Attempt to rescue SNP’s costly, ailing solicitors regulator as Bill Brackenridge appointed new £300+ a day Chair of Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

New Chair appointed to SNP’s ailing legal regulator. THE Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has today announced the appointment of Bill Brackenridge as it’s chair, somewhat tardily replacing the redoubtable Jane Irvine who left her post on 31 December 2012. Mr Brackenridge, who has held a number of Non Executive Directorships & Chairs of bodies such as NHS Highland & Argyll & Bute CHP, and was appointed by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to the Vale of Leven Monitoring Group, takes over the £300 plus per day position at a time when the notoriously wasteful SLCC is facing mounting criticism from the legal profession for its huge annual budget at nearly £3million pounds, paid for by a compulsory levy on solicitors across Scotland.

The SLCC announced the appointment in a Press Release SLCC Appoints new Chair stating : We are pleased to announce the appointment of Bill Brackenridge as Chair of the SLCC. The appointment will be for five years.  He replaces Jane Irvine, the first Chair of the SLCC, who served from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2012.

The SLCC is the single gateway for complaints against legal practitioners operating in Scotland. It investigates and resolves complaints about inadequate professional service; refers conduct complaints to the relevant professional body and provides oversight of complaint handling across the profession. The SLCC also promotes and advises on good complaint handling and makes recommendations to promote good legal practice in Scotland.

Bill Brackenridge brings considerable Corporate Governance experience to the SLCC. As a management consultant for 25 years he has extensively advised public and private sector clients.  He has served as a non-Executive Director on Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and on NHS Highland, chairing the Argyll & Bute CHP for five years.  For six years he chaired the Board of the Scottish Ambulance Service.  He comes to the SLCC aiming to build on its formative years and intent upon developing positive relationships with its stakeholders.

Bill commented "I'm pleased to be joining the SLCC at such an important time in its development. We're now established as the gateway for all legal complaints in Scotland but there's much more for us to do to build trust and confidence in legal services. I'm looking forward to working with the team to make us even more effective and influential in dealing with complaints and in encouraging improved standards through our powers of guidance and oversight. The legal market is changing. Our hard-won experience will contribute to maintaining and strengthening public trust and confidence in buying and using legal services."

The SLCC is the single gateway for complaints against legal practitioners operating in Scotland. It investigates and resolves complaints about inadequate professional service; refers conduct complaints to the relevant professional body and provides oversight of complaint handling across the profession. The SLCC also promotes and advises on good complaint handling and makes recommendations to promote good legal practice in Scotland.

Appointed for Scotland.org contains a fuller history of Mr Brackenridge : Meet current board members - Bill Brackenridge

" There are lots of people who can put something back. "

Having started his career in British European Airways, Bill joined Strathclyde Region's Policy Planning Unit, before going on to spend more than 20 years in a Management Consultancy with a focus on corporate governance. Drawing on several strands of his experience, he joined Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd as a non-executive director in 1999. In his six years there - a period which he describes as "remarkably interesting" - he helped the organisation evolve from one that simply operated airports to one that used its ten airports to develop the economy of the area.

When he left full time consultancy in 2003, he joined the Scottish Ambulance Service as Chairman of the board. There was a need to make the Scottish Ambulance Service a recognised and integral part of the health service and not just a transport adjunct to it . "In my time as Chair I improved the links between the two. Paramedics are well-qualified health professionals making a vastly different contribution from the ambulance drivers of old."

In 2006 Bill successfully applied to be a member of the board of NHS Highland - Bill's local Health Board. A "cross-directorship" like this allows Bill to help ensure the NHS is a truly national and integrated service, not a collection of separate organisations. He was appointed Chairman of NHS Highland's Argyll & Bute Community Health Partnership, charged with overseeing the delivery of primary health care to the 100,000 people of Argyll & Bute and purchasing most of their secondary care from neighbouring Health Boards.

Recently he was appointed by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to chair The Vale Monitoring Group -  a group which will report to her on whether or not the Vision which she has approved for the Vale of Leven Hospital is being implemented fully and to an appropriate timetable. 

