Monday, February 27, 2012

PLOT to plunder Legal Aid MILLIONS : Law Society backed company formed by its own legal aid team aimed to siphon fees from Police station duty scheme

slabLaw Society’s own legal aid negotiating team in legal aid plunder job. WHEN things are so bad the Law Society of Scotland decides to silently back a group of lawyers from its own criminal legal aid negotiating team who then go off to form a private company (Esto Law Ltd) with the alleged aim of siphoning off some (or as much as possible) of the ONE HUNDRED & FIFTY FIVE MILLION POUNDS of taxpayers money to be spent this year by the Scottish Government on the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) who make legal aid payments to law firms & solicitors already moaning about cuts to legal aid fees, you just know arguments such as “access to justice”, or what is “in the public interest” take a significant back seat to the pound signs flashing up like an out of control cash register in a lawyer’s eyes.

In fact, not content with backing the private venture to ‘offer new services’ to lawyers in relation to the rather messy Police Station duty scheme, run by SLAB which enables a person who is arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence to consult with a solicitor, either in person or on the telephone whilst in police custody, (something Esto Law wants to tap into for the legal aid money by being an unnecessary go-between) the Law Society went one step further and wrote a report clearing their now former criminal legal aid negotiating team of any impropriety whatsoever, reported earlier, HERE 

Today, as part of a Freedom of Information disclosure supplied to Scottish Law Reporter by one of our journalists, the Scottish Legal Aid Board released Information contained in documents & discussions between SLAB, the Glasgow Bar Association and any Scottish law firms which communicated with SLAB on the subject of Esto Law Ltd and any services/proposed services offered by Esto Law ltd. Surprise !, the meetings which included fleeting visits from SLAB’s very own Chief Executive, Lindsay Montgomery, and other well known figures from the Scottish Legal Aid Board (chuff chuff – Ed) had no notes taken. (Don’t you just love these no-notes-taken-meetings involving tens of millions of pounds of public money. Thoroughly untrustworthy indeed – Ed)

In relation to the FOI request, made in January by one of our journalists, a full copy of which can be read below or downloaded online HERE, the following information was disclosed :

1.How many meetings took place between representatives of SLAB and Directors of Esto Law Ltd? : Two meetings took place between representatives of the Scottish Legal Aid Board and directors of Esto Law Ltd.

2.On what basis were these meetings convened? : The meetings were convened at the request of representatives from Esto Law Ltd to have initial, informal discussions with a view to ensuring that their proposals met the Board’s requirements for the operation of the Police Station Duty scheme, and our requirements for the registration of firms and connected solicitors. No formal applications for registration had been made at that stage.

We would expect any new private firm proposing to deliver a new service such as that proposed by Esto  to have discussions with us to ensure that their proposals fully met all our requirements. At no stage did we advise that any special arrangements could or would be made for Esto Ltd. No minutes were taken of these meetings.

Who was present from SLAB and Esto Law Ltd in the meetings that took place? The representatives at the two meetings were as follows:

8 November 2011 2pm SLAB Offices, Drumsheugh  Gardens, Edinburgh. Scottish Legal Aid Board: Douglas Haggarty, Head of Legal Services (Criminal and Technical), Linda Laughland, Head of Human Resources, Kingsley Thomas, Manager, Criminal Applications, Alison Craig, Team Leader, Criminal Applications

Esto representatives : Vincent McGovern, Ian Bryce, Ken Dalling, John Scott, John Keenan, Neil Robertson, Stuart Munro

23 November 2011 4pm SLAB Offices, 44 Drumsheugh Gardens Edinburgh, Scottish Legal Aid Board: Lindsay Montgomery, Chief Executive (At start of meeting only and not present for the substantive discussions.), Colin Lancaster;Director of Policy and Development,Douglas Haggarty; Head of Legal Services (Criminal and Technical), Kingsley Thomas; Manager, Criminal Applications.

Esto representatives : Vincent McGovern, Ian Bryce

4.When were the meetings and are there minutes from said meetings?
The dates of the meetings are shown above. No minutes were taken of these meetings, given their informal nature.

5.What assurances were given to the Directors of Esto Law Ltd in relation to it provision of advice and assistance for an agency service for the police station duty scheme, given that in terms of the current duty scheme, solicitors are not allowed to delegate duty, the duty instead passing to the alternative duty agent.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about the operation of the police station duty scheme. The details of the scheme were published on 25 May 2011. At no point in the scheme is it specified that duty solicitors are not allowed to delegate police attendances, with the duty instead passing to the alternative duty agent. Indeed, we have tried to ensure that the police station duty scheme can be operated as flexibility and reasonably as possible given the circumstances when police station attendances may be required. It was always envisaged that flexible cover arrangements would be used by duty solicitors to ensure that police station attendances could be arranged as quickly as possible  as long as any attendances were made by solicitors who had been accepted on to a police station duty plan.

6.In any of the meetings with the Directors of Esto Law Ltd was it indicated by the Board that the   above restriction was to be withdrawn and that duty solicitors would be entitled to nominate an agency solicitor to attend or give advice on their behalf?

Are any such changes planned or in contemplation in relation to the police duty scheme? If there are when were these plans first mooted and buy whom?

As mentioned above, no such restriction exists within the current interim police station duty scheme.

7.If there are no planned changes to the police station duty scheme, on what basis did the Board indicate to the Directors of Esto Law Ltd that the services that they proposed to supply conformed to the current requirements?

As there is no restriction preventing a duty solicitor delegating their attendance, then the services which were  proposed by Esto Law Ltd appeared to comply with the current scheme.

8. Does the Board accept that it is inappropriate for the Board to engage in meetings and discussion with private venture companies whilst concurrently engaging in negotiations with the same people acting in a representative capacity for the Profession?

At the time of our meetings with Esto Law Ltd, there were no concurrent negotiations with the Law Society, or any other engagement with their negotiating team. It would have been wholly inappropriate for the Board to decline to discuss with any firm of solicitors whether any new proposed services would meet the current legal aid requirements.

9.What steps did the Board take to ensure commercial neutrality in their dealings with the Directors of Esto Law Ltd?

The purpose of the meetings with Esto Law Ltd was to ensure that their proposals met the Board’s requirements for the operation of the Police Station Duty scheme, and our requirements for the registration of firms and connected solicitors. No special arrangements were requested or discussed with Esto. I am satisfied that the Board representatives acted properly in their dealings with Esto, and would have acted in the same way with any other private firm who requested a meeting to discuss new services.

10. Did the Board agree that Esto Law Ltd could receive calls direct from police stations by passing the call centre? If so, what was the basis and justification for agreement?

The Board did not agree that Esto Law Ltd could receive calls direct from police stations by-passing the Board Solicitor Contact Centre. The Esto representatives did not request this. However, the Board made it clear that an individual solicitor who registered with Esto would need to confirm to us that they had done this and that they wished us to contact Esto on their behalf. It was made clear that police stations would still contact the Board Solicitor Contact Line where suspects require legal advice.

11.The Law Society of Scotland is now instigating a full investigation into the creation of Esto Law Ltd by members of its Legal Aid Negotiating Team. I would be obliged if you would confirm with me that you will similarly launch a full investigation in relation to the dealings between the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Directors of Esto Law Ltd.

The important issue here is that the purpose of the meetings with ESTO Law Ltd was to ensure that the Board’s requirements for the Police Station Duty Scheme and the requirements for the registration of firms and connected solicitors were not breached. It was made clear to the Esto directors that no   special arrangements would be made for Esto and that we would deal with any other firm wishing to set up new arrangements in the same way. The directors of Esto were at pains to confirm that they would not be seeking any special arrangements and that they wished to ensure compliance with the Board’s requirements.

