will need throughout their lifetime.

"The campaign, through innovative products and events, simply enforces the message to our clients and the public that we are not only one of the market leaders in this field but that we are also delivering these services to our clients in an energetic and engaging way," she says.

"Not only are people coming in to our offices for such advice but we are going out to the people and are currently involved in a series of road shows to promote our services.

"However, we are strongly of the view that you cannot simply invent a brand. It must be built up over the years from a good solid foundation and have good products at the heart of it."

Traditionally, legal firms were restricted in how they advertised themselves, with practice rules preventing firms from comparing themselves with others on fees or services. The rules were relaxed by the Law Society in 2006, allowing firms to compare themselves with rivals for the first time.

The society itself has recently recognised the importance of marketing, and unveiled its own re-branding earlier this year. A spokeswoman for the Society says the new brand has created consistency and a "stronger and clearer image".

She adds: "A brand is a representation of an organisation and as the Society is currently going through a period of change and modernisation, creating a new brand helped reflect that."

But not everyone in the profession sees the need to change direction in relation to branding and marketing. Louise Kean, the head of communications at Turcan Connell, says the firm will be sticking to its existing marketing plans.

"Looking from the perspective of our clients, both existing and prospective, we need them to know that we are here for them, continuing to provide a service that they need in these uncertain times," she says.

"Now more than ever, they need professional advice which gives them a sense of confidence that their affairs are in good order. So it's the consistency of our message that is crucial at this time.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Freedom of Information – the right to know or not ?

There are those who talk up and talk down the law with regard to Freedom of Information, but for the main, and those of us in the real world, we all know its a good thing.

In fact, with the review of organisations which are FOI compliant going on just now, perhaps the Law Society of Scotland should at last be brought into the fold, albeit kicking and screaming ?

The Scotsman reports :

Stuart Skelly: Where to draw the line between the right to privacy and the right to know?

FROM the Court of Appeal victory by JK Rowling banning photographs of her walking down a public street with her children, to the US court ruling that requires Google to divulge details of YouTube users, the rights of individual privacy are constantly balanced against the public's right of access to information.

This issue has been thrust further into the spotlight by events in the past fortnight.

A landmark test case came with the ruling of the House of Lords in its first judgment on the freedom of information (FOI) legislation. It is a decision keenly awaited in Scotland and in England that seeks to balance the public's "right to know" under FOI legislation against legitimate privacy expectations of individuals under data protection rules.

The case involved a request to the NHS' Common Services Agency (CSA), for details of incidences of childhood leukaemia in Dumfries and Galloway, broken down by census ward.

The request was refused by the CSA, which argued that this information was exempt under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 on the basis that act prevents disclosure of personal data about third parties.

When the requester appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner, he agreed it was personal data, but ordered the CSA to manipulate the data to reduce the risk of identification of individuals. This approach was upheld on appeal to the Court of Session, but appealed by the CSA to the House of Lords.

The Lords agreed that the requested information was caught by the personal data exemption, but focused on the status of the manipulated data. The judgment looked at whether the information still falls within the definition of "personal data" and "sensitive personal data".

The Commissioner will now have to establish whether the identities of the children contained in the information can be disguised sufficiently so that it does not constitute personal data, and if that is not possible, whether releasing the figures would comply with statutory data protection principles.

In another recent case, which could have global ramifications for individual privacy, web giant Google has been forced by a US court to divulge the viewing habits of everyone who has watched any video clip on YouTube. The court's order is the latest stage of a copyright infringement action being brought against Google (YouTube's parent company) by the major content provider Viacom.The judge dismissed privacy concerns and authorised full access to YouTube user data logs after Viacom argued it needed the data to show whether its copyright-protected footage was more popular than amateur clips.

Access to viewing logs means that viewers can perhaps be identified, thereby potentially threatening their privacy. However, moves are being made by Google to anonymise the logs and require Viacom to respect the users' privacy when analysing the viewing data.

By an ironic coincidence, Google has itself recently been accused of invasion of privacy, with its latest virtual mapping service – Google Street View – set to launch in the UK.

Street View offers virtual street-level city tours, and, with its potential to include images of people or the inside of homes, it has drawn allegations from civil liberties campaigners that it could lead to invasions of privacy and breaches of UK data protection laws.

With continuing technological advances in the collection, retention and dissemination of information, including personal data, individual privacy is increasingly seen as being under threat.

At the same time as the Lords made their ruling, a UK government-commissioned report from the UK Information Commissioner recommended that councils should be banned from selling edited versions of electoral rolls to companies, and that individuals should have a right to know who companies shared their details with, with businesses that deliberately broke privacy laws liable to be fined.

The right of the public to access information, and the right to privacy of the individual, have been awkward bedfellows and, as the above cases indicate, the tensions between them are set to continue.

• Stuart Skelly is a senior solicitor at HBJ Gateley Wareing

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Serial stalker gets 19k legal aid to defend himself

Further complaints about the way the Scottish Legal Aid Board award funding .. no wonder, given the inconsistencies at SLAB …

From the Sunday Herald :

Victim hits out at serial stalker’s £19,000 legal aid grant

By John Bynorth, Home Affairs Editor

THE VICTIM of a serial stalker has branded the Scottish Legal Aid system "disgusting" after the man who terrorised her was given nearly £20,000 in public funds to defend himself in court.

