The notable and spectacular failure of the Crown Office in what has come to be known as the ‘World’s End’ murder trial collapse, where the Crown Office’s chief prosecutor actually absconded from court, has caused a few rethinks on other cases where the prosecution of offenders for crimes which were committed many years ago may never see the light of a courtroom.
WHEN THOMAS Ross Young appeared in court charged with the murder of 17-year-old Patricia McAdam her family believed a 40-year wait for justice might finally be over.
Today, almost a year later, the prospects of a prosecution are fading and there are fears that other long-standing crimes may never be taken to court.
Legal experts believe that a review published by the Crown Office last month into the failed prosecution of the "World's End murders" will make it more difficult to take action on historic unsolved cases.
Now though, speculation is mounting that the prosecution of a man accused of one of Scotland's longest-running murder cases will be dropped.
McAdam's body was never found when she disappeared after hitching a lift with a friend in a lorry from Glasgow to Dumfries on February 19, 1967.
Her case predated the murders of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie, who were last seen at the World's End public house in Edinburgh, in 1977.
Less than a year ago Lord Clarke threw out the case against convicted killer and sex attacker Angus Sinclair at the High Court in Edinburgh for the murders of Scott and Eadie.
This month the Crown Office produced an internal review of the handling of the World's End case which made a number of recommendations for improvements, which have not been made public.
Two weeks ago, Devon and Cornwall Police decided not to charge the convicted child killer Robert Black with the murder of Genette Tate, a 13-year-old girl who vanished during her paper round in Devon in 1978, after the Crown Prosecution Service cited "insufficient evidence", Black is serving 10 life sentences in a high-security prison for the abduction and murders of schoolgirls Susan Maxwell, Caroline Hogg and Sarah Harper.
And three months after the collapse of the World's End case taxi driver Vincent Simpson was cleared of the murder of Dundee trainee nurse Elizabeth McCabe, 20, in 1980 after the credibility of DNA evidence linking him to the crime came under fire.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has now informed McAdam's relatives that no indictment is to be served "meantime" on Young, although the procedings will remain active against him.
Robert Black, professor emeritus in Scottish law at Edinburgh University, told the Sunday Herald that difficulties in preserving DNA evidence and the ability of an accused's defence to highlight flaws in witness recall could make it increasingly difficult to bring so-called historical cases to trial.
He said: "World's End was an example of how historical cases can pose difficult decisions for the Crown. After decades, people's memories fade and the Crown Office must ask whether the evidence is now strong enough for there to be any reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
"It's no use putting prosecution witnesses through the ordeal of a trial if they are going to be crucified by the defence about what they saw and knew, but may have forgotten.
"If there are clear DNA profiles - and there are not the difficulties with DNA evidence that existed in the World's End case - it's easier. But if such a case is dependent on eyewitness testimony, the more difficult it is for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it would be safe to convict."
The disappearance of Patricia McAdam in 1967 led to the largest search ever undertaken by Dumfries and Galloway Police until the 1988 Lockerbie disaster with hundreds of officers, supported by teams from forces in Glasgow and England and Wales and unprecedented coverage in newspapers and on TV.
Detectives dug up moorland near where she was last seen and drafted in a Dutch clairyovant, Gerard Croiset, who told police the factory worker's body was dumped in a river. Despite Croiset's claims, McAdam's remains were never traced and the force re-investigated the case as a murder inquiry following a cold case review in 2004.
Retired Detective Superintendent Bill Gillis, Dumfries and Galloway Police's former head of CID, who won the support of his then superiors to reopen the case and lead the Pat McAdam reinvestigation, said: "There was a thorough investigation at the time and it was a significant challenge to reinvestigate the case for my officers. We used the knowledge of the officers at the time to piece together information.
"The case had a big impact on Dumfries and we had an astonishing amount of assistance from the public after we launched a fresh appeal. Everybody remembered where they were when Pat McAdam disappeared.
"But the whole point was to bring some closure to Pat's family. I feel sorry for them. They have been looking for somewhere to grieve, but have not been able to do it."
The COPFS said in a statement: "A report on the re-investigation has been submitted to Crown counsel, who have instructed that no indictment is to be served meantime on Thomas Ross Young. No final decision has been taken in the case, and it therefore remains live. Any additional evidence will be reported for consideration by Crown counsel."
It added that McAdam's next of kin had been advised of the Crown counsel's decision.
David Dunlop, the husband of Pat McAdam's sister, Wendy, said: "The whole case has been going on far too long now. She will not comment." The victim's other siblings Eleanor and Neil also declined to comment.
Young's lawyer John McLeod also refused to discuss the case.
Big surprise … the legal firms which make up the Glasgow Bar Association, who were recently caught paying a public relations firm to spike legal aid reform, claimed many millions of pounds from the legal aid budget themselves …
Revealed: how the legal association campaigning against changes to the justice system stood to lose from reforms
By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor
A LEGAL body that funded a secret campaign against justice reforms that will make its members poorer is run by a group of lawyers whose firms have claimed almost £8 million in criminal defence fees.
The executive committee of the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA), which hired a PR company to attack a government policy that will cut the Legal Aid bill, is made up of 13 lawyers whose companies took in nearly £13m of public money over the same period.
One of the solicitors on the committee, Ally Thomson, said the system was forcing colleagues to work "out of their bedrooms".
The firm that employs Thomson, Carr and Co, has claimed £2,335,500 in Legal Aid since 2003.
The summary justice reforms introduced earlier this year were supposed to speed up the system by punishing low-level offenders with fines or a warning, instead of having the cases heard in court. But the system has been plagued by negative publicity after a spate of stories appeared which showed apparently serious offences being diverted from the courtroom.
However, the Sunday Herald disclosed last week that much of the coverage had been driven by a PR company, McGarvie Morrison Media (MMM), which was paid by the GBA to attack the reforms.
Law firms stand to lose chunks of their £122m Legal Aid subsidy from the new system as fewer court appearances will mean a fall in claims.
The Sunday Herald can reveal the firms which employ the 13 members of the GBA's executive committee are major beneficiaries of the Legal Aid regime, with the dozen or so firms having claimed £7,918,300 in "criminal and children's" fees since 2003, and £12,876,400 overall in legal aid during the same period.
MathesonRitchie, a firm that has GBA president Sara Matheson as a partner, claimed £418,400 in the criminal fees section and £791,600 in total during the same period.
The Lambie Law Partnership, at which GBA treasurer Phil Cohen works as a solicitor, clawed back £1,113,700 in criminal and children's fees, and £1,694,000 overall in legal aid.
GBA vice-president David O'Hagan's firm, Hughes Dowdall, also benefited from the old system, as the company claimed £511,700 in the criminal subsidies category and £997,200 from the entire system.
Fitzpatrick and Co, home to GBA executive member Gerard Considine, took in £1,107,900 in criminal and children's fees since 2003, which contributed to a total legal aid subsidy of £1,577, 600.
Dunipace Brown, of which the GBA's Colin Dunipace is listed as a partner, claimed £1,088,600 in criminal subsidies section, and £1,401,400 in Legal Aid since 2003.
Another committee member, Ally Thomson, is a vocal opponent of the new summary justice reforms, as made clear in an interview he gave to legal website CaseCheck.
Put to him that "lack of remuneration" was now a problem for lawyers, he said: "There is more legislation than ever, more preliminary points to consider, the law is getting more and more complex, and we are getting to the stage where very experienced criminal practitioners are working out of their bedrooms. Guys with 25 years of experience can't afford an office - it is ridiculous."
According to government figures, Thomson's firm, Carr and Co, has claimed £1,291,800 in criminal and children's legal aid since 2003, and £2,335,500 overall, the largest subsidy of all the 13 firms.
The president of the GBA, Sara Matheson, said: "The figures quoted are earnings and not profit, and include VAT and expenses. These law firms include some of the biggest practices in the country and employ several criminal lawyers across a number of offices."
