Showing posts with label Glasgow Bar Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glasgow Bar Association. Show all posts

Monday, April 30, 2012

£300K client fund loss ? Law firm Ross Harper ceases trading as Law Society declares ‘warning shot’ to GBA membership, dissent ‘a success’

THE Law Society of Scotland have today confirmed the complete closure of Glasgow law firm Ross Harper after reports were featured in the media of politics at play and sizeable financial inconsistencies in client accounts at the Glasgow based law firm, who were raided by the Law Society earlier this month over “accounting irregularities” which saw a Law Society controlled Judicial Factor appointed to take charge of the now defunct firm. Coincidentally, just prior to the Law Society's raid, Ross Harper had decided to join the Glasgow Bar Association, who are known to heavily oppose the dictates & policies of what many non Edinburgh solicitors brand the “East coast mafia” of the Law Society’s Edinburgh based Drumsheugh Gardens HQ.

A short announcement from the Law Society of Scotland today reports :

Ross Harper Update - Firm to cease trading

The Judicial Factor appointed to Ross Harper has today announced that the legal firm will cease trading today (Monday 30 April). Any affected clients with questions can contact the Judicial Factor, Henderson Loggie directly on 01382 200 055.

Any solicitors impacted by today's announcement and wishing support or advice can contact the Law Society of Scotland professional practice and support team on 0131 226 7411.

Lorna Jack, chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "Ross Harper has been operating for some 50 years and is one of Scotland’s best known legal firms. The decision by the judicial factor to cease the firm’s trading therefore marks the end of an era within the Scottish legal profession.

"It is however an important part of our role to protect client interests and seek the appointment of a judicial factor whenever we have concerns that client money is missing or, because the accounting records are so poor, we cannot tell if client funds are missing. This was why was applied to the Court of Session for the appointment of a factor in the case of Ross Harper."

The Scottish Legal Aid Board’s statistics for 2010-2011 reveal that Ross Harper Solicitors had been paid the sixth highest amount of taxpayer funded legal aid criminal fees at a whopping £1.3m. Two years before, Ross Harper were paid around £1.5m and £1.7m in legal aid fees.

Media reports suggest all employees of Ross Harper have lost their jobs, and all partners practising certificates remain suspended. A discussion of the scandal and accusations relating to goings on at the firm featured in the comments section of Scottish Law Reporter’s previous report of the Ross Harper closure, which can be viewed HERE

A legal source tonight accused the Law Society of “playing a game of dirty tricks against law firms who disobey the society’s demands”. The source identified another law firm based in Glasgow who are also now under investigation for alleged “accounting irregularities”, again by coincidence, a law firm which also appears to have disagreements with policy from the Law Society’s Edinburgh Drumsheugh Gardens HQ.

Earlier this month a Law Society insider told journalists for Scottish Law Reporter there were rumours of a THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUND deficit in the Ross Harper client accounts, however no one from the Law Society would officially confirm or deny the figures.

Friday, April 06, 2012

Politics at play or money worries ? Ross Harper solicitors shut down by Law Society over ‘accounting concerns’ in ‘highly public’ swoop on law firm

THE Law Society of Scotland has, dramatically, shut down the Glasgow based law firm ROSS HARPER, suspending all of the firm’s solicitors practising certificates and appointing a Judicial Factor after an audit & investigation, apparently initiated as a result of “complaints”, revealed “substantial inconsistencies” in the firm’s client accounts. The move, which came after an application made in the Court of Session yesterday, has been highly publicised today after Law Society media team & senior officials put out a wide variety of leaks, statements & comments to the wider media to ensure the move was well publicised, purely on the basis of “concerns over the safety of client funds.”

The Glasgow based law firm at the centre of the story, founded in 1961 by Professor Ross Harper who was a past president of the Law Society of Scotland itself, has been regular finalists in the annual law awards for “Law firm of the year” & “Criminal law firm of the year” and celebrated its 50th Anniversary in 2011. However, the firm has endured a difficult period with the loss of many of its high earning partners such as Cameron Fyfe, Professor Alan Susskind, Harvey Diamond and Richard Freeman after disputes over how the firm was being run.