We also understand that the Law Society of Scotland is conducting an investigation into the creation of Esto Law Ltd. Of course, if we are asked to contribute to that investigation, we will be happy to do so. I see no basis for an investigation to be carried out by the Board. As shown above, we held two meetings with representatives from Esto Law Ltd to discuss the Board’s requirements for the operation of the Police Station Duty scheme, and our requirements for the registration of firms and connected solicitors, and we were also sent background information on their proposed service. In the course of these meetings, and the consideration of their proposals, we discussed matters that we would expect any private concern to discuss with us  before setting up a new service providing publicly funded legal assistance.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Letter bomb trial : Prosecutors concerned alleged ‘Facebook spat between lawyers’ may be seen as ‘attempt to undermine accused legal representation’

trioNeil Lennon, Trish Godman & ‘top QC Paul McBride were targets of viable letter bombs. SERIOUS CONCERNS have been privately expressed by Crown Office insiders regarding an alleged FACEBOOK spat reported in national newspapers involving two advocates from the MacKinnon Advocates stable, one a high profile 'Top' QC, Paul McBride, and the other, Victoria J Young who narrowly escaped a criminal prosecution for stalking. Both advocates are involved (Mr McBride as a victim, Ms Young representing the accused) in the trial due to take place next week at the High Court in Glasgow of two men accused of plotting to murder Mr McBride QC, Celtic boss Neil Lennon and ex-MSP Trish Godman by means of sending “Viable” parcel bombs to the Celtic manager and the two high-profile fans of the Glasgow club.

Reports that a Faculty of Advocates investigation into allegations one of the advocates representing the accused in the trial, Victoria J Young who narrowly escaped a criminal prosecution for stalking after being charged by Strathclyde Police had “slagged off” one of the alleged victims of the letter bomb murder plot "top” QC Paul McBride, via the social network website FACEBOOK have so far been DENIED by senior figures from the FoA, however it now transpires insiders at Scotland’s prosecution service have expressed concern the spat between the two QCs, one a victim and the other, representing one of the accused, “may well have damaged or undermined the accused’ legal representation” leading to concerns over the progress of trial, due next week..

Speaking in the earlier report a Faculty insider who wished to remain anonymous said there was concern the allegations may have “an alternative agenda” however the insider did not wish to elaborate further.

It is now generally accepted Scotland has a significant sectarian problem which has grown so bad, the Lord Advocate authorised Crown Office to destroy its statistics on hate crimes against Catholics in case the predominantly EU found out, as reported HERE

BBC News reported on the parcel bombs incident : The first suspect package was intercepted by the Royal Mail in Kirkintilloch, East Dunbartonshire, on 26 March and was addressed to Mr Lennon at Celtic's training ground in nearby Lennoxtown. Two days later a device was delivered to Labour politician Ms Godman's constituency office in Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire. Her staff were suspicious of the package and contacted Strathclyde Police. The third package was addressed to Mr McBride at the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh. It is believed to have been posted in Ayrshire before being found in a letter box by a postal worker on Friday and taken to a Royal Mail sorting office in Kilwinning, where police were contacted.

Commenting on the incident, Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond said: "Let us be quite clear - there is a major police investigation under way to ensure that the individual or individuals concerned are identified and apprehended, and then brought to book with the full force of the law. We will not tolerate this sort of criminality in Scotland, and as an indication of the seriousness with which we view these developments the Cabinet sub-committee met last Saturday to ensure that the police investigation has every possible support to come to a successful conclusion."

Law Society of Scotland report on Esto Law Ltd row ‘clears’ insider committee members ‘attempt to siphon off legal aid money from other lawyers’

THE Law Society of Scotland has finally produced a report on complaints regarding the actions of its former Legal Aid Negotiating Team Committee members who sped off to form their own private firm in what many solicitors said was an organised attempt to grab legal aid money. The report is the typical whitewash rubbish produced by the Law Society of Scotland, illustrating that even when solicitors complain about their own regulatory & representative body, there is little impartiality on the Law Society’s part to investigate itself and actions which, according to several people in the know, were clearly backed by senior elements of the Law Society of Scotland, otherwise they simply wouldn't have been able to take place.

Among many things the Law Society's report omits, is a claim from a senior Scottish Legal Aid Board official that at least one SLAB member of staff appeared to be under the impression he was being offered a job with a higher salary “to jump ship” from SLAB to the new concern, with all his inside knowledge of the legal aid board’s workings.

The former directors of Esto Law Limited issued a statement, saying they were happy the Law Society of Scotland had managed to write a report clearing them of any wrongdoing (Law Society clears someone of wrongdoing, how unusual, not ! – Ed)

Ian Bryce, Director, said "We welcome this report which entirely vindicates our position. It is regrettable that the need for the Review arose from concerns which were based on misconception and misinformation. A small number of vocal critics chose to ignore or misrepresent information provided to them, and we agree with the Law Society that some of the conduct which followed was "deplorable". A number of our critics have told us privately that they never doubted our integrity, and we regret that they did not see fit to state that publicly. Esto Law now intends to work with those solicitors who recognise the challenges faced by the profession and seek innovative solutions to them.”

John Scott QC, former Director, said: “This report confirms what we said at the outset - we did nothing wrong. Esto Law was an attempt to help criminal law firms who were, and are, still struggling to adapt to the challenges of the Cadder case and 24 hour police station cover. The report clears us of any “wrongdoing” and states specifically that there were no conflicts of interest and no potential conflicts of interest. I welcome that. This has been a deeply unpleasant experience as a result of professional colleagues who have chosen to make allegations of impropriety which have proven to be unfounded. Despite their false claims our reputations remain intact.”

This is the full text of the Law Society's report into the investigation of Esto Law Limited.

On 16 December 2011, the Council of the Law Society of Scotland agreed to establish a review which looked into the concerns that had been raised by members about the legal practice Esto Law Ltd and the Society’s Criminal Legal Aid Negotiating Team(CLANT). It was agreed that the results of that review should be reported to Council. This review was remitted to the President, Cameron Ritchie, and the Vice President, Austin Lafferty, who enlisted the assistance of non-solicitor Council member John Reid to advise on the review. The following is the joint report to the Council on our review and our subsequent conclusions and recommendations.

B. Background

On 28 October 2011, four former members of CLANT – Ian Bryce, Ken Dalling, Vincent McGovern and John Scott - along with two other solicitors, agreed in principle to form a new limited company. One of the purposes of the new business would be to provide out-of-hours access to police station legal advice on behalf of solicitors who were contacted by the police. One existing member of CLANT – Stuart Munro - was later invited to become a director of the new company on 1 November and it was later agreed that the name of the new firm would be Esto Law.

The decision to set up the new firm followed earlier discussions at the end of September which involved some although not all of the aforementioned solicitors in which they considered how they could work together to service their own firms’ police station interview work. According to Companies House, Esto was incorporated on 10 October 2011. However, it is worth noting that the entity itself was simply incorporated as an ‘off the shelf’ company on this date and without any involvement of the solicitors who later purchased the company following their in principle decision of 28 October. The new firm was publicly launched on 12 December 2011. The out-of-hours police station duty advice service was then withdrawn a matter of days later following criticism from a number of different sources within the profession, criticism which related to a number of different issues of different natures.

Of the members of CLANT involved, Vincent McGovern resigned from the team on 21 July 2011, John Scott on 18 October, Ian Bryce on 27 October (he intimated his intention to resign to the president of the Law Society on 25 October), Ken Dalling on 27 October (he intimated his resignation to the president by email on 31 October), Stuart Munro on 13 December, having previously been advised on 7 November by the Society’s legal aid convener Oliver Adair that there was no need for him to resign at that time.

Iain Paterson, who was another member of CLANT but not involved with Esto, resigned on 11 December. In his letter of resignation to the President, Mr Paterson noted the decision of a number of his former CLANT colleagues to establish a new firm. Mr Paterson made clear his belief that the solicitors involved were working with honourable intentions and that the service the new firm proposed to offer would be useful to members. However, he expressed concern at the perception of the move and the possible impact on his reputation as a member of CLANT.