Victoria Keiro spoke out after the Sunday Herald discovered that the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) has paid £19,423 to the legal team of Robert Basterfield as part of a failed courtroom battle to prevent Tayside Police imposing a ground-breaking Sexual Offences Protection Order on him. Basterfield was banned for five years from having any contact with lone women.

The fees, which do not include the force's own legal costs, will rise past the £20,000 barrier after other outstanding fees are settled by SLAB. Basterfield is expected to spend another £1500 fighting his appeal against the order at the Court of Session later this year.

Keiro, 28, was stalked for weeks after Basterfield verbally abused her in a shop where he worked. The Australian former taxi driver, who now lives in Perth, accosted her at the door of her home in Bridge of Earn, Perthshire. He was put on probation for the 2004 incident, but was later jailed for four months after harassing Spanish waitress Maria Dominguez. He also terrorised a third woman who he followed into a taxi outside a bar.

Keiro, who feared she would be raped or murdered during the incident, criticised the ease with which her victimiser could run up huge legal bills out of public funds after he was given permission to hire an advocate, James MacDonald, rather than have a solicitor fight his case at Perth Sheriff Court last year.

She cited it as an example of how the system is "failing decent people" and added that many victims could be discouraged from reporting stalking offences if they knew how much funding their attackers could claim to fight court decisions.

"It is absolutely shocking and disgusting that he has been given almost £20,000 in legal aid fees. It shows up the whole case as a farce," Keiro said. "It is appalling they considered his application for funding after what he has done to his victims. The entire system of providing funding for people to defend themselves needs looked at.

"He stalked me, did it to girls before, and has done it since. I told the court that he was highly dangerous and would strike again. It's sickening they have effectively handed him £20,000 for his lawyers.

"I've had no compensation, not even an apology and he has effectively received that sum of money for mucking up my life for the last four years. He has been given the best legal team to defend himself on the taxpayer.

"He came over here from Australia and receives £20,000 to defend himself. I don't see why our country has to deal with scum like that and think he should be deported.

"I am also angry this man is appealing because he can't accept that he has done wrong. He thinks this kind of behaviour is perfectly normal. Why should this sum of money have been paid out to stop him receiving the order when there was so much evidence against him? He has affected at least four people and where is the help for us?

"It will discourage other victims of stalkers reporting incidents."

Keiro said she lives in fear of strangers knocking on her door or accosting her in the street. She said: "I've had bad depression since and nobody has ever taken my feelings into consideration.

"Although the police have been very good, from day one I've felt like the person who has done wrong and he has been the victim who needed to be looked after. It affects me every day. I won't open my front door unless I know who is there and I am constantly looking behind me while walking my dog."

Tayside's former chief constable, John Vine, initially sought the order barring Basterfield from contact with any lone women for 30 years, but later reduced the application to 10 years, with the court finally ordering a five-year ban. In court, he described Basterfield as "highly dangerous" and said he "posed a very high risk of serious sexual harm" and would inevitably strike again.

Vine has previously said he was angry when Basterfield hired advocate James MacDonald as well as a solicitor which meant the force had to do the same to pursue the case, ramping up the costs to the public purse. Vine, now chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, was not available to comment yesterday.

Bill Aitken, the Scottish Conservatives' justice spokesman, said: "I am very surprised sanction was given for counsel to be appointed in a case whereby it would seem to have been within the competence of many local solicitors. It highlights the need to look closely at Legal Aid costs."

A SLAB spokesman said Basterfield "met the test" for Legal Aid eligibility.

Basterfield's Perth solicitors, AC Miller & Mackay, did not return calls on Friday. Tayside Police declined to comment.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

‘Brand awareness’ of legal firms leads to poor client relations & rising complaints

No matter who you deal with in the legal profession, you never get told the truth.

Just because a legal firm has a ‘good name’ as it claims, it doesn’t mean clients are getting the best service, as many find out as time goes on …

More often than not these days, ‘brand awareness’ can lead the buyer to realise they have bought ‘a pig in a poke’ as the saying goes …

The Scotsman reports :

Brand awareness begins to make inroads in a very traditional sector

Change in markets is leading firms into new territory and altering the way they communicate, says Jennifer Veitch

IT IS bright pink, it is bold, and it is unashamedly trying to generate new business from female clients. Pagan Osborne's recent Beauty Secrets marketing campaign – which offers to "smooth out frown lines" and "reduce dark circles" by easing the stress of life's big decisions – is something of a departure for a law firm with 250 years of tradition.

But, according to Tania Hemming, Pagan Osborne's marketing and business development director, the campaign is just a taste of how law firms might look to promote themselves in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

As the UK economy slows and the regulations governing legal services look set to be relaxed, Hemming says that firms will have to look at their branding.

"Our market is changing and because of alternative business structures, we are going to have to change the way we communicate," she says. "People buy very differently these days, and I think the profession has, sometimes, a quite stuffy image.

"Our campaign was such a shock when it came out – it's bright pink, it's a very strong female image, and it's not what you would expect. But you have to talk to clients in the way they want to be talked to."

Hemming had the idea for the recent marketing campaign – which invites women to meet the firm over coffee at Edinburgh style bar Tigerlily – after recent reports suggested women were often the financial decision makers in the household.

She says Beauty Secrets is already bringing in new business and has inspired plans for future campaigns.