The Law Society of Scotland released a statement today : The Law Society of Scotland, as part of its regulatory function, has asked the Court of Session to appoint a Judicial Factor to legal firm Ross Harper. The interim factor, Ian Mitchell from Henderson Loggie Chartered Accountants, was appointed by the court today, Thursday, 5 April 2012.

The application was made to the court to protect the clients' interests after the Law Society inspected the firm's books and became concerned about the accounting records. The appointment means that the practising certificates of the firm's partners have been suspended.

The firm has five offices based in Glasgow, Hamilton and East Kilbride. Any clients of the firm who have concerns can contact the Henderson Loggie office in Dundee on 01382 207060. Henderson Loggie will be contacting all of the firm's staff to inform them. Solicitors and trainees at the firm can also contact the Society's professional practice helpline during office hours: 0131 226 7411.

However, a Glasgow solicitor speaking to Scottish Law Reporter this morning alleged there is more to the Law Society’s “heavy handed approach” to Ross Harper, citing recent events which led to the firm joining the Glasgow Bar Association, which was reported in the Herald newspaper HERE

The solicitor, who does not wish to be named said : “I think you will find there are a great deal of politics wrapped up in the Law Society’s handling of Ross Harper rather than simply the reasons stated in the Law Society’s press statement.”

He went on : “It may well be there are anomalies in Ross Harper’s accounts however I understand from well placed sources this highly public move is more about the Law Society teaching the Glasgow end of Scotland’s legal profession a lesson after recent arguments between the Glasgow Bar Association and the Edinburgh based Law Society, who many solicitors now thing has definitely had its day.”

A former Law Society Council Member appeared to corroborate the claims from the unnamed solicitor, telling journalists from Scottish Law Reporter the Law Society are “growing concerned for their position” in the wake of dissent from within the legal profession particularly from Glasgow solicitors who now feel the Law Society can no longer represent the legal profession interests or those of the public.

The Law Society were keen to point out in their Press Release their duties regarding their alleged protection of client funds, stating : “The Law Society of Scotland's compliance team carries out regular inspections of all solicitor firms in Scotland to ensure that they comply with rules on dealing with clients' money. If an inspector suspects that client money is missing or the accounting records are so poor they cannot tell if client money is missing, the Law Society of Scotland can request the Court of Session to appoint a Judicial Factor to that firm to protect the public and other solicitors. The decision to make the appointment is for the Court.”

On occasions, it is found that a firm's accounting records have not been kept properly. Rarely, it may be suspected that client money is missing. To protect clients, the Society asks the Court of Session to appoint the Judicial Factor to examine the firm's records. The Judicial Factor will reassure clients that business is ongoing and, where necessary, try to put them in touch with other solicitors. You can find out more from the Law Society’s information sheet on judicial factors (pdf)

In reality however, the Law Society of Scotland and now the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have failed on almost every occasion to guarantee the protection of client funds from law firms who continue to see their clients as “easy targets” for theft, either by way of deliberate overcharging for fees or via embezzlement & other types of frauds, both now sharply on the rise.

The Herald newspaper reports on the difficulties at law firm Ross Harper : Law firm in crisis over client funds

If you have a story relating to Ross Harper solicitors, why waste it on the Law Society. Tell us at Scottish Law Reporter by email to scottishlawreporter@gmail.com

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Glasgow Bar Association ‘considers’ court challenge to Law Society's authority over legal aid row, remains happy with self regulation powers

Law Society of ScotlandLaw Society of Scotland is unloved by GBA over legal aid money row, however the Society's complaints fixing powers are still acceptable. THE Glasgow Bar Association, the representative group of many solicitors & law firms on the west coast of Scotland is reported to be “actively considering a court challenge” against the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, which requires every solicitor in Scotland be a member of the legal profession’s regulator & governing body, the Law Society of Scotland (yawn, GBA to malky the Law Society over money worries ? not again ! – Ed)

Friday 18 February 2011’s Herald newspaper featured an exclusive report on the latest arguments between the GBA & the Law Society of Scotland over cuts in legal aid fees for cases that go before stipendiary magistrates. Solicitors who are members of the GBA feel the Law Society did not campaign enough against the cuts, which solicitors and legal observers feel may interfere with individuals’ access to justice, where levels of legal aid may make it unprofitable or unworkable for solicitors to properly represent their clients.