The general issue of the setting up and operation of a police station duty scheme (PSDS) was first discussed in April 2011 in meetings involving CLANT, the Scottish Government and Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), before any member resigned. Vincent McGovern resigned from CLANT at a relatively early stage in those discussions.

The directors of Esto have advised us that the idea of establishing a new firm for the provision of out-of-hours police station advice came about after Lord Carloway gave a speech at the Law Society’s annual conference on 6 September. We have already explained that the solicitors who subsequently became involved in Esto, with the exception of Stuart Munro, met at the end of September to consider how they could work together to service their police station interview work. Further discussions following that meeting led to the development of the Esto model. By the time of the first meeting, the negotiations with the Scottish Government and SLAB over the PSDS had concluded. Vincent McGovern was not a member of CLANT at this point having resigned two months earlier. Of the other four members of CLANT involved in Esto, only Stuart Munro remained a member of CLANT by the time of the launch of the new business in December.

It is also worth noting that Ian Moir, who was not involved in any way with the formation of Esto, was a member of CLANT throughout the period in question. Indeed, he remains a member of CLANT. We are not aware of any concerns having been raised with the Society by Mr Moir with respect to the actions of his former committee colleagues.

We were informed by the Esto directors that market research was conducted, and was overwhelmingly favourable to the idea of a business service similar to that offered by Esto. Even following the public controversy over the scheme, we were told that many firms have indicated a desire to participate, citing the positive effect on their work and home lives. We have been told that the solicitors who were to be recruited to carry out the work remain extremely enthusiastic. The Esto scheme had no downside for solicitors, or their clients. If solicitors did not wish to use the service, their position was not affected. The model allowed access to the PSDS by individual firms and practitioners who otherwise, for example by reason of family commitment or disability, would have been unable to participate.

C. The issues raised

Concerns and allegations have been expressed by various parties over the involvement of the five former members of CLANT (Vincent McGovern, John Scott, Ian Bryce, Ken Dalling and Stuart Munro). These vary in nature and seriousness and are that the solicitors involved:

• used the position of being CLANT members and information made only available to such members during negotiations with SLAB and the Scottish Government to further their business venture;
• used the position of being CLANT members and information made only available to such members during negotiations with SLAB and the Scottish Government, thereby misleading members of the profession by withholding relevant information from them and by inducing those members not to support the public police duty scheme with the sole intention of establishing a competing business;
• continued to act as members of CLANT and negotiate on behalf of the profession where there was a significant conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest.

The issues raised have the potential to undermine the reputation of the Law Society of Scotland, its committees and sub-committees as well as those who volunteer their to serve on these committees. Apart from establishing the facts around the establishment of Esto and the actions of its directors in relation to the work of CLANT, the purpose of this review has been to determine from evidence what happened, to address the concerns raised and to recommend any actions that the Council of the Society may wish to take to address any systemic issues.

We were informed by the Esto directors that they expected that the profession would behave in accordance with the standards expected of members of the Society and that members would assess the merits of the product, and the integrity of those who sought to provide it, in a rational manner, without personal animus or prejudice. It was not anticipated that solicitors to whom the history of CLANT engagement had been communicated and publicised would ignore or misrepresent the facts and it was noted that CLANT had in fact been commended by the Glasgow Bar Association (GBA) for its communication during the PSDS issue. The criticisms, which the directors argue were wrong in assumption and fact, were directed to the Society, and indeed the Scottish Parliament, and copied to the press, without ever being communicated directly to those involved in Esto. It is a matter of enormous regret that, among the criticisms made, some solicitors have chosen to attack the Esto directors in unduly personal terms, and we are advised of physical threats and warnings made in some cases. Such conduct is deplorable no matter what the issues.

CLANT is a committee of the Council, convened by Oliver Adair. The work done by this committee is difficult, time consuming, sensitive and constantly in the public and profession’s critical gaze. The members of the team have given long hours and hard work over a number of years and achieved considerable success in the eyes of most of their professional colleagues. Nevertheless, the establishment of Esto has been perceived as the five CLANT members taking advantage of their position as committee members to gain personal commercial advantage. It is arguable, given the highly charged atmosphere that surrounds criminal legal aid negotiations, the Cadder aftermath and the knowledge that a small number of practitioners have been consistently critical of CLANT, that the establishment of any relevant commercial activity by a number of CLANT members would be met with suspicion, even outcry by some members, however openly and above board that establishment was conducted. Criminal legal aid practitioners work in a constantly pressurised environment and there have been views and opinions vehemently expressed verbally, in writing and in various media outlets in the recent past, on various aspects of criminal legal aid.

We carefully considered how to approach this review. We have looked at matters in four stages.

1. We reviewed all the correspondence received by the Society from members with respect to Esto and considered all of the concerns raised.

2. We considered the information available to us from sources other than the five former CLANT members, to establish what can and cannot reasonably be proved to have happened and at what point in time. To this end, and with the assistance of a senior member of the Society’s staff, we have reviewed a number of sources, including: records of meetings; correspondence; press statements; records regarding the establishment of Esto. That information is annexed hereto but will not be published.

3. Thereafter, we have sought and obtained further information and comment from the five directors and considered that information.

4. We have considered general information from the chief executive regarding how the Society manages the risks to reputation arising generally from conflict of interest situations at Council, committee and sub-committee levels.

In carrying out the first stage of the review, namely the consideration of the concerns raised by members, we developed a series of questions that we believe the review needed to answer in order to address all of the issues and
concerns raised.

1. Is there evidence that any of the Esto directors used their positions on CLANT, negotiating on behalf of the profession on legal aid or any ancillary schemes, to benefit their own businesses or any proposed business in a way which would not be open to persons not part of CLANT?

2. Is there evidence that members of CLANT deliberately misled fellow members of the Society about the subjects of negotiations to further their own business objectives?

3. Was there a potential or actual conflict of interest between the actings of CLANT on behalf of the Society and the intention and steps taken to set up Esto?

4. If there was a potential or actual conflict of interest, was it appropriate for members of CLANT to continue as members of CLANT and be involved in discussions with SLAB etc?

5. Could conflict of interest arise in the workings of other committees and, if so, how is such conflict managed?

6. Were the actions of the legal aid convener appropriate in informing Stuart Munro that there was no conflict of interest? If not, should they be subject to criticism?

D. Questions 1 and 2 – The Criminal Legal Aid Negotiating Team

As mentioned, we asked a senior member of the law reform team at the Society, who had no involvement in the work of the CLANT, to review the minutes of both internal and external meetings involving the team. The member of staff also reviewed all correspondence sent on behalf of the team to the profession and other stakeholders to determine whether there were any discrepancies between information received and subsequently circulated to the profession or whether any proposals considered by the team were not otherwise made public.

In anticipation of the decision in Cadder v HMA, which was issued in October 2010, the Lord Advocate issued interim guidelines for police station interviews in June 2010. This led to proposals for changes to how interviews should be conducted, new regulations for out-of-hours payments and the introduction of a PSDS. It also gave rise to numerous concerns about the impact of the new guidelines on legal aid practitioners and legal aid costs and began a long process of negotiation by CLANT with the Scottish Government, Crown Office and SLAB.

In April 2011, the government, through SLAB, proposed a PSDS as a means of satisfying its perceived requirement to satisfy article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposal led to lengthy negotiations and involved a number of nationwide faculty meetings. The discussions were difficult but were concluded following a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 3 August.

The Society was notified of the existence of Esto on 16 November, when the new firm was discussed with a member of the Society’s Registrar Department with a view to establishing a limited liability partnership. The chief executive of the Society along with a number of other members of staff were told, in confidence, about the plans to establish a new firm.

The two members who personally informed the president of their intention to resign from CLANT in late October did not inform him Esto, quoting a desire to focus more time on their families and businesses.