She added: "Lawyers have a highly responsible job that involves up to seven years of training, but some criminal lawyers are now earning less per hour than unskilled workers. Some of the fees paid to solicitors have not been increased since 1992."
Shepperd & Wedderburn are doing well these days with the Scottish Government it seems, having former partners now appointed by Kenny MacAskill to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and also attending its meetings and other functions …
Not to be outdone by that, another of Shepherd & Wedderburn’s partners has now been appointed by the Justice Secretary to the controversial role of Auditor of the Court of Session, formerly occupied by Neil Crichton for over a decade ..
Scottish Ministers have appointed Kenneth Macmillan Cumming to be Auditor of the Court of Session in place of Mr Neil Crichton who retires on September 25.
Mr Cumming is currently a partner and Head of Litigation at Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP, Solicitors in Edinburgh.
The Auditor of the Court of Session is a statutory appointment made by Scottish Ministers after open competition.
Mr Cumming is a graduate of Edinburgh University. He was admitted as a solicitor in 1982 and has been a partner of Shepherd and Wedderburn since 2001.
The principal duty of the Auditor is to determine the expenses payable following civil litigation in the Court of Session. The Auditor may also be called on to fix the remuneration of liquidators and receivers and, at the request of parties, to fix fees in a range of legal work.
Charges against a civil servant, Andrew Struthers, of Kettleshill Farm West Linton in the Scottish Borders, have been dropped after evidence obtained in a farm raid was inadmissible in court.
Remember next time to have a search warrant lads …
The case against a man accused of starving 52 lambs to death has been dropped after a sheriff ruled farm raid evidence was inadmissible.
Rural affairs civil servant Andrew Struthers, 48, of Kettleshill Farm, West Linton, had denied the offence.
Evidence gathered in a raid in the Borders was not allowed as cruelty officers did not have a search warrant.
The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said it was "disappointed" with the decision.
Mr Struthers had been charged with causing unnecessary suffering to more than 400 lambs, including the deaths of 52, through neglect between October 2006 and January 2007.
He denied the offence.
Given the level of suffering, the lack of daylight at that time of year and the risk of evidence being lost due to bad weather conditions and scavenging, we still believe the correct actions were taken Doreen Graham SSPCA
His trial began last month but was adjourned for a ruling to be made on the lawfulness of evidence gathered by the SSPCA.
Sheriff John Horsburgh decided he could not allow it to be put before the court.
"It was clear to me that they did not have an adequate knowledge of the various powers, of when a warrant was required, and of the circumstances in which they could act without one," he said.
"The steps they took were accordingly contrary to the law, and the evidence gathered was irregularly recovered."
As a result of his decision the Crown dropped the prosecution against Mr Struthers who works in the agricultural and land services division of the Scottish Government's environment department.
Procurator fiscal Vikki Welton said: "Our office will liaise closely with the SSPCA to see how the legislation should be interpreted.
"This is a bit of a test case in many ways.
"We accept the sheriff's ruling and won't be appealing his decision."
Legal interpretation
SSPCA spokeswoman Doreen Graham said it was "extremely disappointed" with the outcome.
She said it still maintained its officers had acted correctly.
"The incident occurred shortly after the new animal welfare legislation became law in Scotland," she said.
"Our inspectors' interpretation of the act had already been discussed with the Crown Office and the society was of the opinion that a warrant was not needed to gather evidence in this instance.
"Given the level of suffering, the lack of daylight at that time of year and the risk of evidence being lost due to bad weather conditions and scavenging, we still believe the correct actions were taken."
There is still plenty money to be made from clients, whether it be ripping them off on long expensive cases which get nowhere, or just fooling around and inflating one’s bills …
Woe betide anyone who dares come to Scotland to use a legal firm !
Scottish law firms have posted huge profits over the past year in spite of the economic downturn that has engulfed the UK economy.
In a survey of the UK's 100 largest law firms, equity partners at Scottish companies made an average of £343,000 profit, a 4% increase on the previous year, according to Legal Business magazine.
However, despite the current "rude health" of the UK's legal profession, the magazine warned that Scottish companies were among those which would face uncertainty as the UK's economic woes continue.
Among the companies that appear to be thriving amid the credit crunch are Dundas & Wilson - Scotland's largest law firm - which saw a 23% increase in turnover to £74.8m.
The firm's profit margin of 41% was the largest of the top 10 Scottish companies included in the survey. Equity partners at the firm - those that take a share in profits - made an average of £379,000 each.
This year also saw Brodies, Scotland's fastest-growing law firm, see its turnover increase by 23% to £37m compared to last year.
However, Tods Murray saw a drop in turnover for the second consecutive year, taking the company out of the Legal Business top 100 list.
James Baxter, editor of Legal Business, said: "Taken at face value the UK legal community looks to be in rude health: UK firms compete well overseas, firms are billing well and clients are broadly happy paying.
But dark clouds are on the horizon.
"Managing partners from some of the UK's largest firms have told Legal Business that they would be happy to achieve zero growth in the next 12 months, meaning that most are expecting to report a drop in profitability for the first time in a decade.
"The credit crunch, whilst not showing much impact on this year's figures, has UK law firms worried.
"There are precious few deals being done, the usually lucrative financial services markets have dried-up, and the commercial property market has all but stalled."
Unjust delays in the payment of compensation for asbestos victims have been criticised by colleagues andf family of the late John MacDougall.
Such delays are enough to make one think the Government is waiting for people to die off so they don’t need to pay any compensation .. and tie up deceased's estates for years over whether such compensation is to be paid after death …
DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor August 25 2008
The compensation delays for people facing painful deaths from asbestos-linked diseases have been strongly criticised by those close to John MacDougall, the Glenrothes MP who died while suing the government over his illness.
The Labour MP fell victim earlier this month to mesothelioma, a painful and incurable condition that slowly stops the lungs or heart from functioning. While his death quickly moved on to a debate about his party's risk of losing the seat to the SNP in a by-election, the circumstances still have the capacity to embarrass UK ministers.
Mr MacDougall claimed he contracted the disease while employed in Rosyth naval dockyard. As a teenager, he worked next to men stripping old asbestos insulation from pipes and replacing it with a new coating. This was before it was clear how dangerous even a particle of the material can be if it is breathed in.
At the time, the Rosyth base was owned by the Ministry of Defence, which is why Mr MacDougall was suing the government for compensation, and his widow and family are to pursue the case. His long-time friend and constituency researcher, Scott Brady, was scathing about the delays, while lawyers wrangle over proof of whether the Rosyth was the only place the MP could have ingested asbestos.
That is standard procedure in compensation cases, but it means cases are typically drawn out much longer than the time the victims of mesothelioma have left to live.
Mr Brady said: "It's fundamentally wrong that a court can take longer than the median survival time to come up with a compensation figure. This is an appalling disease. There is no cure. You have no idea the pain that man went through, particularly in the last nine months. A quick resolution would be easier on the family."
A statement from the MoD said: "We have every sympathy with John MacDougall's family. In this case, as in all others, the Ministry of Defence considers claims for compensation on the basis of legal liability. Where there is a proven legal liability to pay compensation, we do so."
Efforts have already been made to improve the compensation process, including the promise that courts will speed their procedures. The law was changed at Holyrood to end the choice previously faced by victims of mesothelioma between a compensation pay-out while they were alive and a bigger sum for their family after their death.
Today, at Holyrood, a legislative effort gets under way to help those who face workplace hazards with employers' criminal liability. SNP back bencher Bill Wilson is sponsoring a bill on the subject and will launch it for public consultation.
The Crown Office, described by one currently serving Scottish Cabinet Minister as being “the most corrupt institution in Scotland”, has refused to pay damages to a disabled boy it pursued over a ‘racist attack’.
Sounds typical for the Crown Office ? That would be a “Yes” …
SCOTLAND'S prosecutors have refused to accept liability in the case of a teenager with Down's syndrome who was charged with carrying out a racist attack.