"The public appointments system has changed vastly over the years. It is now a competency based framework. Many will find this very different from ordinary application processes, but it is not difficult. It focuses on what you have done and not what you have been. There are lots of people out there who can put something back and make a contribution. These roles are not just for middle class white Scottish men. Board members don't have to be drawn from the sector or to have come from big jobs. If you have the right personal qualities, and you keep asking the difficult questions until you get an answer that you're happy with, you will be making a contribution to the work of the body. Public appointments are fascinating and rewarding. The key issue is to have the confidence to ask questions -  and to keep asking more questions till you get answers you believe ". (Gasp ! – Ed)

After spending £14 million, legal complaints pair admit "We are crap and so is the law that created us" as one jets off to £80K position as FOI Chief

Having a laugh at ‘life changing complaints’, Jane Irvine & Rosemary Agnew of the SLCC. AFTER spending some FOURTEEN MILLION POUNDS of complaints levies funded by hikes in legal fees to clients & at least TWO MILLION POUNDS from the Scottish Government, Jane Irvine & Rosemary Agnew, Chair & outgoing Chief Executive respectively of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) have publicly branded the 2007 Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act which created the SLCC a bit of a shambles, preferring to blame perceived inadequacies in the way the act was written rather than explaining why over the past FOUR YEARS and thousands of complaints later, not one board member from the SLCC has ever spoken out publicly over the dysfunctionality of the complaints body, widely derided by the media, the legal profession, consumer groups & clients who point out not one ‘crooked lawyer’ has ever been prosecuted & struck off by the SLCC since it began operation (an even worse record than the Law Society ! – Ed).

The claims of Rosemary Agnew who today jets off to an £80K a year plus expenses role as Scotland’s Information Commissioner, & Jane Irvine who remains as the £300+, per day Chair of the SLCC, were made in an interview in yesterday’s Scotsman newspaper, which is available via a google search, and has also been reported in the Law Society of Scotland’s Journal Online.

A reporter who asked “Would the interview be reprinted on the SLCC’s website ?” was told “No”, giving rise to claims today from all quarters the complaints pair are eager to blame everyone else but themselves for the organisation’s multiple failures and constant hurt caused to both clients and solicitors.

There has been no rebuttal from the Law Society of Scotland over the pair’s claims, however a senior legal source rubbished the claims of Agnew & Irvine, saying : “Its like putting Beavis & Butthead in charge of the couch.”

He went on to say : “The SLCC and its staff are not sufficiently independent enough from the legal profession to make an impact on complaints, nor does it appear to me the organisation appears willing to campaign for more powers, something it has never asked for since it came into a costly existence in October 2008”

The Journal Online reports :

Complaints Act makes things too complicated: Commission heads

The complaints system entrusted to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is not user friendly and could have been "hugely simpler", according to the Commission's chair, Jane Irvine.

Interviewed in today's Scotsman newspaper along with outgoing chief executive Rosemary Agnew, Ms Irvine said it was difficult to follow all te statutory processes cheaply and correctly and make sure the complaint remained confidential.

Ms Agnew said the Commission "could do things much more efficiently if we had more freedom within the legislation that governs us". She added that the statutory language irritated and upset people by requiring the Commission to apply the tests of "frivolous, vexatious or totally without merit" in deciding not to accept a complaint for investigation.

Both women believes there are positives in the Act, the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, because it offers the chance to use mediation and it "empowers the legal profession", but say the question cannot be answered whether we are in a better position than before the Commission was set up, "because there is no comparator".

Complaints of inadequate professional service were formerly handled by the professional bodies, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, and they continue to investigate cases of alleged professional misconduct – which the Commission also believes makes things more complicated.

On relations with the Law Society of Scotland, Ms Agnew said: "Relations are cordial but we are all constrained by the Act. If we didn't test each other" – such as by the Society challenging the Commission's proposed budget, and the Commission checking the Society's complaints handling processes – "it would not be a healthy relationship."

However they express pride in the thoroughness of their investigation processes. Ms Agnew takes up office as Information Commissioner for Scotland tomorrow, 1 May.

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)

The Justice Secretary, the too-sick-to-work Chief Executive, the SECRET PAY-OFF & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

MacAskill meets Masterman, yet months later the SLCC complaints chief left on ‘ill health’ grounds. QUESTIONS are being raised over a Scottish Government backed SECRET PAY-OFF made to EILEEN MASTERMAN, the former Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who was appointed to her £1,350 a week position by Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in October 2008. While enquiries into the amount of money actually paid to Ms Masterman has so far drawn an official blank, SLCC insiders have now privately confirmed the settlement “is a substantial sum” and was apparently only paid over after bitter negotiations between legal teams representing those concerned in the deal which was to be kept secret even though it required the agreement of the Scottish Government & Scottish Ministers.