The minutes of the meetings, particularly when considered in conjunction with coordinated press releases and/or correspondence, indicates no discrepancies between information received by CLANT and information subsequently shared with the profession.

Certain aspects of the meetings do indicate that issues were identified which may have given rise to the identification of a potential unmet need, which the proposed purpose of Esto Law Ltd was intending to address. There is nothing sinister in that fact, indeed the wider profession was equally aware of the existence of that unmet legal need. One effective way of identifying this purpose, in this case in addition to the existing professional knowledge of the individuals involved, would be by participating in a programme of negotiation and thereby examining in detail the key issues giving rise to the identification of the potential for a business venture. In addition, the evidence we have indicates:

1. The members of CLANT did not volunteer to negotiate on behalf of the profession with the intention of developing a business idea. Indeed, most of the members concerned joined CLANT long before the Salduz and Cadder cases which ultimately led to the changes involving police station advice.
2. They developed a business idea based on information that came to light during the process of these negotiations but which was information already in the public domain.
3. They made efforts to draw this information to the attention of the profession at faculty meetings and through regular and publicly available correspondence.
4. The potential for unmet need, and therefore the proposed service to be provided by Esto, was arrived at after the Scottish Government and SLAB chose not to proceed with a scheme which was promoted by CLANT and would have been operated by the Law Society. Before the decision was taken to establish Esto, CLANT also successfully negotiated a number of favourable
changes to the duty scheme as set up by SLAB, in particular the removal of subsumption of fees.
5. The proposed service was intended to alleviate genuine concerns which arose from within the profession about the challenges of servicing police station interview work and the risk of losing clients.

Question 1.
Is there evidence that any of the directors used their positions on CLANT, negotiating on behalf of the profession on legal aid or any ancillary schemes, to benefit their own businesses or any proposed business in a way which would not be open to persons not part of CLANT.
Conclusion 1.
There is no evidence that any of the directors misused their positions on CLANT.

Question 2.
Is there evidence that members of CLANT deliberately misled fellow members of the Society about the subjects of negotiations to further their own business objectives?
Conclusion 2.
In light of our conclusions above, we believe there is no evidence that any of the directors misled fellow members of the Society.

E. Question 3, 4 & 5 – Conflicts of interest and managing those conflicts

At the end of the meeting which took place on 3 November between the Society, SLAB and the Scottish Prison Service in relation to video conferencing, Stuart Munro informed a member of the Society’s staff that he would need to resign from CLANT due to his involvement with Esto. There is no doubt that issues of actual and potential conflict of interest can arise in the relations between volunteer members of the Council, committees and sub-committees and the interest or connections from their non-Society work. It is inevitable that people who freely give their time and expertise to the work of the Society, on behalf of the profession, will become privy to information and develop skills that other non-participating members do not obtain. There are other situations where the Society work may compromise the day job, or be compromised by it, or where personal knowledge of circumstances or persons involved raises a similar issue.

The issue is how to assess the level of risk and, once determined, how damaging that risk could potentially be. Being too risk conscious could paralyse the Society, but the level of risk will be dependent on the area of work in which it arises. It becomes a case of how the risk is managed and that will be different in every instance. The chief executive of the Society has been asked to look at how we as an organisation manage that risk generally and to consider whether it is appropriate to take formal steps to set in place a standard set of measures to allow the risk from conflict of interest to be properly managed in each case.

It is fair to say that committees and working groups, as well as members of staff working on papers or projects, are already tasked to have an eye to conflict of interest, and reports brought to the Board and to the Council in recent times have routinely had a headed section dedicated to considering any conflicts of interest arising out of the work or the personnel involved. We have already described the timeline of events, which shows that the negotiations surrounding the PSDS had concluded before the directors of Esto chose to establish their new business. As a result, we believe that there was neither an actual nor a potential conflict of interest. Nevertheless, in the case of Esto, we recognise that there was a significant issue around a perception of conflict of interest.

In our view, the establishment of Esto was bound to result in members raising reasonable concerns there had been or was a conflict of interest. It was therefore incumbent upon those establishing the enterprise and the Society to anticipate such concerns and take the necessary steps to address them. The failure to do so has placed the Society and the former CLANT members at risk of reputational damage. That such a risk was recognised by the five directors is evident. Nevertheless, we believe they did not assess that risk as being as serious and significant as it ultimately turned out to be.

We are also aware of the concerns that have been raised with respect to the knowledge and involvement of the Society in the formation of Esto.

We are aware that the Society’s registrar’s team and the professional practice team were both approached formally by the directors of Esto for technical advice on the incorporation of the firm as a LLP. Such advice is routinely given by both teams to firms on a strictly confidential basis and all such information is bound by data protection laws. We believe the assistance and advice provided by these teams to the Esto directors was therefore entirely appropriate in the circumstances and consistent with the role and responsibilities of those teams in assisting members.

The president of the Society along with a number of members of the Society’s executive, including the chief executive and director of communications, were also given advanced notification by the directors of Esto of the intention to establish a new firm. This information, which included some details of the services the new business would offer, was again provided on a strictly confidential basis. It is common practice for office bearers and senior members of the Society’s staff to be provided with advance confidential information with respect to changes in firms, whether they be new business ventures or, as has been seen more recently, mergers and takeovers. It is crucial that the Society is alive to upcoming changes in the profession and that member firms feel they can trust the Society with such confidential information. It is also worth emphasising that, whilst any member of staff can offer advice or guidance in such circumstances, those staff have no power to either approve or prevent such business changes. To even attempt to do so would be wrong in principle and stray beyond the powers of the Society. We are therefore comfortable that the way this advance and confidential information was handled by the Society in the case of Esto was appropriate.

Question 3.
Was there a potential or actual conflict of interest between the actings of CLANT on behalf of the Society and the intention and steps taken to set up Esto? Conclusion 3. In looking at the timeline of events, we believe there was neither an actual nor a potential conflict of interest involving the directors of Esto who were involved in CLANT.

Question 4. If there was a potential or actual conflict of interest, was it appropriate for members of CLANT to continue as members of CLANT and be involved in discussions with SLAB etc. Conclusion 4. Our conclusion in answering Question 3 means we believe Question 4 is now irrelevant.

F. Question 5 – How the Society manages conflict We have already concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that the Esto directors in any way misused their positions on CLANT. Similarly, we have concluded that there was no actual or potential conflict of interest. However, in having been tasked with this review by the Council of the Society, we have also looked at the processes in place within the Society for dealing with conflicts of interest.

The Society does have structures in place for identifying such conflict. In our view, the failure on the part of the CLANT members to act timeously and appropriately to a perceived risk was partly caused by the Society’s lack of a structure to manage in a consistent and structured way this potential or actual risk and a lack of a code of conduct for Council and committee members. There needs to be work done by the Council to prevent such happenings again.

Question 5. Could conflict of interest arise in the workings of other committees and, if so, how is such conflict managed? Conclusion 5. It is right that this review considers how the Society deals with risk to the reputations of the Society, the Council, the individual Council members and committee members. It would appear that there are some mechanisms in place for identifying risks but some doubt as to whether we adequately identify the magnitude of risk. There remains no consistent means of managing such risks. We recommend this is addressed urgently by the Council.

G. Question 6 – The legal aid convener Finally, we considered concerns that were raised with respect to the advice given by the legal aid convener to Stuart Munro namely that there was no conflict of interest in Mr Munro remaining a member of CLANT. Question 6. Were the actions of the legal aid convener appropriate in informing Stuart Munro that there was no conflict of interest? If not, should they be subject to criticism? Answer 6. We have already concluded that there was no actual or potential conflict of interest for the directors of Esto who were previously members of CLANT. We therefore believe the advice from the legal aid convener to Stuart Munro was correct at that time.

H. Conclusions We have carefully considered the concerns that were raised with respect to Esto and CLANT. We have also thoroughly reviewed the timeline of events and the facts surrounding the setting up of the new firm.