The case of Jamie Bauld provoked a public outcry last year after the youngster, who has a mental age of five, was accused of attacking an Asian girl at a college in Motherwell.
After seven months, the case was dropped and the Bauld family launched a damages claim against the police and Crown Office, insisting the case should never have gone that far.
Now the boy's parents, Jim and Fiona Bauld, are furious after they received a letter from the Crown Office saying the family has "no basis" for legal proceedings.
The Crown Office has stated its refusal to accept liability in the case, a move that effectively dismisses the family's claim for damages against it.
Lawyers say the Bauld family has been left with little choice other than to take the case to court, at great cost to the public purse.
Last week, Fiona Bauld said her son had no concept of what racism was and it was therefore ludicrous to have pursued the case against him. "They charged my son … they said it was assault and racial abuse," she said.
"This is a child with Down's syndrome … it is absolutely ridiculous. This whole thing has been a waste of taxpayers' money and a complete waste of my time and Jamie's time."
She added: "We rang the Crown Office five times to explain that he had special needs but it was not prepared to listen."
In April, the Crown Office offered a rare apology to the family after the heavy-handed treatment Jamie received from the authorities.
Jamie, now 19, was read his rights by police and referred to the procurator fiscal for assault and breach of the peace following a minor scuffle with an Asian girl, who also has special needs, last September.
Mrs Bauld claims her son had complained about the girl following him and staring at him, and when she approached him one day, he pushed her and told her to go away.
The incident was described by his parents as nothing more than a playground squabble, but soon after, they were told a notice had been placed in a local newspaper asking for witnesses to a "racial assault".
It is not known who placed the advert, but two police officers came to Jamie's house and interviewed him about the incident. This was followed by a letter from the procurator fiscal saying there was enough evidence for charges to be brought.
The Baulds faced the threat of a court case hanging over them for nearly eight months before the authorities informed them that the proceedings against Jamie were to be dropped.
The family were furious when it was suggested they should work with Jamie and a team of social workers to address some of the issues. Urged to attend a "diversion from prosecution" scheme with the local social work department, they refused, insisting they had done nothing wrong.
Mrs Bauld, from Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire, claims Jamie has been deeply traumatised by the whole experience.
"Jamie's hair was falling out and he was going to see a psychologist because of the stress he has suffered," she explained.
"Someone has to take responsibility for what my son has been through."
Mr and Mrs Bauld believe their son was a victim of a zero-tolerance policy on racism, under which police have to respond to any complaint, however minor.
Mrs Bauld described the case, which provoked outraged when it was broadcast on BBC news programmes, as "utterly beyond belief".
She said it was obvious Jamie did not understand the offence of racial assault because, having been read his rights by a policeman, he shook the officer's hand and thanked him for the home visit.
The mother of two said the case was made all the more ironic given the family had just returned from a trip to the Caribbean, and her son had not even noticed the difference in skin colour among the children he befriended on holiday. Just weeks after their return, the debacle unfolded.
"Jamie has no concept of racism," she added. "Down's syndrome children look at every person the same way. They don't see colour and race when they look at a person.
"We had just come back from Jamaica, and he never even noticed that they were a different colour.
"He has Asian friends ... it was never an issue."
Cameron Fyfe, the family's lawyer, believes the case is an example of "political correctness gone mad". He said the family was effectively given a warning that they felt was an insult.
"As soon as the authorities realised the boy had Down's syndrome they should have said 'no further proceedings'," he said.
"It dragged on for seven months and the family were being caused great distress. We had hoped the Crown might settle out of court but when they reply to the effect that the family is not getting a penny, the only option is to go ahead with a court action.
"When there is so much crime on the streets, for them to spend so much time and attention on this matter is beyond belief," Fyfe added.
Charity organisation Down's Syndrome Scotland said it was hoped lessons would be learned from the case, as the proper procedures had not been followed.
A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: "We appreciate that this has been a distressing situation for Mr and Mrs Bauld and their son Jamie, and we have offered our apology for that.
"We made it clear, at the time the apology was offered, that there were a number of inquiries that are required to be made by the procurator fiscal before a final decision could be taken in this very sensitive case, something which the family were aware of.
"In response to a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of the Baulds, we explained our position that the length of time taken to reach a decision would not provide any basis for a claim for compensation
Occasionally … when media interest rears its head … a court has no choice but to hand out punishment, this time, on a lawyer who has been convicted of drink driving.
Oh don’t worry consumers, lawyers aren't required to disclose criminal convictions to you .. even though there are a few in the profession who do have criminal records …
More skulduggery from the Glasgow Bar Association, who along with elements of the Law Society of Scotland, used Public Relations firms to attack legal aid reforms aimed at cutting public money for wider access to justice.
For those who are interested .. the Justice Secretary knew all about it of course .. as did the Law Society … shock, horror !
Scare stories about new system were placed by media company
By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor
AT FIRST sight, the recent media coverage about how new criminal justice reforms were allowing yobs to walk away from their crimes with a fine seemed only to be a reflection of public concerns.
The last Scottish Executive's summary justice proposals, which came into force on March 10, were intended to speed up the system by keeping low-level criminals out of court and instead punishing them with either a fine or a warning.
In practice, "reform" was allowing people charged with assault to get away with a £150 fine, a sanction which was bizarrely applied to two women who attacked a nurse with a glass. advertisement
The result was a plethora of stories about "soft touch" Scotland and a barrage of criticism for the SNP government and prosecutors.
However, the Sunday Herald can reveal that much of the coverage was being driven by the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) - a body representing the legal profession in the west of Scotland - which had hired a PR firm, McGarvie Morrison Media (MMM), to attack a key plank of the criminal justice system.
A consequence of the fiscal fines system, otherwise known as "diversion", is that people charged with low-level crimes need not get bogged down in drawn-out court cases, thus depriving lawyers of legal aid.
Statistics from the Scottish Legal Aid Board show how lucrative state cash is for law firms. In 2006-2007, firms received £122 million for work done.
In other words, Glasgow's legal establishment has been bankrolling a secret campaign to attack a set of reforms that will reduce the subsidies for wealthy law firms.
A leaked letter from last month between two solicitors makes clear MMM's remit to mount a campaign against a set of reforms that had widespread cross-party support at the time.
"As you will probably know, they GBA have employed media consultants who have basically commenced a campaign through the Scottish Sun regarding diversion being used in serious cases rather than prosecuting somebody in court. The consultants are looking for any cases where it would appear that diversion has been used for something more serious than it should have."
The letter continued: "Apparently the consultants are offering discretion and confidentiality and if any member has such a case they want to report to them they should send an email to john@mmm.pr."
The email address was for John Morrison, a founding director of MMM, which for the last two months has placed stories and trawled for negative diversion cases on behalf of their well-paid clients.
MMM, a Labour-supporting PR firm which donated £2000 to the party last year, lists a number of its clients on its website, but not the GBA.
But the blurb on its site states: "We deploy our experiences, skills and contacts to ensure that MMM campaigns make headlines and achieve results."
The firm's "discreet" strategy appears to have had one central plank: find bad examples of diversion and hand them to the media. It is a tactic that has certainly made headlines.
A raft of articles in broadsheet and tabloid newspapers have focused on individual cases of diversion, which were accompanied by either statistics or obliging quotes from a member of the GBA.
In one July report, published in The Sun, GBA past president Gerard Considine was quoted on the summary reforms: "I can't see how this is about protecting the public from harm."
In an earlier article in the same newspaper, Considine had another criticism of the system: "This is undermining the credibility of the justice system."
Sara Matheson, the current president of the GBA, also hit out at the new regime. "This is a matter that should concern the general public," she said.
Another piece, in The Sunday Times in June, reported how lawyers had "compiled a dossier" of cases in which serious crimes had been "downgraded" to free up court time.
This time, Edinburgh Bar Association president Kenneth Cloggie popped up with a quote: "It seems to be a bit of a lottery depending on the fiscal you get on the day."
Cloggie's email address was also listed in a fax obtained by the Sunday Herald as the contact for suitable examples of "direct measures", such as fiscal fines, for use in a BBC programme on the matter.