Eileen Masterman was appointed to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in 2008 by the SNP Scottish Government who one senior legal insider claimed “had made a complete mess of the SLCC”. It has also been claimed Ministers had ignored warnings from officials the SNP’s plans for the new law complaints quango would founder with public perception seeing the SLCC as little more than a window dressing exercise.

While criticism of the SLCC has been sharp in both the media and from elements of the legal profession, consumer organisations have been strangely less eager to publicly & officially challenge the lax regime at the SLCC’s Edinburgh Stamp Office HQ. The lack of official criticism of what is now widely seen as a disastrous attempt to independently regulate complaints against solicitors in Scotland comes amid rumours that officials from one particular consumer organisation were threatened, being told privately in no uncertain terms if they openly criticised the SLCC, their positions on justice related bodies & consultation groups would be terminated immediately.

Speaking at the time of Ms Masterman’s appointment during the opening of the SLCC, Justice Secretary Mr MacAskill said : “"I want to congratulate everyone who has worked hard to get this new organisation off the ground. The Commission was an initiative of the previous administration, but one we were happy to support. I am determined to ensure that the legal profession in Scotland continues to thrive, and receive the respect it deserves for the good work it does. A modern, transparent, independent complaints resolution system is a key part of that. I have no doubt that the Commission will play a valuable role in safeguarding the rights of both the legal profession and users of the services they provide throughout Scotland."

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman  commented: "As an organisation that is structured to be completely independent, impartial and accessible, it will bring a different approach to addressing legal complaints in Scotland. The complaint handling procedure has been drawn up from a 'clean sheet' and anyone taking a complaint forward will benefit from a single gateway approach and the opportunity to use the services of trained mediators at every stage."

Yet, only a few months later in late summer 2009, Masterman’s costly well salaried appointment at the SLCC broke down in tears amid bitter internal feuding over an investigation into the Master Policy and arguments with Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney and a constituent over secret meetings which had been held between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the Law Society’s Master Policy insurers Marsh UK and Royal Sun Alliance PLC who underwrite the Master Policy itself.

Independent Law Journalist Peter Cherbi investigated the payoff and reported back on what he found via his Diary of Injustice web blog, here :

HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman (foreground) received Scottish Government approved pay off after lawyers intervened says auditor report. RUMOURS that Eileen Masterman, the former Chief Executive of the much derided Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), received a SUBSTANTIAL PAY OFF after she resigned on grounds of “ill health”, after serving less than SEVEN MONTHS in the £80,000 a year, £1,350 plus, a week job have now been confirmed with the publication of a “Key Memorandum Issues” document prepared for the SLCC by the Edinburgh offices of auditors Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton were called in to replace the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) as the SLCC’s auditors, after SLAB were abruptly sacked from their auditing role by the SLCC’s board in 2009 after much bickering over the Legal Aid Board’s scrutiny of the failed law complaints quango.

However, the report now published by Grant Thornton FAILS to mention any references to official claims Ms Masterman resigned due to “ill health”. The report instead documents a battle negotiations between lawyers, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and even the Scottish Government over what is referred to as an unspecified “Ex-Gratia payment”, which one legal insider this morning said may have been made to head off any legal proceedings against the SLCC by Ms Masterman. The figure, which Grant Thornton, the SLCC and the Scottish Government have so far failed to disclose, is rumoured to be substantial.

Grant Thornton’s audit of the SLCC’s problems revealed Scottish Government approved payoff to former CEO. Referring to Ms Masterman’s payoff while managing to omit the figures, page eight of the report from Grant Thornton states : “Ex gratia payment to former CEO : Rosemary Agnew was appointed the role of Acting CEO in November 2009 and the former CEO, Eileen Masterman departed from the post in February 2010, with Rosemary Agnew continuing in her role. We understand that an ex-gratia payment was paid to the former CEO. The amount of this payment was determined through consultation between the former CEO, the Board and the respective lawyers. The payment was then authorised and approved by the Board and the payment approved by the Scottish Government.”