According to Nathan Fulwood, the business development manager of web design agency Realise, whose clients include Pagan Osborne, Drummond Miller, Dickson Minto and the Law Society, more firms in the sector are recognising the need to create a stronger brand, particularly online.

"We're seeing that there is a willingness from solicitors to think differently about their presence on the web," he says. "For instance, there is an openness to borrowing experiences from other sectors, particularly in terms of embracing concepts of customer journey and life scenarios to engage clients on a more emotive level, not just on a 'need' basis."

He continues: "The use of the web has changed from purely brand promotion. Some (firms] have successfully used websites to disseminate information and knowledge and so establish a leadership position which drives people to them.

"Others increasingly recognise that the website is more about the person visiting the website and less about the firm itself.

"The web is now the place where the customer searches for services, including legal services. Therefore any solicitor has to have a distinctive presence online if it is going to have a competitive edge."

Donald Shaw, managing partner of Dundas & Wilson, agrees that the changing legal market will require firms to reconsider how they communicate to prospective clients, rather than relying on tradition or quality.

"In a large, diverse market like legal services, a favourable perception of your reputation or brand leads to more opportunity," he says. "It's important to us that we build on our reputation as a market leader and so we're very careful to ensure the DNA of the great things our business stands for is reflected in everything we do.

"A changing legal services landscape means that law firms need to adapt to compete. Quality of service will continue to speak for itself, but it's more important than ever to ensure the market knows who you are and what you can offer.

"Smaller firms in particular may have to face up to the prospect of focused consolidation, especially if highly effective companies such as Tesco seriously enter their market."

But Shaw cautions that branding can only go so far: "Having a brand is a safeguard, but only if you can be seen as having a strong consistent and different proposition – the trade-off being that smaller independent practitioners, used to autonomy, will need to work in a much more consistently branded and organised way to maintain any kind of market presence."

Dianne Paterson, a partner with Edinburgh-based Russel + Aitken, says her firm has recently launched a new marketing campaign – "Bringing the Law to Life" – that focuses on the legal services clients will need throughout their lifetime.

"The campaign, through innovative products and events, simply enforces the message to our clients and the public that we are not only one of the market leaders in this field but that we are also delivering these services to our clients in an energetic and engaging way," she says.

"Not only are people coming in to our offices for such advice but we are going out to the people and are currently involved in a series of road shows to promote our services.

"However, we are strongly of the view that you cannot simply invent a brand. It must be built up over the years from a good solid foundation and have good products at the heart of it."

Traditionally, legal firms were restricted in how they advertised themselves, with practice rules preventing firms from comparing themselves with others on fees or services. The rules were relaxed by the Law Society in 2006, allowing firms to compare themselves with rivals for the first time.

The society itself has recently recognised the importance of marketing, and unveiled its own re-branding earlier this year. A spokeswoman for the Society says the new brand has created consistency and a "stronger and clearer image".

She adds: "A brand is a representation of an organisation and as the Society is currently going through a period of change and modernisation, creating a new brand helped reflect that."

But not everyone in the profession sees the need to change direction in relation to branding and marketing. Louise Kean, the head of communications at Turcan Connell, says the firm will be sticking to its existing marketing plans.

"Looking from the perspective of our clients, both existing and prospective, we need them to know that we are here for them, continuing to provide a service that they need in these uncertain times," she says.

"Now more than ever, they need professional advice which gives them a sense of confidence that their affairs are in good order. So it's the consistency of our message that is crucial at this time.

Treat trainees as bad as the rest when it comes to lawyers ?

The Law Society would like lawyers to treat trainees as they feel they should be treated themselves …

Obviously this is an idea produced after many round of drinks ?

The Scotsman reports :

Do as you would be done by if you have a trainee

By Collette Paterson

HAVE you heard the one about the trainee who returned to her desk to find the contract she was working on speared by a letter opener to her chair?

Apparently there was no excuse for bad drafting, but thankfully, all of us who have heard this story know that it is but an urban legend (or was that trainee you? Answers on a postcard please).

Needless to say I used to thank my lucky stars when it was only red ink, if often a lot of red ink, on my drafts when they were returned to me.

Such stories abound for trainees, but some are probably closer to myth than others: "B's trainee gets his coffee every hour, on the hour – and forget at your peril"; or "You are so lucky to be working for C, but don't get on the wrong side of his secretary".

You might say that these are merely little nuances of office life, and the dynamics are no different to any other workplace where different personalities must co-exist.

But there is an acute imbalance of power when it comes to the trainee/trainer relationship.

We no longer live in the past, when trainees seemingly parked the partner's car, or picked up their dry cleaning.

Or do we? Many a trainee in the Noughties has enjoyed – or endured – the odd Starbucks run on a Friday with 20 orders committed to memory.

I'm fine with that, but some of you may recoil in horror at the thought. It's been an emotive issue over the years, and with more serious traineeship issues reported over the last few months, I thought I'd throw my tuppence-worth in.

I don't think it's a cop-out to say that the lines are blurred, because each trainee/trainer dynamic probably depends on the personalities involved.

Into the bargain, it is likely a trainee will move seats, and with each moonlight flit new relationships must be forged.

Leaving aside more flippant examples, I pondered the situation where a genuine traineeship difficulty arises.