Morrison said of MMM's work: "Our company was recently appointed as short-term media advisers to the Glasgow Bar Association. There has been intense press and media interest in issues linked to summary justice reform and the use of fiscal fines. The GBA asked MMM to provide advice on how best to deal with inquiries from journalists and to help promote their point of view."
He added: "The GBA have consistently argued that fiscal fines are not in the public interest, because some offenders who are guilty of violent and other serious offences are not being convicted through the courts and escape without a criminal record."
Matheson defended the GBA hiring the PR firm. "The overwhelming motivation was to have some assistance with the press. They are helping us with all aspects of getting our message across," she said. "Our members are gravely concerned about diversion and the effect it will have on the public."
On whether the legal aid aspect of the summary justice reforms was part of the reason for hiring MMM, she said: "That's certainly one aspect, but it's not the only driving force."
Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill MSP, who concedes that there are problems with the system, said: "I regret that the Glasgow Bar Association have paid lobbyists in order to trawl around for mistakes. It doesn't serve them well.
"We want to reward lawyers for doing their job, not have people playing the system. Unfortunately, it does seem that a small minority of lawyers want to persist in milking the system.
"The two-month media blitz on the summary justice reforms, far from being a bottom-up process reflecting public anxiety, appears to have been a campaign manufactured by a PR company and paid for by a legal establishment that has a financial interest in resisting the new system."
The Royal Bank of Scotland, it is reported by the Herald newspaper, has delayed production of key evidence in a case against the Bank claiming a needless loss of over £10m …
Two self-made millionaires were furious yesterday after Scotland's largest bank continued to delay producing crucial evidence which it claims proves it was authorised to leave them penniless.
Edmund Keane and Jimmy Jones are arguing that the Royal Bank of Scotland had no right to use their life savings to set off debts on accounts set up secretly in their names by Keane's brother, the former Celtic director and RBS bank manager Dominic Keane.
Yesterday at the Court of Session in Edinburgh the bank requested another six weeks to examine the "numerous" hidden accounts and produce documentation which it claims shows that Dominic Keane instructed it to act as it had done.
The request was agreed by Lord Angus Glennie on condition that the bank agreed to a call from the two men's lawyer for it to supply all documents relating to instructions given by Dominic Keane for the opening of and making of debit entries for the first two years of all the relevant accounts.
The order follows a three-and-a-half year battle by the two men who are suing RBS over claims that it lost their £10m fortune and left them several million pounds in debt.
Both of them had agreed to grant power of attorney to Dominic Keane in 1990 when they moved overseas after selling off their carpet empire Colonel Gees.
But neither of them had any idea that all their money had gone until 2005 when a cheque for Mr Jones's sons' private school fees suddenly bounced and Edmund Keane received a letter telling him he was more than £2.5m in debt.
Yesterday's order came the day after it emerged that Dominic Keane is accused of using the concealed accounts to carry out a 13-year multi-million-pound fraud.
Michael Jones QC, lawyer for the two men, the pursuers in the case, attacked the bank during yesterday's hearing for continually failing to provide proof that the instructions existed despite repeated requests by the pair's legal team.
He said: "They RBS have had three-and-a-half years to investigate their position on this."
Later he added: "We're talking about two pursuers'...life savings."
The bank had claimed that the power of attorney agreements provided "sufficient authorisation" for it to use the men's fortunes to set off debts on the unknown accounts without telling them.
At court earlier this week RBS revealed that it had also received specific instructions from Dominic Keane, prompting Lord Glennie to rule that it must now provide proof of that for the two men.
Paul Cullen QC, acting for RBS, requested the six week time period yesterday after explaining that it would take a considerable amount of time to examine the "hundreds" of debit entries on the numerous accounts.
Quizzed by the judge he confessed that he didn't have a "complete understanding" of the "nature or detail" of all the documents or what was involved in going through them.
But he said: "Much of the information is likely to be of an entirely routine, daily nature. It is a little difficult to say what will entail getting proof."
After the hearing a source close to the men told The Herald: "Three-and-a-half years after sending a letter to Edmund saying that all his money had gone and that he now owed about £2.5m, and after bouncing Jimmy's school fees cheque, the bank are still not willing to provide the information that they say shows that Dominic Keane gave them instructions to authorise these transactions.
"This was these men's life savings but the bank is still saying it would be too time-consuming to trawl through files to find evidence of instructions from Dominic Keane. Meanwhile Edmund Keane and Jimmy Jones are penniless. They are really angry."
The case will be continued at a preliminary hearing to be held in October.
The long running saga of the Lockerbie appeal and disclosure remains a point of interest for many as the battle to release documents held by the Crown Office which may clear Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi continues :
Scottish judges were sitting behind closed doors yesterday to decide the next move in a long-running row over top-secret documents linked to the Lockerbie bombing.
In an unprecedented move, the defence was banned from attending the hearing which will consider whether or not the two documents should be made public.
One of the documents, which originated in an unknown foreign country, is thought to contain vital information about the electronic timer which detonated the bomb that killed 270 people in the skies over Lockerbie in 1988.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has already said the document should remain confidential.
However, the defence team for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, believes the failure to disclose the document calls into question the ultimate right to a fair appeal.
The document was uncovered during the three-year investigation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which resulted in the case being referred back to the courts for a new appeal last summer. The commission concluded the failure during the original trial to disclose the document could constitute a miscarriage of justice.
Although the Crown allowed the commission to see the material, it has refused to disclose it to Megrahi's defence team.
Mr Miliband says that to hand over the documents to defence lawyers would put national security at risk.
Lord Hamilton, the Lord President and Scotland's top judge, was sitting with Lords Kingarth and Eassie yesterday to decide whether Megrahi can still get a fair appeal hearing without access to the secret papers.
Lord Davidson of Clova, QC, the Advocate General, who represents the UK Government on legal matters in Scotland, has previously asked to put the Foreign Secretary's case behind closed doors.
The public interest immunity argument has been lodged by Lord Davidson - not the Crown Office in Scotland.
It is the first time that Scottish courts have needed to deal with such a question in closed court.
There will be another hearing today on the breadth of the appeal and whether to grant the defence team access to the original forensics evidence.
More From A Diary of Injustice in Scotland as Kenny MacAskill pleads ignorance over those oh-so-famous claims fixing memos from dearly departed and happily-not-missed Chief Executive Douglas Mill.
The kink in the story is that Martin MacAllister, who was whisked to the Judicial Appointments Board quietly by the Justice Secretary, is of course identified on those fiddly, shady memos which targeted members of the public who were trying to complain against their solicitors ..... very shady indeed ..
When questioned today over why former Law Society President Martin McAllister was appointed to the Judicial Appointments Board, despite being identified by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney MSP in memos detailing a claims & complaints fixing scandal operted by the Law Society of Scotland, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill denied through his spokesman, any knowledge of the offending memos, which have been available at the Scottish Parliament, in the media, and even on the internet for some time now, and which continue to rock Scotland's legal establishment.
Kenny MacAskill denies existence itself ? : “Mr McAllister was appointed through fair and open competition by an independent panel. We are not aware of any formal complaint about Mr McAllister’s role in relation to claims and complaints during his time as President of the Law Society of Scotland, and no evidence has been presented to us which would raise any questions over the decision of the selection panel.”
The now well known memos to everyone except the Justice Secretary himself, were revealed by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney MSP, who identified a particular memo from Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill to the then Law Society President Martin McAllister as being the key to a claims & complaints fixing scandal which saw clients claims against crooked lawyers ruined by a well practiced policy of delay & destruction of claims & complaints against multiple firms of crooked lawyers.
John Swinney reveals a memo : "I am interested in what the witnesses have just said about the Law Society having nothing to do with the arrangements for handling negligence claims. I have in front of me a memorandum in connection with the case of one of my constituents. It was issued by Mr Mill on 5 July 2001.”