SLCC release on Masterman resignation claimed illness, omitting details of Scottish Government approved pay-off. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a public press release regarding Ms Masterman’s resignation, stating : “The SLCC has now informed its staff and stakeholders that after a period of illness, Eileen Masterman, Chief Executive Officer of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has left the organisation. The Commission wishes her well for the future. Jane Irvine, SLCC Chair, confirmed that Rosemary Agnew, the SLCC Head of Investigations, will continue in her role as Accountable Officer and Acting Chief Executive until further notice. The position of Chief Executive is filled through the Public Appointments process run by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland (OCPAS). The recruitment process will commence in due course.”

Following the ‘recruitment process’, Ms Masterman was eventually replaced by Rosemary Agnew as Chief Executive in 2010. The SLCC have since removed any references to Ms Masterman’s resignation from their website.

Sources in late 2009 had informed Diary of Injustice that Ms Masterman had failed to respond to correspondence from consumers & msps, however it was not until early 2010, firm evidence was made available Ms Masterman had been missing from her role as the SLCC’s Chief Executive for some time, as I revealed in an article on April 13 2010, here : £70K Chief Executive ‘missing for 6 months’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Secretary dodges questions on scandal-hit law quango

The day after my initial article on Ms Masterman’s disappearance from work, April 4, 2010, the SLCC were forced to announce the resignation of Ms Masterman from her post on grounds of “ill health”, which I reported on, here : SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh

Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney revealed he felt Ms Masterman had mislead him over accounts of meetings. However, Eileen Masterman’s resignation leaves questions over increasingly bitter exchanges between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & the Scottish Government’s Finance Chief, John Swinney, on a matter which I have previously reported where further documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation revealed the SLCC had clearly mislead Mr Swinney over secret meetings between its officials including Ms Masterman and officials from Marsh, the Law Society’s Master Policy insurers.

Cabinet Secretary Swinney demanded explanations of SLCC's minutes contradictions. Letters written by Cabinet Secretary John Swinney dated March 2009 to the SLCC's Chief Executive Eileen Masterman brand her explanation 'contradictory' to details in the Commission's own minutes : "In your response on the 12th of December to *** subsequent letter on the 2nd of December in which *** had stated 'clearly you are saying that no date has yet been arranged for the Marsh presentation'. You indicated that a meeting took place with RSA (Royal Sun Alliance) in July 2008 but that no meeting had occurred with Marsh."

Mr Swinney went on to state in his letter : "*** has drawn to my attention the fact that the minutes of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission dated 11th of March 2008 and 7th July 2007 indicated firstly in March 2008 that 'Jane Irvine confirmed she had arranged an introductory session from Marsh' and the minutes in July said that a meeting had taken place with RSA. I have to say that I feel there is a contradiction between the correspondence you have sent to *** dated 1st and 12th of December and the minutes of the SLCC meetings of March and July."

SLCC's answers to Cabinet Secretary Swinney were far from clear. Ms Masterman’s responses to Mr Swinney's allegations of contradictions in correspondence between himself, a constituent and the SLCC, to keep secret any meetings with the insurers, fell through after details of the secret meetings emerged in board minutes of meetings of the Commission, leading to further correspondence between the SLCC & Mr Swinney, who went onto brand Ms Masterman’s explanations as "far from clear" after Ms Masterman informed Mr Swinney in letters dated 15 January 2009 "The SLCC has not consulted with Marsh or the Royal Sun Alliance about the operation of the Master Policy" which was contradicted by emails from November 2008 between Ms Masterman & the then Head of Investigations Rosemary Agnew, which read : "We received our tutorial yesterday on the Master Policy from Marsh".

Eileen Masterman then wrote to John Swinney in a letter dated March 2009 claiming "I have not met with Marsh", clearly contradicting the course of events revealed in documents released under FOI legislation where SLCC officials including Ms Masterman had in fact met Marsh.

Frequent Flyers : SLCC’s David Smith expressed anti-client jibes to Eileen Masterman in emails around the anti-consumer law complaints quango. Among the papers ordered to be disclosed in a decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, emails containing anti-client jibes were revealed to have been sent by SLCC board member David Smith to Ms Masterman in July 2009. Mr Smith, husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith, was personally appointed to the SLCC by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Smith, a lawyer who served much of his career at law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn, who themselves often act for the Master Policy in protection of questionable solicitors against negligence claims, referred to participants in the Master Policy survey & deceased clients who had committed suicide as a direct result of involvement with the Master Policy, as “Frequent flyers”.