These can range from a trainee citing inadequate supervision, or a trainer believing that the trainee shows no inclination to work some additional hours on the occasion that duty calls, to either side perceiving a hostile atmosphere in the office.

The Law Society deals with such cases confidentially, and this facility is available to trainees and trainers alike. But when our number is dialled it is often the product of myriad factors, not just one issue.

We can step in – with the caller's approval – and in the past, a telephone call and a friendly prod from our education and training department has had the desired effect of ironing out misunderstandings and smoothing relations.

But if there is a more serious accusation, which perhaps requires referral to the Law Society's admissions committee and could result in an organisation losing the right to provide traineeships, or a trainee losing their job, then trainees with a complaint seem to be far more reluctant to speak up.

The answer (in part), then, must be collective self-regulation within the profession – to do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

We should savour our trainees' delight at having secured a traineeship and help them to the home straight.

Of course, trainees don't know it all, but they are not signing up to become martyrs for the real estate/corporate/banking cause, however important it is to ensure they are put through their paces to emerge as qualified solicitors.

Frankly I have to wonder if the practising certificate is worth it if you don't complete your traineeship with at least one priceless anecdote to call your own (provided that the all-night corporate-deal-cum-pizza-at-midnight-search also helped with your prowess as a team member).

It's no-one's duty or right to compare traineeships, provided that learning outcomes are being met and measured, the supervision is appropriate, and provided both parties are content with the situation and working in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

But how about, in all dealings with trainees, those who are already in the profession remember how the reasonable man would act?

After all, as a profession we are terribly fond of this old chum – and I bet he's reasonable enough to let you keep your red pen.

• Collette Paterson is the new lawyers' co-ordinator for the Law Society of Scotland

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Lawyers argue over Legal Aid Board savings on the quiet

Some lawyers are arguing for more money from the legal aid budget, others are arguing the Legal Aid Board itself wastes too much money on administration, but one thing is for sure, legal aid is only paid to lawyers, no one else.

So, to quell all the arguments and hysteria being whipped up by certain quarters of the legal profession, make the profession pay for the administration of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

Following article from the Scotsman :

Senior counsel left out as Scottish legal aid board tries to cut costs on the quiet

By Patrick Wheatley

I HAVE always had a passion for our criminal justice system and believe that we have a system that, by and large, stands up with the best of them.

At university in the early 1960s we studied the criminal law that had developed during the 1950s. There were several major cases in that decade, and there was an overriding sense that if a prosecution was flawed, a conviction could not stand. For those of us with a slightly liberal disposition, they were heady days.

Underpinning this was the understanding that the way in which a judicial system treated people accused, and even convicted of, serious crimes reflected the development of the society in which that system operated.

Throughout the development of criminal law in that time there remained the sense that our society and judicial system dealt with criminal matters seriously.

One of the obvious examples of how seriously criminal matters were considered was the way in which High Court trials were conducted. It was only the most serious of cases that were prosecuted in the High Court, and these cases were always given appropriate solemnity.

Traditionally, a High Court trial was sufficiently serious to justify, if not demand, the instruction of senior counsel for the defence, and senior counsel was often assisted by a junior. Indeed, even up to two or three years ago, it was a regular sight to see senior counsel instructed.

This system had its merits. Apart from the obvious benefit of demonstrating how seriously these matters were being treated, when the top QCs were conducting the top trials in the top court, their talents and skills were on display for all of us to watch, admire and learn from.

But, over the last couple of years, the sentencing powers of sheriffs have been significantly increased, and in solemn proceedings many cases that would have previously been prosecuted in the High Court are being dealt with in the sheriff courts, indicating that the High Court cases are all the more serious, as those that previously were at the lower end of the range are now sent to the sheriff court.

Great times for senior counsel – or so you would have thought.

But over the last three years, the Scottish Legal Aid Board has, in the collective experience of the criminal legal profession, significantly cut back on the number of cases where it has granted sanction for the employment of senior counsel in High Court cases. And this comes at a time when only the most serious of cases are being prosecuted in the High Court.

The standard reply to an application for sanction is that the case is within the competence of an able junior counsel.

There seems to be now a serious and determined campaign to reduce the amount of money spent on legal aid. I do not advocate a free-for-all for appointing senior counsel – after all, the level of fees is fixed in legal aid cases and it is a fraction of the fees that are paid under legal aid in England. There is a rigid system of assessment and, if needed, taxation or approval in relation to the amount of fees charged in any particular case.

What I am advocating is a return to the practice of giving our most serious criminal cases the attention and importance they deserve. This becomes the true reflection of how seriously our society at large values our criminal justice system.

If you get the feeling from my views that I have a personal agenda, you are perfectly correct. I have received very few instructions for trial work over the last three years, and solicitors who would previously have been happy to instruct tell me the same story: despite their efforts, they hardly ever get sanction to employ senior counsel in a High Court case.

It is extremely concerning that the Scottish Legal Aid Board, as a department of the Scottish Government, seems to have a clear policy of refusing sanction to employ senior counsel as much as it can, but it has not told anyone about it.

It is also significant that, in recent times, the Legal Aid Board has instructed counsel to represent itself and yes, you have guessed it – the board is represented by senior counsel, and no-one can find out how much the counsel is paid.

I bet it is not at legal aid rates, even though the work is probably well within the competence of an appropriately experienced junior counsel.