As we have detailed, we have made the following conclusions.

1. There is no absolutely no evidence that members of CLANT:
• had information that was not made available to other members of the profession;
• in any way withheld information from members of the profession;
• misled members of the profession;
• conducted discussions with other parties in regard to criminal legal aid in any way with intention other than the general interests of the profession and the public.

2. There was no actual or potential conflict of interest arising as a result of the establishment of Esto by former and current members of CLANT.

3. A perception of conflict of interest by members of the Society was inevitable unless steps were taken by those establishing Esto to ensure that such perception was negated at an early stage. Such steps as were taken were inadequate. In our view, the relevant members did not anticipate the level of criticism and concern which would and was raised by members of the Society.

4. Although there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, we recommend that the Society considers establishing a code of conduct for Council and committee members which will help address potential and perceived conflict of interest situations in the future and better protect the reputation of both the Society and the individuals who volunteer their time and energy as members of Council and its committees.

Friday, February 24, 2012

The Top (or) Bottom of it : Faculty of Advocates deny investigation into alleged Facebook smears by respected Advocate against QC Paul McBride

The top & bottom of it is, we are looking into the affair, says Faculty of Advocates insider. SOURCES at the Faculty of Advocates late tonight have confirmed an informal investigation is under-way to establish who leaked what one FoA insider branded “a malicious story” to a newspaper alleging that a member of the Faculty of Advocates, Victoria J Young, who narrowly escaped a criminal prosecution for stalking after being charged by Strathclyde Police some years back, had ‘smeared’ another member of the Faculty, ‘top’ QC Paul McBride on the popular social network website Facebook “for referring to himself as a top QC.” It is generally known the advocate who was accused of allegedly making the remarks, Victoria Young, is representing Neil McKenzie who, along with Trevor Muirhead, denies plotting to murder Mr McBride, Celtic boss Neil Lennon and ex-MSP Trish Godman, who were allegedly targeted in a sectarian letter bomb plot in Scotland, where up until now it has always been widely denied there is any sectarian problem.

The Sun newspaper reported last week that “AN advocate acting for a man accused of sending a bomb to Celtic lawyer Paul McBride is being probed over claims she slagged off the QC on Facebook. Victoria Young, 41, is said to have slammed Mr McBride for referring to himself as a "top QC". It's also said she accused the lawman — formerly in the Tory and Labour parties — of planning to join the SNP.

One post said: "Call me cynical but do the top QC's comments on recent Appeal Ct decision... suggest he's about to join a third party?" A lawyer pal, Tina Smith, replied: "He really has no credibility left."

The Faculty insider who wished to remain anonymous said there was concern the allegations may have “an alternative agenda” however the insider did not wish to elaborate further.

It is now generally accepted Scotland has a significant sectarian problem which has grown so bad, the Lord Advocate authorised Crown Office to destroy its statistics on hate crimes against Catholics in case the predominantly EU found out, as reported HERE

Victoria J Young & Paul McBride are part of the same advocates stable, MacKinnon Advocates.It is also known Mr McBride is to be a columnist in the new Sun on Sunday newspaper, Scotland edition.

As readers, and an extremely irate, if nameless ‘top’ (another top, yes- Ed) member of the legal profession have since pointed out, while Mr McBride is generally well known in the media, it should not be forgotten the same applies to Ms Young, who was charged by Strathclyde Police with committing a contravention of the Telecommunications Act in connection with her admitted stalking of journalist Paddy Christie, who had a relationship with Young’s boss, Scotland’s most famous QC’s Donald Findlay (Might be called top-most in someone’s language ? –Ed).

Strathclyde Police put a trace on the stalking victim’s phone and linked the calls to Victoria Young, the advocate who, under questioning, partially admitted the accusations but claimed she had made only two calls after she had received nuisance calls from Miss Christie. Following a second police interview over the case, Miss Young retracted these claims, admitted making seven calls and promised to write a letter of apology. The criminal case was dropped.

Victoria Young narrowly escaped a criminal prosecution over the calls, after the Crown Office suspiciously dropped the case, however she was reprimanded after a complaint was made by Miss Christine to the Faculty of Advocates, who found Young had committed "serious misconduct" by making the heavy-breathing calls to the journalist Miss Christie, who is in her mid-50s at the time. When confronted by the allegations, Victoria Young initially claimed Miss Christie had made nuisance calls to her, and that she had merely responded. She later admitted she had not received any calls from Miss Christie, who had a five-year relationship with Mr Findlay.

The Daily Record reported as follows :

STRANGE CASE OF A HEAVY BREATHER; Starring a QC, his ex-lover and a lady advocate who handles his briefs.

Byline: ANNA SMITH and BRIAN McCARTNEY EXCLUSIVE Nov 11, 2000 Daily Record

TV REPORTER Paddy Christie was tormented by late night crank phone calls from a young female advocate who worked closely with her former lover Donald Findlay QC. Victoria Young, 29, was charged with making nuisance calls - but Crown officials decided not to prosecute her.

Now furious Paddy has accused legal chiefs of a cover-up. She has reported the matter to the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, who confirmed yesterday they were investigating. She hit out: "BT and the police did a very good job and caught someone in the middle of a criminal act."Despite this the fiscal has tried to keep the whole thing confidential. He seems to be giving carte blanche to make malicious telephone calls."

Scotland Today reporter Paddy - who had a five-year relationship with Findlay - said she feared she was being pursued by a Jill Dando-type stalker. For over two years she lived in dread of the phone ringing late at night and only hearing heavy breathing. When she finally called in police they tracked a call to the mobile phone of Young, one of the country's brightest young advocates.

Young, the daughter of former Tory Minister Sir George Young, was interviewed on tape by police and admitted she making calls to Paddy. But after a report to the Procurator Fiscal it was decided that there should be no criminal proceedings. The procurator fiscal at Glasgow confirmed last night that the incident was dealt with by a "non court disposal".

Senior depute fiscal David Green said: "I can confirm that Victoria Young was reported to this office for an alleged contravention of the Telecommunication Act 1984 Section 43 - which is effectively nuisance calls. The report against her was given careful consideration and after that consideration it was decided not to instigate proceedings."

The depute fiscal would not comment as to why this particular case did not go to court when other similar cases result in criminal proceedings. He also would not say whether Young was given a written warning or any kind of procurator fiscal fine.

The phone calls to Paddy, while she was still living with Findlay, were made after 6.30pm but sometimes as late as one in the morning. Paddy said: "It took a few weeks to realise the calls weren't wrong numbers and that someone was stalking me by phone. "The caller never spoke but sometimes I could hear breathing."

Asked if it was heavy breathing, Paddy replied: "I don't know how loud Victoria Young's normal breathing sounds but to me it sounded like heavy breathing." She added: "I got so fed up I contacted BT to see what they could do. The answer was nothing until I reported it to the police. At that stage I didn't want to involve the police so I didn't take any further action.

"I'm not comparing myself to Jill Dando, but I do appear on television and it was preying on my mind. "I was going down the path in the morning looking up and down the street. So two months ago I finally decided that I would have to involve the police. "Almost immediately a trace was put on my home phone number and within two weeks I'd taken a hoax call that was traced to Victoria Young's mobile. "That call was made some time after 11pm when I was fast asleep in my bed."

When the police traced a second call to the same number a few days later, Young, of Dowanhill, Glasgow, was taken for interview to the city's Maryhill police station where she admitted making pest calls.She was charged but has escaped a court appearance. Paddy said: "I was flabbergasted when I found out. I've spoken to some of her legal colleagues who say they don't know how she could be so incredibly stupid."

News of Young's involvement has stunned the Scottish legal establishment. Yesterday one leading solicitor said: "Victoria is very bright and extremely ambitious. This is a real shock."