Called to the Bars : Evidence from earlier FOI releases featured in newspapers point to SLCC’s anti client culture among board members & senior officials. The emails from David Smith to SLCC staff including the SLCC’s then Chief Executive Eileen Masterman, support evidence from earlier FOI releases which featured in the national media of a bitter, hate fuelled anti-client culture operating at the highest levels of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has seen other board members such as Glasgow divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan who rubbished victims of crooked lawyers as “complete chancers”. In additional emails, other board members chastised consumer organisations, and sought to exclude them from the inevitable results of the SLCC’s Master Policy investigation, which the deaths of clients to the Law Society of Scotland, its insurers and the Master Policy itself.

A client who has been waiting months for the SLCC to take action on his complaint about his solicitor, condemned the organisation for its inaction over complaints and internal secrecy. He said : “I’ve been waiting nine months for a result on my complaint which has been back and forth from the Law Society to the SLCC yet neither can work out who should investigate my case. They seem to be more able to pay off their staff in the snap of a finger and make sure the dirt is kept secret rather do their job which is supposed to be investigating complaints about solicitors.”

Something to hide : Scottish Government Ministers refuse to comment on audit report’s claims they approved a payoff to the former SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman. The Scottish Government were asked for comment on their role in approving the pay off to Ms Masterman amid claims that a series of leters from Mr Swinney & a law reform campaigner over the Master Policy meetings led to her downfall. The Scottish Government refused any comment, their spokesperson briefly stating : "This is a private personnel matter for the SLCC and its former employee."

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission also refused to comment on the matter or release any details of the payoff and how it was negotiated. It was also noted the SLCC’s media response was emailed at exactly the same time as the response received from the Scottish Government.

Malcontents wanted for £42K as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission aims to recruit staff after year of failure, scandal & public distrust

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION, which has spent its first (and hopefully last in existence - Ed) year mired in scandals involving everything from huge expenses payouts to its board members, a systematic failure to deal with complaints on any level, consistent failures to address its supposed duties from the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, media exposes on its members drunken booze fuelled rants against consumers, has gone on a recruitment drive.

We all live on an expensive submarine – SLCC Board members racked up a staggering £135K a year in expenses claims yet quango hardly does any work. So, if you feel like working for Scotland’s least worked quango (least worked, as the SLCC passes most complaints back to the Law Society anyway) and fancy getting involved in bitter feuds between officials & board members over policy decisions, complaints investigations, and how not to deal with the public, not forgetting the ubiquitous ‘how to tell people to sod off on the telephone if they are complaining against a solicitor’ routine, read the job ad below and apply (I’d imagine plenty of leavings from the Law Society will just jump at the thought of £41K & pension ! – Ed)

Previous Scottish Law Reporter coverage on the SLCC HERE and malcontents – don't forget to get your applications in to join up for the biggest complaints racket in town by 17:00 Zulu on 05/03/2010 ! (Whisky Foxtrot 14 doughnuts, out ! – Ed)

Case Investigation Manager & Gateway Team Manager

CASE INVESTIGATIONS MANAGER (refIM1)

GATEWAY TEAM MANAGER (ref GW1)

Salary for both posts in the region of £41,944. Group Self Invested Personal Pension + Benefits

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) is a corporate body operating independently of the legal profession and the government. It was set up by Statute to modernise the legal complaints handling system, to ensure complaints are resolved quickly and effectively. We are looking for people with the vision, determination and drive to form a key part of our management team and lead our people, achieve objectives and play a central role in making a real impact for the people of Scotland.

You will provide leadership and team management to your team, organising staff and other resources to deal with complaints in accordance with the SLCC's Complaint Handling Procedures and quality standards. You will support and develop your team and as a member of the management team you will assist in the review and further develop our policies and procedures to provide a high quality, efficient complaints handling service.

To be successful in this role you will be educated to degree level or equivalent and ideally will have a legal or comparable qualification and a supervisory management qualification.

You will have demonstrable experience in writing and providing procedural advice and guidance, including drafting reports and be able to demonstrate leadership and management skills. You will have a track record of significant achievement with a minimum of 3 years people and performance management experience. A working knowledge of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook is essential. You will be an effective communicator who is well organised and delivers work on time and to the agreed level of quality. Ideally you will be able to influence at local, national and strategic levels, with the personal and professional manner to command confidence of stakeholders.