"Mr Mill's memo was written to the then president of the Law Society, Mr McAllister. It refers to the broker of the master policy. Mr Mill suggests that it would be good if he and the others involved all got together and had a "summit meeting" to discuss how to dispose of my constituent's "several valid claims". Mr Mill and I have discussed the matter at length over the years, but I find that a rather strange memo if it is to sit comfortably with the statement that the president has just made.
The memo of 5 July encourages "a summit meeting on the up-to-date position"to be held to look at "both the complaints and the claims aspects." That rather suggests that the Law Society has been involved. The claim remains unresolved to date and yet the memo is dated 5 July 2001."
Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney identifies Martin McAllister in memos which revealed the Law Society's claims & complaints fixing scandal to protect crooked lawyers
The claims fixing scandal, which involved senior members of staff at the Law Society of Scotland, apparently headed in an operation by Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill, saw a policy implemented by the Law Society and some of the UK's largest insurers, Royal Sun Alliance PLC, and Marsh UK to delay and destroy client claims and complaints against notorious Scots legal firms with poor regulatory records.
Law Society Chief Exec Douglas Mill's memo to Martin McAllister - ‘We have to stop the MacKenzie's claims dead and prevent their testimony to a Parliamentary investigation’
The Law Society of Scotland INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
To: Martin McAllister CC: David Preston, Philip Yelland FROM : Douglas Mill DATE : 5 July 2001
Could you sign this letter ? I have discussed with Alistair Sim and I think a holding letter is ideal. Alistair confirms that there is never any question of the Mackenzies sending out hard copy letters. There is a saga here and you will recall I intimated this to you and David by copying Alistair Sim's email of 8 June. David has asked for a one page summary on the Mackenzie's position, which is quite frankly an impossibility !.
The Mackenzies I would say are different from some of the other complainers in as much as they have several valid claims, they have been let down by a series of solicitors but they are unreasonably in their expectations of quantum etc. Rather than trivialise matters I would recommend that the four of us i.e. you, me, David Preston and Alistair Sim all get an hour or so together some time in July to have a summit meeting on the up-to-date position looking at both the complaints and claims aspects. there is no doubt that Mr Mackenzie is intelligent and well organised individual who would unlike some of the other thorns in our flesh, come over very well at a JHAC investigation.
DRM
Clearly the memos do indeed, identify the then Law Society President Martin McAllister as being part of the fray which prevented the MacKenzies claims & complaints against a number of solicitors from progressing to any reasonable conclusion.
Indeed, since the date of the memo (2001), none of the claims identified within the memo, or by John Swinney in his confrontation with Douglas Mill before the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee during 2006 have been settled. Not one. In fact, not one claim or complaint by those who submitted their cases to the Justice 2 Committee during 2006 have been settled. Not one.
So in conclusion, Douglas Mill’s memo to Martin McAllister has resulted in a very successful policy by the Law Society of Scotland of protection for several firms of corrupt solicitors while significant and long lasting financial harm has been caused to the damaged lives of clients.
Mr McAllister has now been appointed to the Judicial Appointments Board, where he will be in part responsible for the appointment of lawyers to the positions of Sheriffs and Judges.
Inevitably some of those lawyers who come before the Judicial Appointments Board will have not the best of regulatory records, where complaints have been poorly handled by the Law Society of Scotland, possibly to the point those complaints have been dealt with by the ‘Douglas Mill doctrine’ contained in the memo to Mr McAllister, which is clearly ‘destroy the client’s access to justice at all costs’.
Is it fair to have lawyers appointing lawyers to positions of Judges ?
During the 2001 Justice 1 Committee “regulation of the legal profession inquiry’ which was heavily restricted in content & remit by the then Convener, Christine Grahame MSP (SNP), Martin McAllister, the then President of the Law Society of Scotland made the following comments :
Martin McAllister : “We are open to change and want to make improvements. It is proper that Parliament is reviewing the checks and balances that operate, but it is a fundamental right of citizens in a democracy that the legal profession is independent. Such a profession is a guarantor of the rights of citizens—and in Scotland we deserve no less.”
Well, eight years on from the date of Douglas Mill’s memo to Mr McAllister, there have been no improvements in regulating the legal profession, and still, the Law Society of Scotland impedes and prevents clients access to justice when it sees fit.
Martin McAllister went onto say during the 2001 J1 inquiry : “The point is that the organisation is changing. We have made a number of changes in how we deal with complaints over the past 10 years. I do not think that the committee would find it useful to go through a list of those, but some key things are important in improving public perception, one of which is greater lay involvement. A second is the improvement in literature, so that the public have a much better idea of how we deal with complaints. We have brought with us our current, revised leaflets.”
What change ? The Law Society of Scotland hasn’t changed one bit over the past ten years, or the past twenty years for that. There is still a claims and complaints fixing policy to see that no claim or complaint goes to a fair & proper conclusion and clients who choose to complain are victimised almost to the point of death.
Christine Grahame’s Justice 1 Committee of 2001 forbade members of the public to appear before it to testify as to their experiences with the Law Society of Scotland, while lawyers, more Law Society officials, and just about anyone who could be dragged out to support the idea of self regulation (lawyers looking after complaints against lawyers) were allowed almost free reign to appear before the then Justice 1 Committee at the cost of excluding the Scots public.
It took a further five years until 2006 when members of the public, ordinary Scots like you and I, were able to appear at Holyrood during the 2006 LPLA Bill inquiry by the Justice 2 Committee and tell of how scandalous the Law Society of Scotland had treated them.
Marsh UK Director Alistair Sim to Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill - Collating information on the MacKenzies and throwing some red herrings at the Justice Committee ..
Email to Douglas Mill from Alistair J Sim
From: Alistair J Sim Sent 03 July 2001 09:30 To: douglasmill; davidcullen Subject JAHAC
Douglas / David
I have a couple of faxes from the MacKenzies intimating the sort of comments they say they will be conveying to the Justice Committee on 31 July. These do not call for any response from me.
Reference is made to evidence already given by the President and to a letter/fax the MacKenzies have sent to the President regarding their claims.
Could we discuss -
-whether any information is required from us/the insurers to enable the President to respond to the MacKenzies
-whether it will be appropriate to collate any information on the MacKenzies claims
-whether I or any of my colleagues or any of the claims team at RSA may be called to give evidence to the Committee.
Regards
Alistair.
Clearly Mr McAllister was privy to a great deal of information as Law Society President, information which could have ended the suffering of many clients who had been trying to pursue claims or complaints against their solicitors, but as the facts show, no action was taken by Mr McAllister to alleviate clients problems at the hands of his colleagues Douglas Mill, Philip Yelland & others at the Law Society of Scotland.
To a certain extent of course, Martin McAllister was but a tool of Douglas Mill, as the President of the Law Society of Scotland is more of an honorary position, the real power lying with the slightly dictatorial position of Chief Executive.
Clearly Mr McAllister could have done more, said more, and helped clients who were caught in the Douglas Mill doctrine much more than has happened, because as we hear from Mr Swinney himself, no client, no claim has been settled, not one.
Perhaps the memos identifying Mr McAllister in the claims & complaints fixing operation run by the Law Society of Scotland should have surfaced as a possible barrier to being appointed to the Judicial Appointments Board, which is a position itself responsible for the appointment of lawyers to positions on the judiciary.
Before I quote the Justice Secretary’s Press Release on the McAllister appointment, I feel a footnote is required on the second appointment contained in the Press Release, that of Lady Smith.
Lady Smith, appointed along with Martin McAllister, is the wife of David Smith, who was of course, appointed by Kenny MacAskill to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – to examine complaints against other lawyers.
You can read more about Mr MacAskill’s appointments to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in the following report I wrote earlier in the year :
You don’t have much imagination in public appointments, Mr MacAskill, do you ? and why did you try to use the Office of Public Appointments in Scotland to justify your selections because the OCPAS assessor apparently didn’t have sight of any of the information or memos your own Cabinet colleague Mr Swinney has within his files …
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice today announced the appointment of new legal members to the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland.