The Herald’s report came hot on the heels of reports on certain online legal websites earlier this week, such as “The Firm”, who, as we reported on Thursday, claimed a former GBA President, John McGovern had accused the Law Society of Scotland of having a “fundamentally dishonest at its core – something many inside & outside the legal profession may well agree with, given the accumulation of evidence over the years the Law Society fails to represent either the profession or clients best interests.

However, in The Herald’s coverage, no such claim was reported to have been made by Mr McGovern against the Law Society, and the newspaper further reported a bar association source said: “We have no problem with the Law Society’s regulatory role – we just don’t think it should represent us as well.” (Ah, so its really a case of the GBA having their cake and being able to eat it too – Ed)

The GBA may want to consider a cheaper & more effective alternative to a-surely-to-fail court action against the Law Society, by throwing in their lot with a petition, Petition PE1388, filed at the Scottish Parliament asking for the repeal of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, an issue which has been reported by one of our very own law journalists, Peter Cherbi, on his “Diary of Injustice in Scotland” law blog : HERE

Report from the Herald follows :

Exclusive: Law Society faces legal challenge to its authority

David Leask Investigations Reporter

18 Feb 2011

REBEL lawyers are plotting to end the grip that the governing body for all Scottish solicitors has on their profession.

The Glasgow Bar Association (GBA), which describes itself as the voice of the legal profession in the west of the country, is actively considering a court challenge to laws that require every solicitor in Scotland to be a member of the Edinburgh-based Law Society of Scotland.

GBA members have been at loggerheads with the society and its leadership for months and will focus on whether they are being denied the “human right” to choose who represents them in negotiations.

The current rules, which insist the society both represents and regulates all lawyers in Scotland, have been enshrined in Scots Law since 1980.

The latest bone of contention is over cuts in legal aid fees for cases that go before stipendiary magistrates.

Glasgow is the only place in Scotland with such magistrates – so city solicitors felt the cuts, imposed by the Scottish Government, unfairly targeted them.

Last week senior Glasgow solicitors came to the conclusions that the cuts to “stip mags” – as the Glasgow judges are called – had been suggested by Law Society negotiators during talks. That sparked fury.

A bar association source said: “We have no problem with the Law Society’s regulatory role – we just don’t think it should represent us as well.”

David O’Hagan, a former president of the GBA, said: “The credibility of the Law Society as a representative body is now at rock bottom for many Glasgow solicitors.

“The GBA are now actively looking at a legal challenge to end compulsory membership of the society and with a view to setting up their own independent representative body for its members.”

Yesterday it emerged that a senior Glasgow lawyer, John McGovern, another former GBA president, had stood down from the Law Society’s Council, a “parliament” of 52 Scottish lawyers. Mr McGovern is understood to have been deeply unhappy with the society’s role in negotiating legal aid fees.

Mr O’Hagan has kept his seat on the council.

The society’s chief executive, Lorna Jack, yesterday stressed most of the body’s members were happy with its unusual dual rule as both regulator and representative. She cited a referendum carried out last year that brought a 73% majority in favour of the status quo.

She said: “The majority of solicitors in Scotland recognised that they benefit from keeping the dual roles of regulation and representation together.

“The very essence of what it is to be a profession is bound by its ethics and principles as well as any common knowledge and skills.”

Ms Jack also defended the society’s negotiating stances with the Scottish Government. Ministers, who have been trying to slash the legal aid budget, initially came up with a plan to do so by expanding the tiny band of public defenders who work in Scottish courts.

That horrified many private lawyers, who have had their own war of words with the Public Defence Solicitors’ Office or PDSO, as revealed in The Herald. It also upset the Law Society, which came up with its own set of alternative cuts, including a drop in “stip mags” fees.