• Patrick Wheatley QC is a solicitor advocate.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Scotland to have greater role in cross border crime

Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill insists Scotland will have a wider role in combating cross border crime

Better get the handcuffs out now then !

The Scotsman reports :

Scotland set for wider role in cross-border crime fighting

By Rachel Stevenson

KENNY MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, is to meet his European counterparts in Brussels this week to discuss cross-border crime such as drug trafficking and cyber-crime, including child pornography.

The ministers will also examine ways of improving EU legislation to increase judicial co-operation between European countries, and debate the proposed European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which sets out new principles to fight illegal immigration.

Speaking ahead of the meeting, Mr MacAskill said: "Scotland is a separate jurisdiction with our own legal system and Law Society. It is important that we are represented at the heart of Europe and that our voice is heard and our interests are recognised."

Mr MacAskill highlighted steps already taken by the Scottish Government to integrate with EU lawmakers.

He said: "We have already announced we are appointing a dedicated lawyer in Brussels and we are closely involved in the EU's Justice Forum. My visit next week is a further part of the work going on by this government to ensure we have a real say in the issues that matter to our citizens."

The meeting will be the first between the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council of Ministers under the new French presidency of the EU. It will consider a replacement for the existing Hague Programme, a five-year plan that promotes co-operation between member states on matters of justice, but which is due to end in 2010.

The JHA will be Scotland's first involvement in European efforts to tackle internet-based crime including fraud, data theft and manipulation of data. Scotland already has other legal and judicial presences in Brussels, with a procurator fiscal acting as one of the UK assistant members of Eurojust, the EU body that assists prosecution authorities in cross-border cases.

In addition, Europol, the European law enforcement organisation, employs a Scottish police officer in its efforts to tackle drug trafficking and organised crime.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Scottish Police Services Authority Chief kept 999 blue lights on car

Keeping the trinkets & titles of duty doesn’t go down well all the time as Scottish Police Services Authority Chief David Mulhern finds out :

The Sunday Mail reports :

Former police chief keeps illegal 999 lights on car

By Norman Silvester

A FORMER police chief is breaking the law in his £30,000 five series BMW - by sporting flashing blue lights.

David Mulhern, 51, retired from the force to join the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) as chief executive.

But he kept his BMW with two blue lights on the front grille and siren.

Only serving officers and emergency workers can have the lights.

The civil servant is risking a £2000 fine.

Road traffic investigator George Gilfillan said: "Only an emergency vehicle can can be fitted with a blue warning light.

"If this car was behind me I'd think it was a police car."

Mulhern left Central Scotland Police in late 2006 to take up his post.

He drives from his home in Glasgow's west end to his city office and meetings across Scotland.

Mulhern is responsible for the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, the Fingerprint Service, Forensic Services and the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan, with an annual budget of £80million.

There has been friction between the SPSA and some senior officers over claims of interference.

Mulhern said: "The car was secured by SPSA from Central Scotland Police when I moved into this post.

"Its capabilities have never been used in that time and I have taken immediate steps to have the horn and lights disabled and removed altogether."

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Law Society of Scotland staying at Drumsheugh Gardens after property deal collapse

Oh what a shame, it seems the Law Society has lost some of its clout over the years, and finds itself stuck in it’s Drumsheugh Gardens HQ for a little while longer !

The Journal reports :

Law Society to stay put for the mean time

Society to remain at Drumsheugh Gardens headquarters in view of downturn in property market

The Law Society of Scotland is to remain at its Drumsheugh Gardens headquarters for the immediate future.

Ian Smart, vice president at the Law Society, said: “The recent downturn in the property market means we haven’t secured the kind of deal which would make it prudent to move at the moment.

“We do still believe a move to new premises in Edinburgh is essential for the future development of the Law Society and while we are continuing to look at new offices and will continue to talk to potential buyers, we are not now planning to move before the end of the year.”

Lockerbie Appeal to see US expert brought in on ID parade fiasco

The Lockerbie Appeal currently in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, has seen a new development with a challenge from Abdelbasset al Megrahi’s defence team the way the identity parade was handed was unfair, citing the way photos were shown to potential witnesses.

BBC News reports :

Lockerbie appeal ID expert move

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has called in an American psychologist to help clear his name.

Abdelbasset al Megrahi, 56, claims an identity parade line-up was unfair and has challenged the way photos were shown to potential witnesses.

Prof Steve Clark, of the University of California, is said to be an expert on identification procedures.

At Edinburgh's Court of Criminal Appeal, Megrahi's defence team sought the right to show photos to Prof Clark.

Margaret Scott QC said it was "unprecedented" that she should have to ask judges to order the handover of the original photos.

Long-running row

Appeal judges are expected to hear further legal argument on the question next month.

Megrahi is currently serving life in jail for the 1988 atrocity, in which 270 people died.

He lost one appeal against conviction but the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, told the courts to look at the case again.

Megrahi's second attempt to overturn his conviction has led to a number of legal wrangles - including a long-running row about whether defence lawyers should be allowed access to secret documents.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Taxpayers fund Police retirements to avoid misconduct charges

Poor old taxpayers seem to have to fund everything these days, from politicians resigning to avoid inquiries or criminal charges, to even Police doing the same …

The Daily Record reports :

Exclusive: Taxpayers foot £500K a year bill for Scots cops who retire to avoid misconduct rap

By Jack Mathieson

TWENTY-SEVEN Scots cops in the last five years have avoided misconduct inquiries by retiring, a Daily Record investigation has revealed.