• Application Pack Summary (PDF 38KB)
  Application Form (PDF 56KB)
  Diversity Monitoring Form (PDF 42KB)
  Terms and Conditions (PDF 24KB)
  Case Investigations Manager Person Specification (PDF 33KB)
• Case Investigations Manager Job Description (PDF 53KB)
  Gateway Team Manager Person Specification (PDF 33KB)
  Gateway Team Manager Job Description (PDF 54KB)

To Apply:

Please contact Rick Mattison on 0131 243 2981 or rickmattison@uk.michaelpage.com, quoting reference MPTJ13091641. Please return your completed application and diversity monitoring form to Rick Mattison at Michael Page.

Closing date for applications is Friday 5 March 2009. SLCC short listing will take place on Monday 22 March and interviews will be held on Monday 29, Tuesday 30, Wednesday 31 March 2010.

Applications must be received by: 17:00 on 05/03/2010.

Broke Law firms dump staff to bankroll £135k expenses madness at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

While hundreds of lawyers, trainees, paralegals and office staff face redundancy across Scotland’s dwindling legal landscape, it turns out the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has no such problem.

Yes, folks, the SLCC is literally rolling in millions of pounds received from the solicitors complaints levy (around £5 million pounds since January 2008), added to the £2 million pounds of public money all used to fund an organisation which many MSPs dub “anti-client, anti-consumer”, and many solicitors & advocates dub “a bloody expensive waste of time & effort.”

Feel like submitting a claim to the SLCC for expenses ? (go ahead, make my day ! – Ed)

A recent article by Law blogger Peter Cherbi’s “Diary of Injustice in Scotland” reported on the expenses jollies at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, revealing that huge claims had been made by SLCC board members, but the actual claims themselves were not disclosed, as SLCC Chief Jane Irvine claimed, out of fear that board members would develop mental health problems if everyone got to know exactly what they were claiming for (oh, the mental health line, so there must be something worth hiding then – Ed)

So, if you are feeling the pinch, or got no money in the bank despite having studied all that time at Uni, slaved your guts out, and now face seeing your law practice go down the tubes, well look no further than the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, funded by yes, you guessed it - YOUR hard errm earned money from handling legal business for thousands of Scots clients.

The Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion confirmed today they are investigating the case of the missing expenses claims in the hopes that mass insanity at the SLCC over publication of their expenses claims can be avoided.

We await to see just who has been claiming what with our hard earned money ...

Jane Irvine : Consumers & solicitors will gain advantages of Law Society FOI compliance

One of the big hitters in the world of regulating the Scots legal profession, Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has flown her colours in favour of consumer advantages being touted by a campaign to force the Law Society of Scotland to be compliant with Freedom of Information laws.

Peter Cherbi’s Diary of Injustice in Scotland law blog reports on the significant development : (yes, time for FOI at the Law Society – Ed)

Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity

Jane Irvine, SLCC Chair supports Law Society's compliance with FOI. In a startling rebuke to the Law Society of Scotland's campaign to remain a super secret unaccountable regulator of Scottish solicitors, Jane Irvine, the Chairman of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has sided with law reformers and Freedom of Information campaigners who are seeking to bring the Law Society of Scotland under the scope of Freedom of Information legislation.

Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC said: “If the Law Society of Scotland were ever to become FOI compliant, there could be considerable advantages to consumers and practitioners.".

Jane Irvine, formerly Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, following on from Linda Costelloe Baker, and is now Chair of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is the first high profile personality in the Scottish legal world to support the notion that the Law Society's secrecy status, which has caused much injustice to clients of 'crooked lawyers' over the years, is a thing of the past.

Ms Irvine believes, like many outside the secret society style bubble of the legal establishment, that now in the new era of the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and greater demands for scrutiny, particularly in the wake of global banking failures, that consumers, and even the legal profession itself could benefit from the transparency, accountability & openness which compliance with Freedom of Information legislation brings to public bodies, services and industry.

Jane Irvine cautioned however, that some parts of the Law Society's work may yet be required to keep secret from the public : "However, under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 there would inevitably be significant areas of information that would need to remain confidential in order to comply with the legislation. It therefore it would be important for expectations to be managed.”