Ms Jack explained: “On the cuts to the criminal legal aid budget, the proposals put forward by the Scottish Government on a large expansion of the PDSO were seen as unacceptable by the society and the profession. The society asked for a wide range of scenarios to be costed as an alternative way of saving £4.5 million, which would have been achieved by expanding the PDSO.

“This included cuts to the core fees in summary legal aid cases and stipendiary court fees and greater use of the existing PDSO offices.

“The position on the cuts was discussed and backed by the Council of the Law Society last month.

“The council asked that further representations be made to the Scottish Government on the stipendiary fee, which was done. The Scottish Government has since agreed to improve on their original proposal the amount paid to solicitors on this.”

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Law Society of Scotland has ‘a fundamental dishonesty at its core’ claims ex-Glasgow Bar Chief John McGovern as resignation rocks Society's Council

Law Society of ScotlandThe Law Society of Scotland stand accused of being dishonest to the core. THE Law Society of Scotland has been accused of being “fundamentally dishonest at its core” by the former President of the Glasgow Bar Association & Law Society Council Member, John McGovern who, according to the independent law publication “The Firm” is reported to have resigned from the Law Society’s Council earlier this week after a string of disagreements with the Law Society on everything from alternative business structures to the Society’s role over representation of solicitors & complaints handling.

The Firm’s website reported on the 16th February 2011 that “John McGovern, the former President of the Glasgow Bar Association and Law Society Council member for Glasgow and Strathkelvin resigned from the Law Society Council last night, claiming the Society has "a fundamental dishonesty at its core". He has resigned with immediate effect.”

“McGovern, who was elected to Council in May last year, has been critical of the Society's policy on ABS, and has campaigned against the dual functions of representation and regulation being vested in the Society, amongst other issues.”

Late tonight, the Law Society of Scotland’s website still displayed Mr McGovern’s membership of the Law Society of Scotland's Access to Justice Committee (a Committee which itself is no stranger to controversy, currently under the convenership of the Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly).

However, no media statement has yet been issued by Law Society officials confirming the events of Mr McGovern’s departure, nor has the Society made any response to Mr McGovern's most serious, if absolutely true allegations that the Law Society are dishonest to the core (I knew the Law Society were dishonest years ago ! – Ed)

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Glasgow Bar Association : Legal Aid Board 'duty plans' prejudice non-PDSO solicitors

The Glasgow Bar Association is seeking an interim interdict against the Scottish Legal Aid Board, over their “Duty Plans” system which SLAB operates where lawyers from the Public Defence Solicitors' Office (PDSO), who are employed by SLAB, are paid to represent the accused when they first appear in court.

The GBA are alleging that SLAB’s “Duty Plans” are discriminating against solicitors in private practice …

The Scotsman reports :

Legal aid chiefs 'favouring public solicitors'

Published Date: 21 March 2009
By JOHN ROBERTSON
law correspondent

SCOTLAND'S legal aid bosses were accused yesterday of an abuse of power by increasing the workload of public solicitors at the expense of those in private practice.

A plan for the sheriff and district courts in Glasgow could see a doubling of the business undertaken by the city's Public Defence Solicitors' Office (PDSO).

However, angry private sector lawyers claimed the real reason they would lose out on legal aid work was not to save public money but to give under- employed PDSO solicitors more to do.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) rejected the allegations and opposed a bid by members of the Glasgow Bar Association to win an interim interdict to stop the plan from being implemented.

Lady Stacey was asked to grant the order at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, but the case was not concluded and will be continued next week.

The court heard that SLAB operated "duty plans" at courts throughout Scotland, under which solicitors, on a rota basis, were paid to provide representation for accused people when they first appeared charged with an offence.

In Glasgow, historically, solicitors on the duty plan could expect to have at least two weeks per year as a nominated lawyer in the sheriff or district court. In recent years, private solicitors had faced competition from public defence lawyers, who were employed by SLAB.