The officers all kept their pensions and it's believed they are pocketing at least £500,000 a year between them.

The taxpayer helps foot the bill for the police's generous pension scheme.

Angry politicians called yesterday for tougher laws to allow more cops who disgrace the uniform to be stripped of pension rights.

Those calls are backed by grieving families and crime victims who have seen internal police probes into their cases derailed when cops retire early.

Often, disciplinary inquiries are simply halted if the officers involved quit.

The Record used freedom of information law to obtain the retirement figures.

We found that 12 officers from Strathclyde, six from Fife, four from Lothian and Borders, two from Tayside and one each from Central Scotland Police and Northern Constabulary have retired since 2003 while the subject of disciplinary inquiries.

The officers could have faced pay cuts, demotion or the sack if found guilty.

If all the cops involved were constables with 30 years' service, they would be enjoying a combined pension payout of £432,000 a year.

But the true figure is likely to be more than £500,000. Some of them held much higher ranks and were entitled to far bigger pensions.

The most senior Scots officer to quit while under investigation in the last five years was Keith Cullen, the deputy chief constable of Northern Constabulary.

In 2003, Cullen was facing an inquiry into the way his force dealt with complaints about their handling of a young man's death.

But he retired prior to facing disciplinary action and walked away with a pension of around £45,000 a year and a six-figure lump sum.

Cullen was set to be quizzed over the case of Kevin McLeod, 27, whose body was found in Wick Harbour in 1997.

The police said Kevin's death was an accident. His family insisted he was attacked and dumped in the harbour.

An inquiry by an outside force found that Cullen had a case to answer over the way his officers handled the family's complaints. He refused to take part in a Police Board hearing and retired days before it was due to take place.

Kevin's family were outraged by the decision to halt the inquiry. And they were horrified yesterday when the Record told them how many other under-fire officers had followed Cullen's example by retiring.

The dead man's uncle, Allan McLeod, said our figures were "stunning". He called for the system which allows such retirements to be totally overhauled.

Allan, 49, of Alness, Ross-shire, said: "We believe that, should an officer retire or resign prior to disciplinary proceedings, any rights including their pension should be frozen pending the outcome."

The Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, Jim Martin, has called for a rethink over whether misconduct cases should be halted when cops retire.

Ministers are looking into how such cases are handled, and Martin said: "I recommend that the Scottish government consider this point as part of its review."

In April this year, the Record revealed that a policeman had been allowed to retire on full pension despite being a convicted sex offender.

Creepy Constable Andrew Burt was found guilty in September last year of groping two women and slapping another on the bottom. His victims included a mother and daughter.

Married Burt, 50, attacked the women in a drunken rampage at Cockenzie and Port Seton Bowling Club in East Lothian.

He was convicted of indecent assault and given 150 hours' community service. The sheriff told him: "If community service did not exist, I would not have the slightest hesitation in sending you to jail."

Police chiefs have the power to strip criminal cops of their pension rights but a probe into Burt's conduct took so long that he retired before it was completed.

An officer with his length of service, 30 years, can expect a pension of £16,000 a year and an £80,000 lump sum.

One of Burt's victims, Lorna Higgins, 45, said yesterday: "I just can't understand why Lothian and Borders Police were unable to take any action against him. To my mind, he should have been sacked the day he was found guilty."

Labour MSP Paul Martin, the party's community safety spokesman, said the Burt case was "completely unacceptable".

He called on justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to speed up moves to stop disgraced cops retiring to avoid being fired.

Martin said the Record's inquiry proved the need for action on the issue of early retirement. He said the public expected the highest standards from the police and added: "If they don't live up to those levels, that should put at risk their access to their pension."

But the body that represents front-line officers, the Scottish Police Federation, pointed out that cops can only be stripped of pensions if found guilty of serious crimes.

General secretary Joe Grant said: "There must be very few professions where internal matters would be deemed so serious that an employee would be prevented from retiring."

Several other cases of police early retirement have made the news in Scotland.

In 2002, Superintendent Paul Hughes retired from Central Scotland Police on health grounds while being probed over claims that he helped "fix" entrance exams for six women recruits.

And in 1998, Grampian cops Gordon Thomson and Alex Nicoll were allowed to retire early with full pension rights on medical grounds after being accused of bringing the force into disrepute.

Thomson, an inspector, and Nicoll, a sergeant, had faced claims that they made "careless" allegations of corruption against the force's head of CID.

No action was taken against the pair after an eight-month investigation.

Talks are now going on to make sure inquiries into police misconduct continue even if accused officers retire.

A Scottish government spokesman said yesterday: "We are considering putting guidelines in place."

The issue will be considered by the Police Advisory Board next month. A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said: "We have made our views known to the board and will engage in further debate in the coming weeks."

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Threats of legal action from solicitor bring Ministers cash pledge after ‘blunder’

After the Government seemingly reneged on funding pledges to organisations, it apparently took the threat of legal action from well known solicitor Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre in Glasgow, to have those funding pledges restored …

Ministers in cash pledge after blunder over letters

GERRY BRAIDEN

Scottish ministers have moved to head off accusations of political vindictiveness after an administrative blunder was blamed for the reneging on cash pledges to community organisations.