Law Society of Scotland proved many times it cannot be trusted as a secret regulator. As a law reform campaigner myself, I would have to slightly disagree with the SLCC Chair on some points, as evidence has shown from previous investigations carried out by the Law Society into crooked lawyers that it simply cannot be trusted as a secret self regulatory body, which has for the main, stood by many solicitors who ended up ruining their clients, and now it appears, has also allowed solicitors with criminal records to carry on practicing, with their clients totally unaware their legal representative is more of a criminal than some who arrive in their office requiring their services in court !

I would also point to some secrecy problems with the SLCC itself, where censorship of FOI requests has led to suspicion the Law Society, even after being forced to comply with freedom of information laws, would also use the black ink to hide behind confidentiality in order to continue protecting crooked lawyers …

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s intentions to keep Law Society secret outflanked by reformers. Jane Irvine's stance on consumers gaining increased protection from crooked lawyers by removing the Law Society’s exemption from information laws, contrasts radically with the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s intentions, which were revealed last week after he issued a terse statement backing continued secrecy for the solicitors governing body.

Diary of Injustice exposed MacAskill's gaffe on Law Society FOI secrecy. Last Monday I reported in an article the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill made a staggering policy U-turn in the space of a few hours, after initially letting slip he "had no intention of including the Law Society in any FOI review". However later in the day, as Government officials became aware of others giving more positive quotes to the story, a spokesman for the Justice Secretary reversed his initial statement seeking to maintain the Law Society's much coveted exemption from Freedom of Information laws, saying the matter was still open for discussion and organisations could still be suggested for inclusion in the 'open ended' review.

Diary of Injustice starts campaign to remove FOI exemption from Law Society of Scotland. Late last week, I began an open campaign which anyone can join to bring the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates into line with other parts of Scotland’s legal system, making them compliant with Freedom of Information legislation. You can join in the campaign to bring the legal profession into the scope of the anti secrecy FOI legislation too by emailing the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill here scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or write to him at : Kenny MacAskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice,The Scottish Government,St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG.

There is no place in our society, currently being battered by banking failures produced by the same soft touch, closed ranks regulation which the Law Society has been forcing on clients of the legal profession for decades.

There can be no argument for maintaining any level of secrecy for the Law Society of Scotland. The Law Society is an organisation which has proved time and again it has no respect for the rights of clients of solicitors, and has no intention of compensating vast numbers of clients who have lost millions of pounds to the actions of ‘crooked lawyers’.

The Law Society must be stripped of its immunity from Freedom of Information laws, and its remaining powers of investigating complaints against its own members and discipline powers transferred to an entirely independent body not mired in the overriding policies of self protectionism and anti client prejudice.

MacAskill's Justice Dept demands Legal Complaints Commission whistleblowers be punished as leak inquiry confirmed

Serious problems over at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are revealed by Peter Cherbi’s “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland” law blog, where it seems whistleblowers at the SLCC are about to get some of the Jack Bauer treatment from Kenny MacAskill …

Witch-hunt at Legal Complaints Commission 'ends at MacAskill's doorstep' as Justice officials forced to confirm leaks inquiry

SLCC once again under fire. Officials of the Scottish Government's Justice Department have been forced to admit a series of interventions with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, over leaks to the media which depict the quango which handles consumer complaints against solicitors as more interested in protecting the legal profession than investigating actual complaints.

Diary of Injustice reveals SLCC’s secret leaks inquiry. As I revealed earlier last month, a witch hunt at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission began after the Justice Department ordered an investigation into leaks which began in August 2008, one of which gave details on non Law Society staff at the SLCC who were being subjected to an attempt by the Law Society and Scottish Government to 'drive them out of the Commission, ensuring total control of the 'independent' SLCC by the legal profession itself.

You can read last month’s report on the witch-hunt at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : 'Culture of fear' grips Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Department witch-hunt threatens whistleblower staff over leaks to media

You can read my earlier report on the leaks as they began at the SLCC here : Law Society target ‘outsider staff’ for exit at Complaints Commission as lawyers undermine attempts at independent regulation

Scottish Government initially denied any involvement. The Scottish Government was asked to explain why it had ordered an investigation at the SLCC, however officials initially sought to play down and deny, several times, that any such investigation, or even discussions between the SLCC and Justice Department took place. A Justice Department official would only admit : "Staffing is a matter for the SLCC. If they have concerns about security of their information then it is a matter for Eileen Masterman and her team."