Lady Smith has been appointed as the Senator member to replace Lord Wheatley whose term of office came to and end in June. Lady Smith's appointment is for three years from July 1, 2008.
Lady Smith is a graduate of the University of Edinburgh. She was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1980, and appointed Queen's Counsel in 1993. She was appointed a judge of the Court of Session and High Court in 2001
Martin McAllister has been appointed as the solicitor member of the Board to replace Michael Scanlan whose term comes to an end later this year. Mr McAllister has been a solicitor since 1980. He was President of the Law Society of Scotland from 2001 to 2002 and is a partner of Taylor and Henderson, Solicitors in Saltcoats.
Mr McAllister has been appointed to the Board for a period of three years. He will take up his appointment in October.
These new appointees replace members who are retiring this year. The composition of the Board i.e. five legal and five lay persons remains unchanged.
Both appointments are part-time and carry a commitment of around 20 - 30 days a year. Mr McAllister will be entitled to a daily fee of £290. Lady Smith, being a serving judge, receives no fee for her attendance.
The appointments of the new solicitor member followed recommendations to Scottish Ministers by an independent selection panel chaired by the Rt Hon Lady Cosgrove, recently retired judge of the Court of Session.
The Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland was set up in 2002 with a remit to advise Ministers on the appointment of Judges, Sheriffs Principal and Sheriffs (both full-time and part-time). There are ten members, five legal members (a Judge, Sheriff Principal, Sheriff, an Advocate and a Solicitor) and five lay members including Sir Neil McIntosh as the lay Chairman.
The Judicial Appointments Board currently operates on an administrative basis and is therefore not subject to OCPAS regulations. However, the selection panel included an OCPAS assessor and followed good recruitment practice in making the recommendations for appointment.
More From A Diary of Injustice in Scotland as revelations show Law Society conferences on "Client Care" are the joke we all know them to be ... and a bloody good opportunity to have a free meal on the firm !
Despite the promise of 'a new era' in dealing with complaints against crooked lawyers and attempts to improve the appallingly poor quality of Scotland's overpriced legal services market, the Law Society of Scotland are still choosing to undermine the very foundations of client care, with more of the usual policies, sanctioning lawyers disgraceful treatment of clients to the point of ruin.
“When confronted by a large legal bill of approximately £10,000 from the defenders in a personal injury case I instructed the solicitors then representing me to lodge a motion to the Court of Session on basis you outline, that is, the clear potential for a serious conflict of interest arising given the Auditor of the Court of Session would be ruling on matters relating to a fellow professional's expenses.
My solicitors refused to submit the motion, claiming it was incompetent. When I suggested it was for the Court to decide this and I should at least be allowed the opportunity to present the motion and receive the Court's decision my solicitors threatened to withdraw if I insisted on submitting the motion.”
Not much in the way of client care there … is there ? Could there be some kind of accounting fiddle going on too while one lawyer is tasked to investigate another colleague’s expenses ? Maybe you too are getting a fiddled bill in from your lawyer in a now common fraud by solicitors against unsuspecting clients …
So, while preaching an emphasis on caring for the client, and attending to good service with one hand, the Law Society’s ‘other hand’ is being used again to undermine what it publicly preaches, in favour of a more sinister policy of protecting its members once again from negligence claims and complaints against poor work …
Recently there has been an upswing in 'profession orders' from the Law Society to solicitors to dump clients who are either complaining against another solicitor, or are trying to lodge court cases for negligence or financial recovery of damages from lawyers who have ruined clients.
A very recent example letter follows below, from the Law Society of Scotland to a solicitor, which was 'inadvertently' sent to the client by a member of that solicitor's staff, and then forwarded to me, goes to show there is no let up even now in how low the Law Society feels it can treat members of the public and get away with it :
Dear ****
I am writing to you with reference to your client Mr ****'s negligence claim against Messrs **** & **** . I would emphasise this is private correspondence between us which is under no circumstances to be disclosed to your client.
I note your client is seeking to have the various papers he is in possession of relating to the investigation of the complaint against Mr **** submitted in evidence for his negligence claim.
I also note from the terms of your letter your client apparently is insisting on calling witnesses from the Law Society of Scotland who took part in the investigation of the complaint made against Mr ****.
In consideration of the above information you have furnished us, I recommend you withdraw from acting from your client immediately and make it as difficult as possible for any potentially dangerous material to be returned to your client in the file.
Yours sincerely,
Mr ****
* I have been asked to remove names & identities of those concerned for now, on the instructions of the client who sent me the letter.
I, of course, am not surprised in the slightest at the above letter, as this is a well trodden path for the legal profession when dealing with clients who have been ruined by one of their colleagues. It just goes to reinforce what has already been reported by myself and attested to by others over the years, the Law Society of Scotland is, a corrupt institution, and must be denied any future regulatory role in complaints or client claims made against solicitors.
I am not surprised ... why ? Well, just look at a few similar letters I have reported on in the past .. together with input from Cabinet Secretary for Finance Mr John Swinney (SNP) who bravely exposed another such letter in the Scottish Parliament itself.
John Swinney MSP exposes Law Society Chiefs who ordered lawyers to dump clients who were ruined by crooked lawyers
On my own case too, I received similar treatment from none other than Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill and Director of Client Relations Philip Yelland, who personally intervened in both my legal aid claims, and ordered my solicitor not to take instructions from me which like the above letter quoted, sought to prevent my inclusion of evidence gathered by the Law Society against well known crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso, whom you can read more about from the Scotsman stories on that case here :
Here are copies of the actual letters from Philip Yelland ordering my solicitor not to take my instructions on the claim against Andrew Penman, and Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill ordering my legal aid be refused here :
Client Relations Director Philip Yelland :
'I order you not to help your client Mr Cherbi or take his instructions on submitting evidence in his negligence claim against Andrew Penman'
Dear Mr Reid
Complaint by Peter Cherbi against Andrew Penman
I refer to your letter of 30 July which my colleague Mary McGowan responded to during my absence on annual leave.
I would ask you to note the reference number on this letter which is in fact the correct reference number rather than the reference number quoted on the previous correspondence to you which relates to the subsequent complaint made by Mr Cherbi against Andrew Penman which is currently held in abeyance until such time as the negligence action has concluded.
I think that I should also draw to your attention at this stage terms of Section 56A of The Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 as it seems to me that this is relevant to the issues which you are seeking to raise.
In terms of sub-paragraph (1) the taking of any steps under Section 42A (2) of the Act (that is a finding of inadequate professional service) shall not be founded upon in any proceedings for the purposes of showing that the solicitor in respect of whom the steps were taken was negligent.
In addition in terms of sub-section (2) any award of compensation made in respect of a finding of inadequate professional service may be taken into account in any computation of an award of damages to be made following on negligence proceedings.
I thought it only proper given that you had written to this office that these matters were drawn to your attention.
Yours sincerely
Philip J Yelland Director
So, what was Mr Yelland doing writing to my lawyer telling him not to take my instructions on submitting the evidence of the complaints investigation against Andrew Penman which I wanted heard out in the Court of Session ?
Were the Law Society so desperate they didn’t want all the dirty details of what happened at the Complaints Committee coming out in public, where Senior Law Society member James Ness had inserted false evidence and personal attacks to save Mr Penman in a routine which until then had been kept secret from most clients who lodged complaints against their solicitors …
Now the turn of Douglas Mill, who was determined to prevent my access to the court at any cost, even ensuring I wasn’t able to ask for a Judicial Review against how the Law Society Complaints Committee and a few of its top staff saved crooked lawyer Andrew Penman. Telling a few lies and half truths was certainly not beneath a rather desperate Douglas Mill as his letter to the Legal Aid Board demonstrates :
Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill :
Cancel Peter Cherbi's legal aid claim and any access to justice on my orders or else …
Dear Ms Ewart
Legal Aid Application - Peter Cherbi
I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20 March together with the copy of the intimation of Mr Cherbi's application for civil legal aid.