More than 20 groups across Scotland were told on Friday afternoon they had been successful in their applications for funding from the Scottish Government's equality unit only to be told hours later that a decision had "not actually been made" by the Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell and that "all the letters which were sent out were done so prematurely".

Civil servants claimed they had simply been preparing drafts so they could move quickly once a decision had been reached and that those who had been wrongly told could discuss the matter.

However, following allegations by one recipient, Mike Dailly, of the Govan Law Centre, that the U-turn was politically motivated and that he would pursue legal action if the promised £250,000 did not materialise the government pledged yesterday that all those who received the first letter would get the funding.

Mr Dailly, a solicitor and Labour Party activist, had applied for the money from the Race, Religion and Refugee Initiative to establish a Govanhill Law Centre, providing legal advice on housing and welfare to black minority ethnic communities in Glasgow's south side.

He had claimed it was more than coincidental that he had received the second e-mail claiming no decision had been made on the same day he was quoted publicly criticising an SNP councillor who had campaigned against poor housing in a Govanhill street where he owns and rents a flat to a Romanian family in a rundown building for £500 a month.

Mr Dailly said he thought Councillor Jahangir Hanif "was part of the solution but is clearly part of the problem".

After being told on Friday evening that no decision had been made and that the offer had been sent in error, Mr Dailly said he found it incredible that the head of the equalities department, Yvonne Strachan, could send a £250,000 offer without ministerial approval and threatened to take the government to court.

Government sources have accused Mr Dailly of attempting to make political capital out of an administrative error and that no organisation was in danger of losing any money. His threats came amid accusations of cronyism after the government handed hundreds of thousands of pounds in public funds to an Islamic group run by an SNP activist.

Around £215,000 was awarded to the Scottish Islamic Foundation, a group run by Osama Saeed, an SNP member who is to contest the Glasgow Central seat in the next Westminster election.

The issue also spilled on to the Glasgow East by-election, with Labour's Margaret Curran saying she found it "exceptional that this scale of error could be made" and that it was a "very off way of doing business", while her SNP rival John Mason said a mountain was being made of a molehill and that the awarding of the funding yesterday was evidence of "a government making quick decisions".

Last night a Scottish Government spokesman said: "Ministers were already content to approve grants to all the organisations who received these letters early, as per the recommendation from officials.

"However, draft letters were issued prematurely in error before the final, but imminent, ministerial sign-off.

"The content of the letters would not have changed between draft and final versions."

Scottish Consumer Council take issue on reduction of client input in complaints investigations

The Scottish Consumer Council again, are taking issue with the Law Society of Scotland over alterations to the way in which clients give in put into complaints investigations at the Law Society of Scotland :

SCC letter to Law Society (pdf)

Mary McGowan
Deputy Director
Client Relations Office
The Law Society of Scotland
26 Drumsheugh Gardens
Edinburgh
EH3 7YR
10 June 2008

Dear Ms McGowan

New process for handling conduct complaints

Thank you for your letter of 10 April, enclosing a copy of the paper outlining the proposed new process, which was discussed at the April meeting of the Law Society’s Council.

While we are unable to comment in detail on the proposed process, we are, as you might expect, concerned at the limited involvement which the complainer will have in the process. While we understand the argument that the complainer is seen as a witness, rather than as a party to the proceedings, we do not consider that this justifies allowing the complainer to have no involvement in the process other than to receive a copy of the final written report on the matter.

We are well aware that this has been an issue of contention in the past, with the solicitor being allowed to make representations on their own behalf, while the complainer is not allowed to do so. It is proposed that only the solicitor will have the opportunity to comment on, and make representations in relation to, the narrative and assessment document produced by the case investigator.

This is a very one-sided process and is unlikely to be viewed by complainers as being fair.

If the Society is to ensure that its process is viewed as fair, rather than being seen to take the side of the solicitor, as has been the case in the past, the complainer must also be given the opportunity to comment on this document. It cannot be in the interests of natural justice to refuse to allow the complainer, who may have suffered considerably as a result of the solicitor’s conduct, the opportunity to comment on any representations made by the solicitor

I hope these comments are helpful.
Yours sincerely

Martyn Evans
Director

Monday, July 14, 2008

Scottish Consumer Council comment on Law Society reduction of time on complaints against crooked lawyers

The Law Society of Scotland are reducing the time for clients to make a complaint against their solicitor from two years to one year.

Not something which will go down well with the public, particularly given the hopes of some the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would be a ‘new broom’.

http://www.scotconsumer.org.uk/pressinfo/newsreleases.htm

Comment on the announcement by the Law Society of Scotland that the deadline for making complaints to them is to reduce to one year as part of the transition to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Sarah O'Neill, Legal Officer at the Scottish Consumer Council said it was essential that people who have a grievance don't delay lodging their complaint:

"The new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be able to award four times as much in compensation where cases are found against a solicitor as the Law Society of Scotland, but there's no point hanging on until October to bring your case in the belief that you’ll get a better outcome under the new SLCC.

"Any complaints relating to work handed to a solicitor for the first time up to and including 30th September 2008 will still be dealt with by the Law Society, which will continue to handle all pre October 2008 cases right up until 2010.