From her highly privileged background, privately-educated Young went on to Glasgow Uni where she graduated in 1993. Her early legal training was with Brodies law firm in Edinburgh, but she quickly set her sights on higher legal circles. Regarded as keen and meticulous, Young was spotted by Findlay - the high-profile, controversial criminal lawyer respected across the establishment.

As one of the highest-paid and most sought-after QCs, working with Findlay was considered an honour among the younger advocates eager to make a name for themselves. But more often than not, it was Young who worked closely with him on a number of high-profile cases.

It was during the highly emotional murder trial at the High Court in Glasgow of Kim Galbraith - accused of shooting her policeman husband - that news of Findlay's split with Paddy hit the headlines. When the Record published the story of the break-up, a furious Young leapt to his defence in the foyer of the courthouse.

In an astonishing scene she accosted Daily Record chief reporter Anna Smith, claiming we were "jeopardising" a young woman's life by publishing a story about Findlay. Later she passed a handwritten letter to the Record saying what an honour and privilege it was to work with Donald Findlay, who she said she deeply admired as a lawyer.

Last June, Young stood by Findlay when Rangers threw him out as vice-chairman - after he was caught on camera singing bigoted songs at a supporters' night out. Young continued to be at his side, though it is understood Findlay remained good friends with former lover Paddy.

A legal insider yesterday described Young as a "loner" who had few interests outside of her work and career.

The insider said: "Victoria has a pony and is a keen horse rider, but apart from that she doesn't seem to do very much. She was very close to Findlay and the two worked together on a lot of cases. Victoria is the kind of person who could seem snobbish and stand-offish when people first meet her, but in reality she is a very likeable girl.She is from a very privileged background and is ambitious. She saw herself as going all the way to the top. But she is quite a lonely person really.She would see someone like Findlay as a hugely charismatic, clever figure and perhaps even a father figure."

Yesterday Young was dropped off at her home by Findlay in his MG sports car. They kissed for a few moments before she stepped into the street. Findlay roared off and Young walked quickly into the red sandstone building where she lives in the top flat.

Last night Young told the Record she meant "no malice" in the calls and claimed she had only made two. She insisted that despite Paddy's high profile, she had no idea who she was because she was not allowed to watch ITV as she grew up.

And Young added that she was shocked to find that Paddy had reported the matter to the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, saying she feared she had a stalker. Young said: "That is just delusions of grandeur."

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Scottish Football Assoc. appoint Lord Nimmo Smith who cleared Judges ‘Magic Circle’ Gay Sex for Justice Club to investigate problems at Rangers FC

Lord William Nimmo Smith, who was conned in Gay sex for judges investigation now to look at Rangers FC fiasco. A SCOTTISH JUDGE, Lord William Nimmo Smith who was branded “Nimmo the Dimmo” by the Sun Newspaper during its investigation into the Magic Circle gay threat to justice affair, where Lord Nimmo Smith, then a QC was tasked along with Procurator Fiscal James Friel with investigating allegations of several Scottish judges indulging in gay sex with young men for favours and rulings in Scottish courts, has been appointed by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) to chair an independent inquiry into the now widely reported problems at Rangers Football Club.

A Press Release issued by the Scottish FA states : The Scottish FA can confirm that it has appointed as Chair The Right Honourable Lord William Nimmo Smith to inquire independently into Rangers FC. Stewart Regan, the Scottish FA chief executive, met with Lord Nimmo Smith today to define the terms of reference for the investigation. Lord Nimmo Smith is a former Senator of the College of Justice, who has served as an Insolvency Judge. In 2002, he was one of five judges who heard the appeal of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.

The SFA’s Press Release goes onto give details of the independent panel convened under Nimmo Smith, which will include Professor Niall Lothian OBE, a Past President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland who was recently honoured in the New Year Honours List for services to Corporate and Civic Governance in Scotland. It also includes Bob Downes, former Director with the BT Group and currently Deputy Chairman of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and Stewart Regan, a member of the panel in his capacity as director of the Scottish FA.

The SFA have said the Independent Inquiry shall be afforded the same powers as the Scottish FA to investigate the potential breach of a number of its Articles of Association and shall present its findings to the Board within two weeks. Stewart Regan, Scottish FA chief executive: “I am delighted Lord Nimmo Smith has agreed to Chair the Independent Inquiry. I am certain the experience contained within the panel will enable us to achieve more clarity on the situation regarding Rangers FC. There will be no further comment on the investigation until it is complete and its findings presented to the Board.”

However, worried fans & onlookers may well have cause to question the SFA’s decision to appoint Nimmo Smith, after reading how the QC was easily fooled by those involved in the Magic Circle gay threat to justice affair which turned up a blank after the QC finished his investigation, concluding “nothing happened”.

The Report on an Inquiry into an Allegation of a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice in Scotland which can be viewed online here : REPORT ON MAGIC CIRCLE GAY JUSTICE SCANDAL (pdf) was widely rubbished as little more than an attempt to cover up well known habits of certain judges & prosecutors in Scotland who sought & gained sexual contact with males under the ages of 18 and less than 16. With the arrest of Blair Wilson, the judiciary & Crown Office staff who appear to have continued the habits of the Magic Circle are now worried for their own positions.

Nimmo the Dimmo - Scottish Sun December  19 1992NIMMO THE DIMMO

MPs blast taped QC

By David Dinsmore The Scottish Sun, Saturday 20 December 1992

SCOTLAND'S “Gay Judges” probe should be scrapped and started again, an MP claimed yesterday.

Former Solicitor General Sir Nicky Fairburn hit out after QC William Nimmo-Smith was conned into spilling the beans on his inquiry — as exclusively revealed yesterday by The Scottish Sun.

Last night, Perth and Kinross Tory MP Sir Nicky Fairbairn said: "This absolutely impurifies the whole process. I don't see that the Lord Advocate can do anything but re-appoint a new commission to do the whole thing again."

Yesterday we told how gay businessman Derek Donaldson, the man suspected of the Fettesgate break-in at Edinburgh police HQ, posed as a journalist from a posh paper to get into Nimmo-Smith’s home with a tape recorder.

He grilled the top lawyer for an hour over his probe into an alleged gay conspiracy in Scottish legal circles. Last night. Sir Nicky said: "We have to clear up this whole unfortunate business."The Lord Advocate should start again with very senior people."

He was backed by MPs of all parties who could not believe a top lawyer like Nimmo-Smith could give away so much about his highly-confidential inquiry.

Labour's Tam Dalyell said: "I will be bringing up this matter in the House of Commons when the opportunity arises."

Scottish Lib-Dem leader Jim Wallace added: "I am surprised that anyone acting in a quasi-judicial role should speak to a journalist in this manner.

SNP leader Alex Salmond claimed Scotland's legal establishment had sunk lower in the public's estimation because of the affair.

And Tory MP Phil Gallie said: "It does not impress me that a senior QC has made such a fundamental mistake."

Nimmo-Smith, 50, looked tired and drawn as he left his Edinburgh home guard yesterday morning — accompanied by two detectives and two uniformed police officers. He refused to comment on our story.

The Lord Advocate Lord Rodger and Scots Secretary Ian Lang also refused to discuss our revelations.

But a Lothian police spokesman said: "We are aware the report to the Lord Advocate is still to be published and we can make no comment until that time."

A leading Scots QC said: "It doesn't look as though the Lord Advocate has much choice but to start again. "How can he allow him to stay in charge of such an important inquiry."

As the Herald newspaper reported : “.. during the investigation, Nimmo Smith was visited by Derek William Donaldson, the homosexual 32-year-old crook and self-acclaimed ''Fettesgate raider'' who was imprisoned for 18 months at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for assault and robbery. Donaldson approached Nimmo Smith posing as a journalist.