The Law Society would not wish to formally object to his application for Legal Aid but, I think it is only proper that I draw certain issues to your attention.
The complaint which Mr Cherbi made against Mr Penman was fully investigated by the Law Society and upheld. there was a finding of misconduct made against Mr Penman and also an order made in relation to the inadequate professional service provided.
Mr Cherbi thereafter exercised his right to refer the Law Society's handling of the matter ot the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman. the Ombudsman made certain recommendations some of which were accepted by the Law Society.
It is understood that Mr Cherbi seeks to judicially review the decision of the Council of the Law Society not prosecute Mr Penman before the Discipline Tribunal. the point which I would wish to emphasises is that whilst Mr Cherbi is clearly a person with an interest to complain and was entitled to make his complaint, it is for the Law Society in terms of the relevant legislation to determine, firstly whether the complaint can be upheld and then to determine the appropriate penalty.
The complainer does not have a part to play in determining penalty.
I will be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm that these commends have been noted. I note, incidentally, that the intimation document which you sent did not reach the Law Society presumably because the Law Society's full address was not included on it.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Mill The Secretary
These letters on my own case are quite a common occurrence when clients of crooked lawyers find they can no longer gain access to justice or legal representation, the reasons for that being clear in the 'professional orders' handed down to solicitors from the Law Society, however, it is very difficult for a client to get hold of such material, believe me.
In one now famous case where there was a 'leak' from the Law Society of Scotland on the personal memos of Douglas Mill & others, did the true extent of the Law Society's ability and determination to prevent members of the public from obtaining access to justice in claims against crooked lawyers.
You can read more about that case involving a client who was able to testify before the Scottish Parliament in the following articles :
The determination of the Law Society to keep such a deniable policy afloat even led to it's Chief Executive and senior staff appearing before the Scottish Parliament and simply telling lies to deny what has become obvious to all - a policy to protect crooked lawyers at any cost whatsoever.
Law Society Chief Exec Douglas Mill – despite what my own memos say, I never fiddled complaints against crooked lawyers !
So, there we have it folks, for "Client Care", read "Client Control", and for "access to justice" read "control of access to justice".
What right if any does the Law Society of Scotland have to preach "Client Relations" when all it does is ensure that clients have no access to justice or legal services if it turns out like an increasing number of people, they have been defrauded by their solicitors ...
However, the Law Society with its seemingly vast army of paid political allies (some of whom seem to be in receipt of free legal services), continues on in its unchecked ways, reminding everyone, who is actually in control of the legal services and to this end, an impending, if imaginatively titled conference "Client Care and avoiding client dissatisfaction" hosted by the Law Society of Scotland, is listed as having the following aims :
(1) Identify areas which can give rise to client concerns and complaints (2) Suggest ways of avoiding these issues (3) Put forward ways of how they can be dealt with if and when they arise
Well, identifying areas which give rise to client concerns and complaints shouldn’t be too difficult … lying to clients, cheating clients, embezzling clients finds, ripping off the estates & wills of dead clients, stealing clients land & property … all areas which could give rise to client concerns & complaints, yes ?
Suggesting ways of avoiding the above … well .. that would be teaching and ensuring much higher standards of legal service, by keeping a watchful eye on the profession (which the Law Society has obviously not been doing) and ensuring that lawyers don’t continue with their present attitude of ‘lets rip off clients because we know we can get away with it’.
Putting forward ways of dealing with the above … well well well … I have a few things to say about that, as I’m sure many of you do too ! but put simply, an effective, independent regulatory body, fully accountable and transparent, with strong powers of enforcement, would just about do the trick, and of course, not forgetting opening up the legal services market fully to competition, to ensure that when lawyers feel they have to boycott an individual’s right of access to justice, that individual can still go somewhere else.
After reading all of the above, have a look here at the Law Society’s idea of a Client Care conference :
Client Care and avoiding client dissatisfaction has always been important in trying to avoid complaints. The creation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission dealing with service complaints alone will see a change in the regulatory structure in 2008.
The aim of this event is to: Identify areas which can give rise to client concerns and complaints; Suggest ways of avoiding these issues; and Put forward ways of how they can be dealt with if and when they arise
The aim of the event is to try to ensure that practitioners are aware of these issues and to give an indication in general terms about how the Commission is at this stage developing.
Convener: Philip Yelland from The Law Society
Speakers: Philip Yelland from The Law Society Russell Lang from Marsh Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission
Registration: 5.30pm Seminar: 6pm - 8pm
£55.00 + £9.62 VAT = £64.62
If the legal profession want to hear from clients themselves (which they obviously don't), why not let in clients for free ?
Could it be that Philip Yelland would rather order solicitors to drop their clients, not take their instructions or see to it they never get access to legal services again, rather than teach how clients should be respected and not ripped off or have their access to justice limited ?
Perhaps a good idea now would be for Jane Irvine, the Chairman of the 'new' and supposedly independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to hold some client care conferences at the SLCC and get the public perspective on how client care should develop, not the wishes orders from the legal profession itself.
More From Peter Cherbi's A Diary of Injustice in Scotland as the industry wide slowdown starts affecting the way fees to clients are .... miscalculated upwards ..
There is little doubt we are in a recession, and amid falling house prices, falling pay packets, rising energy bills and rising unemployment, the outlook is certainly not a rosy one for everybody and even Scotland's multi billion pound legal services market, controlled exclusively by the Law Society of Scotland is now experiencing problems, with the likelihood of job losses and hardship along with the rest of us.
However, while the Law Society of Scotland last week issued a Press Release on the subject of the current poor economic climate affecting lawyers, citing its concerns over redundancies and problems in the legal sector, there was a marked reluctance to talk about lawyers hiking up their fees for legal work which remains markedly poor in competence or honesty.
Of course, when industries feel the pinch, they put the bills up. British Gas just did that, upping the cost of your fuel bills by a whopping 35% ... and no doubt petrol will be going up again soon too .. putting the squeeze on your pockets along with the cost of everything else we all consume.
There should therefore be little surprise to you that lawyers have decided to hike their own legal fees by (in some cases) a whopping 40% on top of the £1.2billion they are already making from clients, so its now the turn of consumers to get hit with large legal bills too …
So, have you recently been charged £3,500 from a solicitor for a little work which might have only been £1,050 ?, because that is now happening to clients all over Scotland .
Time perhaps to challenge your solicitors fees just as many have challenged Bank fees and more unacceptable charges for less than adequate service …
Bill Aitken MSP : Scots Legal Services market worth £1.2billion … but that's not enough for some as lawyers fees now hit your roof !
As you can see from the above video, it was only a few months ago that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and others so fond of solicitors at the expense of consumers, stood up in the Scottish Parliament and toasted the multi billion pound monopolistic legal services industry in Scotland controlled by the Law Society of Scotland, so why now should some in the legal world feel they have to hike up the cost of their work for clients, which is still mostly poor and lacking in standards.
Well, for one thing, property prices are down, quite a bit, as are house sales, which rake in lots of money for solicitors in legal fees, so clients must be hit, and hit hard on other kinds of legal work now to make up for the shortfall.After all, keeping up the family, the three houses, the five cars and other wee bits on the side must be passed onto unsuspecting clients, and if you can’t pay, your house and possessions will do nicely.
There are certainly a few unsuspecting clients by the looks of things as some fee notes I saw earlier this week showed solicitors charging clients for work done while they were actually receiving legal aid, and settlements in long drawn out cases being withheld by legal firms, while they fiddle up fee notes of extortionate proportions, for ultimately achieving nothing .. just to steal the settlements in their entirety for themselves, the client ultimately getting nothing … not a penny …
In one case brought to my attention, concerning a long running land dispute, a family who employed one of Edinburgh's top legal firms, have ultimately been hounded out by their landlord, yet they have received a large settlement to ensure their departure.