"We accept that there has to be a cut-off and that the Law Society needs to be able to manage the transition of its work to the new body. It's not ideal, though, as there will be cases where solicitors are instructed before October but problems only arise or become apparent long after that date, where clients may be justified in expecting their case to be dealt with under the new, potentially more generous SLCC system."

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Lawyers work to rule action over legal aid fees back on the cards in Glasgow

The 'work to rule' or disruption threatened by the legal profession over the removal of legal aid fees for representing clients during custody visits may see cases halted or thrown out - on ECHR grounds.

Pity that some in the legal profession couldn't be a bit more consistent when it comes to ECHR these days - particularly when someone is denied a fair hearing by a member of the legal profession itself !

The Sunday Herald reports :

Lawyers to disrupt cases over fees row

By John Bynorth

CRIMINAL DEFENCE lawyers are threatening to force cases to be halted or thrown out on the grounds that their clients' human rights are threatened by the removal of Legal Aid fees for representing them during custody visits.

The Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) will lodge motions with sheriffs arguing that accused people will not receive a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) following the decision two weeks ago to remove the "advice and assistance" £42.20 hourly fee for consultations in police custody.

Solicitors are angry the Scottish Legal Aid Board (Slab) has merged their fee into a payment of £515 for dealing with overall cases, no matter how long they take, and claim it represents a 29% drop in their Legal Aid fees which threatens the future of the consultations.

The GBA will target specific cases at Glasgow Sheriff Court where clients have not been represented in police custody because of the new rules by lodging a minute with the sheriff at the pleading diet that will argue the accused's right to a fair trial under the ECHR is threatened.

The motion will force the sheriff to adjourn the case and the solicitors will argue at a fresh hearing that their clients would be denied a fair trial because they did not receive legal representation in custody. The GBA hopes the tactic will force the Scottish government and Slab to rewrite the regulations governing the Legal Aid reforms.

Last week solicitor general Frank Mulholland defended the system of "direct measures" which came into effect following the government's summary justice reforms in March, where less serious cases are dealt with by fines rather than in the courts.

The GBA has estimated that 6500 cases which should have gone to Glasgow Sheriff Court were dealt with by alternative fixed penalties between their introduction and June 30.

However, Mulholland denied that summary prosecutions had been cut by 75%, and said allegations that the Crown Office didn't respond to crime were "not borne out by the facts".

John McGovern, secretary of the GBA, said: "The independent criminal bar in Scotland has been under threat for the best part of 10 years. These latest cuts in the funding of the independent criminal bar directly impact on an accused person's ECHR rights. For that reason the GBA intends to contest them in the courts."

A spokesman for Slab said that a system of "exceptional payments" existed for lawyers who spent two hours or more dealing with clients in custody or who have to travel substantial distances to police stations, and the changes were agreed after consultations with the legal profession.

The changes are being reviewed by a group which will report to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill by December.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Much talked about court reforms are expectedly ineffective in bringing 'speedier justice' to Scotland

Despite the much talked about series of reforms brought in to bring about 'speedier and more effective justice, the courts system and justice in general remain as elusive as ever for most Scots.

The Scotsman reports :

Figures reveal court reforms for speedier justice are falling short

NEW court reforms intended to bring about speedier and more effective justice are not being used as much as had been expected, a senior lawyer said yesterday.

Statistics on the impact of new summary justice legislation were made public by Frank Mulholland, Solicitor General for Scotland.

However he said "uninformed criticism and comment" by some lawyers and MSPs risked damaging public confidence. Legislation passed last year was meant to make the justice system speedier by extending the use of "direct measures" like fiscal fines, or making compensation payments.

Mr Mulholland dismissed claims that summary court prosecutions had been reduced by up to 75 per cent and insisted since the reforms were introduced there had been a fall in prosecutions of 13 per cent.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission condemned by critics as no better than Law Society of old

Peter Cherbi’s "A Diary of Injustice in Scotland" reports on the woes of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which seems to be rapidly turning into the “new” Law Society of Scotland … a la “New Labour” …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish Legal Complaint Commission

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

SLCC members interests Page 1SLCC members interests Page 2

Jane Irvine :

• Currently Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman.

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

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

Douglas Watson :

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

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

• Formerly a Chief Superintendent with Lothian and Borders Police.

Linda Pollock :

• Executive Nursing Director (1989 -2006).

• Interim Board Nurse Director (2002-2003).

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Member of the Royal College of Nursing.

• Has accepted hospitality from Gillespie MacAndrew.

George L Irving CBE :

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

• Board Member of Ayrshire Council on Alcohol.

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

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

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

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

• Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine.

• Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

• Member of the Rotary Club of Alloway.

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

• Retired Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside Police.

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

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

• Vice-Chair of ACPOS General Policing Business Area.

• Director, Quaere Ltd

Margaret Scanlan :

• Consultant, Russells Gibson McCaffrey, Solicitors.

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

• Husband is a senior partner Russells Gibson McCaffrey.

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

• Past Chair of the Family Law Association.

• Former member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

David Smith :

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

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

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

David Chaplin :

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

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

• Director and shareholder in Baliol Properties Limited.

Alan Paterson :

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

• Research adviser to the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

• Lay member of the Judicial Appointments Board.

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

• Member of the Law Society of Scotland.

• Professional contact with Guild & Guild, Solicitors