Donaldson secretly recorded the meeting, and then offered his tapes for sale to newspapers. The Scottish Sun were the only takers. From their Glasgow offices, they agreed a £10,000 deal with Donaldson. The terms Donaldson demanded included undertakings by the Sun not to tell their readers about his lengthy and unattractive criminal record, nor to show his photograph.

The Sun also agreed to pass money to Donaldson by an unusual and complex route. On Friday December 18, the day the report was published -- under the banner headline ''FETTES THIEF CONS GAY JUDGES PROBE QC'' -- News International Ltd. deposited £6500 in the clients' account of Edinburgh solicitors Cochrane and Blair Paterson, of Abercromby Place, to be passed on to Donaldson.

The next day, the Sun published a second report on Donaldson's hoax, entitled ''NIMMO THE DIMMO.'' That evening, an intensely distressed Mr Nimmo-Smith sought psychiatric treatment at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital.”

Speaking in the Sun article titled “NIMMO THE DIMMO”, Scotland’s First Minister ALEX SALMOND, who was the leader of the SNP at the time at Westminster claimed “Scotland’s legal establishment had sunk lower in the public’s estimation because of the affair”.

Lord Dervaird quits, even though Nimmo Smith’s report cleared everyone under the sun of rent boy justice fiddles. One of the big hitters to fall as a result of the gay sex for justice scandal was Lord Dervaird, a High Court judge who was forced to resign over the affair. The Dervaird affair received a special two page chapter in Nimmo Smith’s report, and Lord Dervaird who resigned in December 1989 after informing Lord Hope that he had been 'indiscreet' during his period on the bench in 'carrying on a homosexual relationship', even though Nimmo Smith’s report found absolutely no evidence of any gay sex for justice, (absolutely, of course not – Ed). However, Lord Dervaird has since returned to view in the SNP sponsored Scottish Arbitration Centre business venture using TENS OF THOUSANDS OF POUNDS of public money to attract arbitration cases to Scotland’s less than honest legal circuit.

However, unfortunately for Lord Nimmo Smith and the remaining non believers of the Magic Circle affair, one of the key participants in the scandal, a lawyer named David Blair Wilson has resurfaced after being arrested by Police for smuggling drugs into jail. Blair Wilson was a key figure in the Magic Circle affair and was investigated by Nimmo Smith in his report, which claimed no sex for justice scandal had occurred. It is rumoured the Crown Office are eager for Blair Wilson not to face a court, in case he carries out his threat to spill the beans on a new gay sex scandal said to be similar in magnitude to the Magic Circle affair, and rumoured to involve some of Scotland’s top judges in the Court of Session as well as Sheriffs, lawyers, some prominent QCs who are never off the television screens, and members of staff at the Scottish Court Service & Crown Office.

Look who’s going to Oxford : Former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini takes up post of Principal at St Hugh’s College, Oxford

Dame-Elish-AngioliniFormer Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini has been made Principal at St Hugh’s College, Oxford.  Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, (born McPhilomy) who during her term as Lord Advocate presided over criminal trial disasters such as the World's End murder trial collapse, fought against a case (Cadder v HMA) which finally brought into law the right of persons held in Police custody in Scotland to consult with a solicitor during Police interrogation and more recently is known to have used a private law firm whose partners are involved in work in the notorious offshore tax dodging haven of the Cayman Islands and who also represented notorious Glasgow City Council cocaine addict Steven Purcell in a battle to silence media reporting of the cocaine-politics-corruption scandal, has been welcomed by St Hugh's College, Oxford as its new principal, taking up the post later this year in September 2012.

While the college today issued a statement saying they were delighted to welcome the former Lord Advocate as their new Principal, Elish Angiolini, (born McPhilomy) has recently hit the headlines of her initiation of Scotland’s most expensive ever Breach of the Peace trial, where anti-abuse campaigner Robert Green was jailed for ONE YEAR for handing out leaflets asking for an inquiry into allegations of abuse made by downs syndrome victim Hollie Greig, who was paid a large sum of money from the Criminal Injuries Compensation board after officials decided abuse had taken place.

Robert Green, who made certain allegations against Mrs Angiolini which cannot be reported for legal reasons, ended up being jailed last week by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen, a Judge acquaintance of the former Lord Advocate who it has since been revealed, failed to declare a relationship with Dame Angiolini after serving on a highly paid quango position with the ex law officer on the Northern Lighthouse Board together with a large, if curious gathering of senior members of the legal profession, the judiciary & prosecutors which includes the current boss of the Crown Office, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, and his deputy, the Solicitor General, Lesley Thomson.

While a final total nearing ONE MILLION POUNDS of taxpayers money appears to have been spent on what has been described as a VENDETTA pursuing Green through the justice system in Scotland, on a case which saw FIFTEEN PRE TRIAL HEARINGS at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, 18,000 travel miles for the accused, trips by Grampian Police Officers to England to search & raid homes & seize property including computers & documents, Crown Office staff being flown into Aberdeen especially for the case, and a witness list which at one point totalled SIXTY ONE persons, oddly there has been no prosecution of anyone for the alleged abuse of Hollie Greig, despite a series of allegations made by the victim & campaigners including Mr Green, who campaigned on her behalf.

Speaking in a Press Release issued by St Hugh’s College, Andrew Dilnot, the current Principal who has been in the position since 2002, commented: “I am delighted that the College has elected such an outstanding figure as Dame Elish as its next Principal. Her pioneering achievements will be an inspiration to people both within and outside the College, and I very much look forward to welcoming her to Oxford.”

Dr John Iles, the College’s Senior Fellow who chaired the election process, said: “Amongst a very strong field of candidates, Elish Angiolini stood out for her combination of leadership qualities and passion for the academic vision of the College. We believe that she is just the person further to develop St Hugh’s as Principal after the exceptionally successful tenure of Andrew Dilnot.”

The Press Release also publishes a statement from Dame Elish Angiolini, who spoke shortly after the announcement about her enthusiasm for the role : “Founded to give an excellent education to women who were otherwise excluded from Oxford, and now providing a focus for learning and scholarship for women and men from all backgrounds, St Hugh’s College has an inspiring history and an exciting future. I am eagerly anticipating joining the College and aim both to support and celebrate its important work.”

St Hugh’s College listed the former Lord Advocate’s profile as follows : “Dame Elish is the former Lord Advocate of Scotland – the highest law officer in the Scottish legal system. Prior to this she was Solicitor General for Scotland. She was the first woman, and the first solicitor in the modern era, to hold either position. Born in Govan, Glasgow, she attended Notre Dame High School for Girls and studied Law at Strathclyde University. She is now a visiting professor at Strathclyde, an honorary professor at Aberdeen University and holds honorary degrees from the universities of Glasgow Caledonian, Strathclyde and Aberdeen. She is also a QC and Privy Counsellor.”

However, the Press Release issued by St Hugh’s College omits any mention of a string of serious high profile case failures during Ms Angiolini’s term as Lord Advocate along with massive ramifications of the Cadder ruling and doubts over the prosecution of hundreds of criminal cases where it is alleged evidence has either not been provided to courts or has simply been “made up” by prosecutors. No criticism of Dame Angiolini’s term as Scotland’s senior law officer is mentioned, a term which was branded “A disastrous experiment” by the well respected Professor Robert Black QC, emeritus Professor of Law at Edinburgh University.

Professor Black, writing on his Lockerbie Case blog, said of Dame Angiolini’s term as Lord Advocate  “In the past, the law officers have traditionally come from the ranks of the practising Bar and were supporters of the governing party,”. He went onto say : “Elish Angiolini, as well as being the first woman, was the first solicitor and the first legal civil servant. It is to be hoped that it will be recognised that the appointment of a Crown Office staffer as Lord Advocate was a disastrous experiment which should never be repeated.”