Unfortunately for that family in the case I refer to, their 'big name' Edinburgh lawyers have now taken the entire agreed settlement while they do some creative accounting for work done, which in reality wasn't much, if anything at all.
A small, but important detail to the case is the family concerned were on legal aid the whole time … but all the while, that ‘big name’ Edinburgh legal firm were demanding additional private cash payments … while apparently not disclosing such demands & payments to the Legal Aid Board, in what now seems to be a typical practice to make up for shortfalls in other areas of business.
But what will the Scottish Legal Aid Board think .. or do ? if they find out this 'big name' Edinburgh legal firm was demanding money from the clients while also taking from the legal aid purse .... as so many legal firms seem to be doing these days ...
Of course, you don't really get to find out much about lawyers fees, because the legal profession sets its own fees, and is accountable to no one in that respect.
Yes, lawyers set their own fees. There is no independent body to adjudicate on what lawyers can and cannot charge for their services. The Law Society of Scotland basically gives the go ahead for lawyers to charge what they want, and if you don't like it, when faced with a large account you cannot pay, your house will do nicely, if not your life.
Oh yes .. there is the not so often used "taxation of fees" where if you are unhappy with the fees charged by your solicitor in litigation which may have ended up in the Court of Session, you can apply to the "Auditor of the Court of Session" to have your account 'independently scrutinised', but here's a surprise for you - the Auditor of the Court of Session is a member of the Law Society of Scotland, so, in Scotland’s most important courtroom, there is no independent scrutiny of lawyers fees.
The present Auditor of the Court of Session is Mr Neil J Crichton, who was appointed to his position in December 1997, over 11 years ago and will be retiring on 28 September 2008. The following release from the then Scottish Executive lists Mr Crichton’s appointment :
ISSUED ON BEHALF OF SCOTTISH COURTS ADMINISTRATION
The Secretary of State has appointed Mr Neil J Crichton to be Auditor of the Court of Session on the retirement of Mr J Haldane Tait on March 31, 1998. Mr Crichton is currently senior partner in the Edinburgh firm of Aitken Nairn WS.
BACKGROUND
The Auditor of the Court of Session is a statutory appointment made by the Secretary of State on the nomination of the Lord Advocate. The main duty of the Auditor is, on remit from the Court, to tax accounts of expenses incurred in civil litigation and fix the remuneration of the receivers and liquidators. He also taxes accounts which the Scottish Legal Aid Board are unable to agree with the Solicitor and/or Counsel acting for a legally-assisted client in a Court of Session case.
News Release - 1975/97 Date December 9, 1997
It is important to note the "Auditor of the Court of Session" is not accountable to the Scottish Court Service in terms of if a complaint is filed against his decisions on fees.
The Auditor of the Court is in fact, a practicing solicitor, a member of the Law Society of Scotland.
It is a fact that all solicitors, and members of the Law Society of Scotland must also keep their indemnity insurance payments to the same Master Insurance Policy which itself has been brought into such disrepute concerning concocted fee notes over negligent legal service for many years, many of such cases surfacing in the media.
So, if you have a complaint about a huge bill from a solicitor which involves work in the Court of Session, and which is wholly unjustified, you can take it to taxation, which means giving it to the Auditor of the Court of Session.
However, if you remain unsatisfied with the Auditor of the Court of Session's findings, you cannot complain to the Scottish Courts Service, because the Auditor of the Court of Session does not fall within the remit of the SCS, the Auditor falls within the remit of the Law Society of Scotland to whom you must make a complaint if you remain dissatisfied with the Auditor’s decision in your case.
So, bearing in mind all of the above, is it safe now, in these times of required and expected reforms to Scotland's woefully poor legal services market, to allow another solicitor, and member of the Law Society of Scotland, the power of auditing solicitors legal fees in Scotland’s highest court, when there are disputes from clients?
Surely it should now be the case that, with the measure of independent regulation brought in with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, there should be a new system of independent scrutiny of solicitors fees where clients feel they are unexplainably and unjustifiably high.
Perhaps now is the time to bring in an independent and accountable panel of auditors who are not linked to the legal profession, but are able to hear cases of client challenge to exorbitant legal fees and independently adjudicate on what are ever spiraling costs of legal services in the current solicitor monopolised Scottish legal services market.
It is important to note that while all Sheriff Courts have an auditor of the court, not all are solicitors. There are three solicitors who are “Auditors of the Court’, based at Scotland’s three key courts – Glasgow, Aberdeen, and of course, the Court of Session in Edinburgh. The remaining auditor’s of court in the Sheriff Courts, are employed directly by the Scottish Courts Service.
You can find out more about “Taxation” at the Court of Session on the Auditor of the Court of Session’s website here : Taxation at the Court of Session
The Law Society’s explanation of how to query solicitors fees begins with an uninspiring account of what they cannot do …
“The Law Society of Scotland does not have the power to consider the amount of fees charged by a solicitor but has responsibility in relation to considering the quality of service provided by the solicitor.”
Interestingly, the Law Society of Scotland leave out the fact the auditors of Scotland’s main courts, are actually members of the Law Society of Scotland, and that in effect, you have a solicitor adjudicating the fees of another solicitor, which is certainly not a model of independent scrutiny by any measure of the word.
It cannot be said the Law Society’s information on challenging solicitor’s fees inspires any degree of trust whatsoever, after the Law Society of Scotland has acted with such contempt against clients for decades when complaints have been made against not only crooked & negligent solicitors, but also those who on a regular basis, fiddle their legal fees to you, sky high.
Time for a much needed change on how solicitors fees are set and scrutinised, to ensure full and proper consumer protection from a money making system which currently runs itself without accountability to anyone.
My advice to readers :Faced with a high legal bill from your solicitor ? Publish it online, name the lawyer and the legal firm, and challenge the authenticity & accountability of their fees.
It’s now time to challenge those big legal bills from lawyers just as people have successfully challenged extortionate bank charges which have been taking place for years against consumers. Remember – it’s your money … and no one is unjustly entitled to it.
Injustice Scotland’s campaign to reclaim high legal charges :
Just for reference, here is the Law Society’s Press Release, which was passed onto me by a journalist who could hardly stop laughing at the prospect of a few lawyers losing their jobs …
There isn’t much thought about clients in the Law Society’s Press Release which focuses on the hardship of lawyers … but of course, hiking the fee notes to clients might help a few retain their jobs and luxuries at your expense …
Henry Robson, deputy chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, said: “Legal firms, like many other businesses in Scotland, are feeling the effects of the current economic climate.
“The Law Society is monitoring the situation and while at present relatively few solicitors have informed us of being made redundant, we have had reports of support staff from firms across the country having lost their jobs, which is a real concern.
“The professional practice department is giving help and advice to solicitors who may yet be faced with losing their job or equally to solicitor employers who have never before been in the position of having to make people redundant.
The Law Society is just one of many organizations to be affected by the uncertainty of the property market and we have decided to delay plans to relocate.
“The legal profession is not only being affected by the economic situation, but also by changes in legislation. For example, the slowdown has come at a time when summary justice reforms are having a negative impact on the volume of criminal legal aid work.”
The Law Society’s president, Richard Henderson, has written to Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer, to raise concerns about the impact on the profession of the current economic downturn and there has also been a meeting with Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to make strong representations about the potential detrimental effects of the plans to introduce Home Reports in December.
The Law Society is working on a number of initiatives to support solicitors, including holding a conference to provide information and business advice specifically for high street firms. The charity LawCare can also offer advice and support to solicitors facing difficulties.
The Law Society’s education and training department is also offering support to those concerned about traineeships.
Mr Robson added: “As the representative body for solicitors, and working closely with paralegal colleagues, we share the profession's concerns and will continue to monitor the situation closely and provide support to our members."
ENDS
so … lawyers will get all the help they need from the Law Society .. but clients will have to pay for it through the nose … inspiration to avoid using a solicitor who is a member of the Law Society of Scotland and a good argument again, to open up Scotland’s legal services market much quicker than Mr MacAskill seems to be willing to do …