The Glasgow PDSO had two solicitors, and Lady Stacey was told they had received more slots under duty plans, reaching ten weeks in 2008. The 2009 plan, revealed this month, more than doubled their slots, to 21 weeks.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board did issue a Press Release on this matter in early February, which you can download HERE or read below :

03 February 2009

SUMMARY

Private firms have not lost out; their duty solicitor plan allocations have not been reduced. Where vacant slots naturally arise, using the PDSO is a cost effective solution that means savings for taxpayers. The PDSO has proven itself a feasible, valued and respected service.

BACKGROUND

The BBC approached the Board seeking comments on points raised by the Glasgow Bar Association, on the involvement of the Public Defence Solicitors Office (PDSO) in the Glasgow duty solicitor plan.

We have explained that decisions on the extent of use of the PDSO is a matter for Scottish Ministers and that the BBC should contact the Scottish Government to discuss these issues.

Furthermore, the issues being raised should be seen in the context of the impact of the 2008 reforms to the summary criminal justice system, which is also a matter for the Scottish Government.

The Board has a statutory responsibility to make solicitors available, via duty plans, to represent accused people, appearing in court from custody, that do not have their own lawyer. This is an integral part of our remit to provide access to justice and to help ensure the effective and efficient operation of the courts.

Whilst the duty solicitor scheme is a Board matter, we seek to work with local solicitors in its operation where appropriate. The schemes differ around the country.

Criminal legal aid practitioners view the duty solicitor scheme as a useful means of obtaining new clients.

GLASGOW BAR ASSOCIATION

Last year we advised solicitors, including GBA members, that we intended to review the scheme in 2009. Unfortunately, the GBA had at the time withdrawn its contact with the Board following its industrial action last year, which involved trying to disrupt the courts by not operating the duty plan as normal.

Following publication of the 2009 interim duty plan for Glasgow, the GBA wrote to the Board seeking to reinstate our quarterly meetings and separately providing comments and suggestions for the 2009 Glasgow plan. We welcomed this and tried to arrange an early meeting to discuss, amongst other matters, the new duty plan for Glasgow. Unfortunately the GBA were not able to meet with the Board until 18 February.

The Board shares the GBA’s views on a number of the points made in their letter of 8th December about the need to fundamentally change the operation and structure of the Glasgow duty plan, which operates differently to all the other duty plans in Scotland.

As such, it is disappointing that the GBA have sought to air their concerns in the media prematurely, before entering into a dialogue with the Board. We have since offered to bring forward discussions of the 2009 plan at a meeting on the 4th February. We have extended the interim plan until the end of February to allow these discussions to take place.

Our intention is, and always was, to involve solicitors in this process. The Board have always been open to engagement. We are currently still finalising the Glasgow duty plan and in doing so will seek to ensure the plan meets the changing needs of the courts in Glasgow following last year’s major reforms to the summary justice system in a way that makes best use of public money and resources.

GLASGOW DUTY SOLICITOR PLAN

The Glasgow duty plan historically operates differently to the rest of the country in that it is a rolling duty plan; with solicitors keeping their slots year on year, until they advise that they no longer wish to participate.

Our approach to the 2009 Glasgow plan – as reflected in the interim plan currently in operation – is to ensure that the existing allocations for Glasgow solicitors wishing to remain on the plan are maintained at the same level as the previous year, as well as being able to accommodate new solicitors who have applied to join the scheme.

This has left a number of additional vacant slots – which had to be allocated and the Board was able to allocate the remaining vacant slots, around 12 out of the total of 624 slots currently available, to the PDSO. We have in fact done this in some previous years. The alternative would have been to try to distribute these 12 slots between around 300 other solicitors on the plan (which cannot be done evenly), all of whom had already been allocated a share equivalent to that allocated in the previous year.

Even with these additional slots, the PDSO has less than 5% of the total Glasgow slots available. Allocating vacant slots in this way provides better value for money for the taxpayer.

KILMARNOCK / FALKIRK / AYR DUTY SOLICITOR PLAN

Here private practice solicitors are given allocations of weeks depending on the numbers that register their availability each year. Firms get a share appropriate to their size / number of solicitors. It is not always possible to give arithmetically equal allocations each year, as this depends on the numbers that come forward. This means that firms might get fewer weeks one year but more the next to compensate. In Kilmarnock and Ayr, some firms were allocated 4 weeks last year, balanced by 3 this year, while the firms allocated 3 weeks last year have been allocated 4 this year. The PDSO, along with several others firms, is in the latter group. Similarly in Falkirk, the PDSO along with several other firms had 5 weeks last year compared to 6 this year.