Serving as Lord Advocate at the time of Robert Green’s arrest, Dame Angiolini issued legal threats to media outlets including Scots law publication “The Firm” who were forced to censor their reporting of events concerning the Hollie Greig allegations. Private law firm LEVY MCRAE, who also represented shamed Glasgow City Council Boss & self confessed cocaine addict Steven Purcell were used in the operation to silence reporting of the abuse allegations, with senior partner Peter Watson dispatching a series of letters to online media outlets and even the Press Complaints Commission over the affair, which is reported HERE. The conduct of Levy McRae & Watson was challenged by the Herald newspaper in a remarkably frank editorial comment, published HERE

The Press Release issued by St Hugh’s College gives their own view of the last decade of events in the Scottish justice system : “As Solicitor General for Scotland (2001–6) and then as Lord Advocate (2006–11), Dame Elish was instrumental in reforming the operation of the justice system in Scotland, in particular making it more responsive to the victims of crime. In addition, she supervised some of the most significant prosecutions in Scotland in the last decade, and acted as the Scottish Government’s legal advisor during a period of major change. Unusually, she held the post without political affiliation and was reappointed as Lord Advocate by the incoming SNP government in 2007. She is renowned for her championing of equality and dignity in the justice system. She stepped down from her post as Lord Advocate in May 2011, and is currently chairing a Commission of Inquiry on Women Offenders in Scotland, as well as practising as an advocate at the Scottish Bar. She was awarded the DBE for services to the administration of justice in the Queen’s birthday honours in 2011. In the same year, she was granted a Special Achievement Award by the International Association of Prosecutors.”

A reminder of previous events in the trial of anti abuse campaigner Robert Green can be viewed in earlier coverage by Scottish Law Reporter HERE and further coverage of the Hollie Greig case along with a recent investigation into the knighthood of Angiolini, apparently recommended by the Scottish Government.

NMG0505123Former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini employed Cayman Islands hopping lawyers from Glasgow. Reporting on the background of the case, Robert Green was arrested by Police on 12th February 2010 in relation to a breach of the peace alleged to have been committed in Aberdeen when Mr Green attempted to hand out leaflets regarding the anti-abuse campaign. It was also revealed the then Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini had employed private law firm Levy McRae to serve interdicts on Mr Green in connection with his campaign to ‘out’ alleged abusers of downs syndrome victim Hollie Greig. Glasgow law firm Levy McRae who later represented shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell, proceeded to threaten several media outlets & journalists over their reporting of the case, covered by Scottish Law Reporter HERE & HERE. The Purcell scandal caused some newspapers to ‘evaluate’ their relationship with Levy McRae, details of which were featured in a report here : HERE

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskillJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill worked at, has ties to same law firm used by then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in interdict case. As details of the case began to be reported in the wider press, it emerged the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill had links to LEVY MCRAE, the law firm employed by the then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in legal action against Mr Green. Mr MacAskill has made no comment on the fact he served his apprenticeship at Levy McRae and also worked at the firm for a considerable time during his years as a solicitor before he entered politics, while he is thought to have backed Dame Angiolini in her actions at the time. The revelations were reported by Scottish Law Reporter at the time, HERE

Dame Elish Angiolini has also been appointed Ministerial complaints adviser to Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond

Monday, February 20, 2012

Man Unwanted : Complaints lobby ‘prefer female candidate’ to fill third time unlucky Chief Executive role at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Staying, Gone, Going & Awaiting : New Broom required, men need not apply say insiders. THE Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has for the third time in its short, expensive (to the tune of around FOURTEEN MILLION POUNDS since 2008) & time wasting existence, again begun the recruitment process to find another candidate to fill the third time unlucky role of SLCC Chief Executive, after losing its current & latest CEO Rosemary Agnew to the post of Scottish Information Commissioner. However, insiders at the commission have let it be known that the current board and staff of the SLCC “are looking for a female candidate” to fill the controversial post, which attracts a salary of around EIGHTY THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR plus expenses, hospitality received from all quarters, and other lavish perks.

Mrs Agnew, who was recently selected to be the new Scottish Information Commissioner after a secret closed shop recruitment process held by an all female msp selection panel from the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, has occupied the SLCC’s Chief Executive role for a little more than a year after taking on the ill fated position from the SLCC’s first Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, who resigned on ill health grounds, coincidentally also after being able to stand little more than a year in the job based at the Stamp Office in Edinburgh.

Reports of difficulties during Ms Masterman’s time as Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission saw a string of controversial decisions involving the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, secret meetings with insurers Royal Sun Alliance & Marsh, who were convicted of illegal activities in the United States.

It later emerged the Scottish Government’s Finance Chief, John Swinney personally intervened on behalf of a constituent over the murky goings on at the SLCC and accused Ms Masterman of being less than honest in correspondence. It is thought this spat between Masterman and Mr Swinney eventually led to the first Chief Executive’s demise over ‘ill health’. The story was broken by popular Scots law blog Diary of Injustice in a feature : HERE

While Ms Masterman may have resigned on ill health grounds, her situation did not prevent her from engaging lawyers to negotiate a large figure payoff from the SLCC, a payoff which was personally signed off by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and has not been disclosed to either the public or legal profession who fund the SLCC. The saga was reported by Scottish Law Reporter in an earlier article HERE

Jane Irvine, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s Chair issued the following statement seeking a new recruit for the post of Chief Executive : On behalf of The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) I want to thank you for your interest in becoming our new Chief Executive. As an organisation we have been operational since 1 October 2008 with our main functions as follows:

  • Handling all complaints about members of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates
  • Overseeing the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates conduct and insurance arrangements
  • Dealing with complaints about cases that have been through conduct systems
The establishment of the SLCC represented a change in the way complaints against the legal profession were handled by introducing a novel form of funding for a public body in Scotland. We focus on the early resolution of disputes and encourage improvement whilst remaining independent, accessible and impartial.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our departing Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew, who has established a core team which is working well with established governance and financial polices, allowing operational matters to run smoothly. From this sound platform we are searching for a CEO who will lead us into the next phase of evolution for SLCC.

We are looking for a leader who can inspire the operational team as well as influence change. Naturally, our new CEO should continue to drive operational efficiency upwards internally as well as influencing externally to help improve service standards within the legal profession. We are looking for someone with the appropriate level of gravitas to work in partnership with key stakeholders and develop the way the SLCC evolves over the next 5 years.

The Chief Executive will be responsible for enhancing operational efficiency by reducing the time we take to deal with cases and the costs, ensuring that we are 100% user focussed. We already have a LEAN review underway and this will form a bridge into this new phase. A new CEO will also have to start to use the evidence we hold about practise trends and complaint handling to encourage higher service standards within the Scottish legal professions.

As well as the typical leadership qualities, the SLCC requires a CEO who is familiar with using evidence gathered to ensure policy within the professional bodies matches the best in regulatory practice. The successful candidate will need to be capable of negotiating with a very broad range of stakeholders from small interest groups to the Scottish Parliament. Naturally, you will have the credibility to influence and persuade as well as the capability to resolve complicated arguments, often formulated by emotive parties and / or historic practices. In return the CEO will work with an excellent small team and enjoy the support of an active Board while fronting an intellectually stimulating role meeting the demands of both the public and private sectors.

Those interested in filling the shoes of Eileen Masterman, Rosemary Agnew can send their up to date CV and covering letter/supporting statement to Munro Consulting who are handing the recruitment : Amy Dalgleish by e-mail to amy.dalgleish@munroconsulting.com or by post to Munro Consulting Ltd, Monteith House, 11 George Square, Glasgow, G2 1DY quoting reference G640.

  • Job Description
  • Person Specification

  • Application's Close - Monday 12th March 2012
  • Longlist interviews – Thursday 5th April 2012
  • Meeting to select shortlist candidates – Wednesday 11th April 2012
  • Shortlist interviews – Monday 16th April 2012
No one was available from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to answer questions on the SLCC’s latest CEO recruitment, however an insider confirmed “We are looking for a ‘tame’ candidate”(whatever that means! – Ed)