INVERNESS

The PDSO is now a three solicitor office and has had its allocation increased proportionally. Each PDSO solicitor receives 28 days, the same as each private solicitor in the area.

PDSO – DUTY PLANS - VALUE FOR MONEY FOR TAXPAYERS

In some parts of the country, the PDSO is relatively new, and the offices are still building up their business levels. Overall in 2007-08, PDSO took on nearly 2000 cases, including as duty solicitor and made 3,269 court appearances, excluding custody cases. The case load included the “Orkney waiter” murder trial, the biggest criminal trial in Scotland of that year. The PDSO has also been successful in resolving cases early; we expect this approach increasingly to be reflected by private practice solicitors following the recent changes in the way they are paid.

Using the PDSO to fill vacant duty solicitor slots, in Glasgow or other parts of the country, is a pragmatic and equitable solution, which is also cost effective for the taxpayer. Additional PDSO involvement in duty plan means savings for taxpayers as PDSO solicitors are paid an annual salary, rather than being paid on a case by case basis as private solicitors are. This enables us to achieve better value for money, both in terms of the duty plan and PDSO itself, as the more cases the PDSO deal with, the greater the economies of scale that are achieved.

This is consistent with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s stated expectation that the Board should work to ensure the financial viability of the PDSO network and to optimise the investment of public money in the service while minimising potential negative impacts on suppliers in any area.

This follows how public defence systems work in other jurisdictions, where governments will seek to optimise their investment and increase cost efficiencies with an increased case load.

Increasing the caseload of the PDSO can be done in a number of ways; the most cost neutral of these is through use of the duty solicitor scheme in the major cities.

Moreover, the extra PDSO slots have been achieved at no extra cost to taxpayers. The PDSO has the capacity to increase its case load without increasing costs to the taxpayer. Increased use of PDSO capacity delivers real savings to taxpayers.

Private solicitors have not lost out; they have not had their allocations reduced. On some plans slightly unequal allocations last year are being balanced out this year, as happens every year, including on plans that do not involve PDSO. Some private firms are actually increasing their duty plan allocations.

More broadly, it is a matter for Scottish Ministers to decide on the extent of the public defence service. The Scottish Government recently laid a report before Parliament indicating its view that a public defence system is feasible in Scotland. The Board agrees with this.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has made it clear he is not intending to expand or reduce the public defender network in Scotland. However, he has made publicly clear his intention to use the PDSO if there is market failure or a disruption of supply.

Using the PDSO to fill vacant slots in the Glasgow duty plan is not about expanding the PDSO service but making best use of public money and resources, which always has to be a key consideration for the Board.

THE PDSO SERVICE AND THE PUBLIC

The PDSO currently employs 14 solicitors, two of whom are solicitor advocates, and one trainee. PDSO is fortunate in employing so many experienced and dedicated defence solicitors. The PDSO aims to provide high quality criminal defence. In a recent client satisfaction survey, 90% of respondents rated the PDSO as good or very good. We have also received positive feedback from the courts on the service.

Clients are able to speak to a PDSO solicitor 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via a freephone helpline. It has also engaged with Scotland’s Polish community by employing a Polish-speaking paralegal. The Glasgow office in particular has gained a reputation for working well with women and clients with mental health problems.

The new quality assurance scheme for criminal legal aid practitioners which will be introduced in 2009 is based on a pilot scheme run with the PDSO.

It is important to recognise that the PDSO cannot operate in exactly the same way as private criminal legal firms. For example it is not permitted to provide legal services for paying clients. Private firms are therefore able to top up their legal aid work.

GOING FORWARD

The Board has already announced that we intend to undertake a full review of the solicitor duty plan system in 2009 and will continue to ensure that accused people have representation and that the system is cost effective and offers taxpayers value for money. This will be carried out in consultation with the profession and other interested parties.

As indicated, decisions on the future use of the PDSO are a matter for Scottish Ministers. The Board’s view is that criminal defence is best served by a mixed system, primarily provided by private sector solicitors but with a public defence network as an important and integral part of that set up. The Cabinet secretary has already made his views clear on this matter.

It’s important to recognise that the PDSO is a very small network of only around 14 solicitors compared to the 1,400 solicitors in private practice.

Providing criminal legal assistance in this way also enables Scottish Ministers to direct provision of services to areas where there is insufficient provision or market failure. The PDSO has demonstrated
that providing publicly funded criminal legal assistance by means of solicitors directly employed by the Board is entirely feasible.

The PDSO network comprises seven offices around Scotland including Glasgow. It was set up in Glasgow to operate in what is seen as a fairly saturated market. It is particularly important, both to the Board and to the Government, to have a PDSO presence in Glasgow, a city that represents 20% of the criminal court business in Scotland and has Europe’s biggest criminal court.

We look forward to having further discussions with the GBA as we seek to finalise the duty plan for the coming year and as part of our wider review of duty arrangements.

This wider review would have taken place earlier, but has been delayed because of the scale of the recent summary criminal justice reforms.

The Board recognises and values the role of the private criminal firms in Scotland and wishes to see these and the small PDSO network work together to provide quality legal aid services in a cost effective manner.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Glasgow lawyers who fought legal aid cuts claimed millions in legal aid

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 …

The Sunday Herald reports :

Lawyers fighting Legal Aid cuts claimed £8m

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."

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Glasgow Bar Association paid PR firm to hit legal aid proposals

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 !

The Sunday Herald reports :

Lawyers paid PR firm to attack reforms which cut legal aid income

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."

Sunday, July 13, 2008

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

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

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

The Sunday Herald reports :

Lawyers to disrupt cases over fees row

By John Bynorth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Scots accent causes difficulty with court papers as lawyers complain over mistakes

Court papers full of spelling mistakes & omissions due to poor quality transcripts .. who hasn't experienced this yet.

Well some of Scotland's 'leading lawyers' are now complaining the mistakes are too numerous and are throwing cases into chaos because of the high levels of mistakes caused by English stenographers who are seemingly baffled by the Scots language.

Of course, the method of recording cases itself should also be improved, and offered as a service to all cases before the Scottish Courts, as one recent petition before the Scottish Parliament demonstrates ...

The Scotsman reports :

Court papers full of errors due to difficulties with Scottish accent

By Kizzy Taylor

COURT cases could be thrown into chaos because workers employed to take notes can't understand the Scots accent, it was claimed yesterday.

Leading lawyers have complained that official court papers are littered with mistakes because English stenographers are baffled by names and language used north of the Border.

They said Scottish names such as Barlinnie have been wrongly transcribed as "Barrel Annie" and that words such as "libelled" and "fanciful" have been replaced with "liable" and "fanciable".

It was claimed the mistakes and omissions could affect the outcome of appeals and lawyers have complained to Scotland's Lord Advocate Eilish Angiolini.

Donald Findlay QC said: "The transcriptions are bloody awful. There are clearly problems (understanding] the accent. There are bits that are either missing or plainly wrong.

"They know nothing of the local topography, which leads to some amazing phonetic translations of places. I would have thought it's not beyond the wit of man to check place names on the internet."

Gordon Jackson QC, the former Labour MSP for Glasgow Govan, said: "I have heard judges make disparaging remarks about the quality of work."

Gerry Considine, vice-chairman of the Glasgow Bar Association, added: "There's a lot of disquiet about the mistakes being made. It appears they can't make out the accents."

Legal workers said problems began when the Scottish Court service awarded the work to Devon-based Mendip Media Group in 2006.

Mendip admitted there had been problems but blamed the mistakes on the "atrocious" quality of the recordings being taken in court, but said transcribers based in Scotland had been hired to avoid problems understanding the dialect.

A Scottish Courts Service spokeswoman said: "We are upgrading our recording equipment to improve the quality of recordings, but there are still some quality issues regarding tape transcriptions and these are being addressed with Mendip."