Leaked SLCC papers show Justice Department ordered investigation. However, after initial denials from the Justice Department, a further leaked document quoted an SLCC meeting where mentions of “Action and impact arising from the unauthorised leak of information that was raised by the Justice Dept.” exposed the Government's account of matters as completely false. Justice Department officials were then hurriedly forced to admit they had directly intervened with the SLCC and demanded immediate action to curb any information reaching the public. Officials sought to justify their attempt to clamp down on dissent at the quango by claiming that when the leaks be some of the staff under suspicion were still employed by Scottish Ministers.

A Justice Department official sought to play down the leaks investigation and protect the Justice Secretary from involvement, claiming : "I had a very brief discussion with Jane Irvine in her capacity as Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman last summer when it seemed from your website and an approach that you made to her that you were receiving information about the Ombudsman’s staff."

The official went on "These members of staff were at that time employed by Scottish Ministers so it was appropriate that I should be made aware of any concerns. Jane and I discussed whether or not we thought there had been a breach in security and we concluded that there had not been. We agreed that it was unlikely the information was coming from the Ombudsman’s office because it was completely inaccurate and we therefore decided to take no further action.That is why there are no minutes or notes"

However, the Justice Department official had no explanation to offer for how the entire episode came to light in leaked documents from the SLCC (more yet to be published) which reported a meeting where the Justice Department raised the leaks issue and demanded action.

A Justice Department official on being handed a copy of one of the leaked documents said : "I have no idea why the matter was raised at a meeting of the SLCC in October. I was not at the meeting."

However, an insider at the SLCC countered "That is pure rubbish from the Government's point of view. We were all warned to shut up after these discussions between Jane Irvine and the Government. The fact of the matter is there has been a lot of inequality between members of staff at the SLCC and the Law Society want everyone out who isn't under their thumb."

"Law Society staff who transferred over were being paid higher salaries and were to be considered for more senior positions. Whoever denies that is a liar and they know it, and even though you reported it there is still an undercurrent of mistrust between Law Society staff and non Law Society staff."

"What I said last year to you stands, the present Scottish Government are simply allowing the Law Society to dictate terms to the SLCC and we are not able to perform our role as was intended under the previous administration which created the SLCC in the first place."

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill must have known his department intervened with SLCC. A senior source within the Government said however, he doubted the Justice Department’s explanation on the matter and pointed to the leaks of documents, and reports of bitter infighting within the Commission as a direct challenge to the reliability of the Government’s explanations.

He said “I doubt this was left to an official to clear up, considering there is a great deal of interest in your reporting of the matter and criticisms of regulation of the legal profession”.

“I understand the Cabinet Secretary for Justice knows all about what took place and probably wants to shut the whole discussion on leaks down because ultimately the quango is his responsibility and the people there are at his appointment.These reports of problems at the Commission are making life very difficult for those who want to keep control of regulating lawyers for themselves.”

“Clearly responsibility for this rests with Kenny MacAskill himself no matter who tries to throw themselves into the path of the oncoming train and the Law Society has to be stopped from gaining full control of the Commission if the public are to be properly protected”

The insider went on to refer to claims in the Justice Department’s statement there were “no minutes or notes” of the Government’s intervention with the SLCC on the leaks issue.

He said : “It is preposterous to claim there are no minutes or notes of such a matter given the importance of it and implications for the SLCC and the Justice Department and why did they even put such a thing in their statement. I regret to say I sense this issue is being covered up deliberately to protect people here in Government, at the SLCC and probably at the Law Society.”

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine. The Commission’s Chairman, Jane Irvine was asked for comment on the situation, but refused. This does seem to leave the obvious impression the Commission is indeed in crisis, amid staffing problems, threats of resignation by its own members unless they get increased financial perks & insurance protection, and the intense layer of secrecy which the Commission has been operating under, seeking to blank out most Freedom of Information requests specifically to law journalists while releasing the same information to elements of the legal profession.

A brief history of leaked reports relating to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission :

The story that started the ball rolling on leaks at the SLCC : Law Society target ‘outsider staff’ for exit at Complaints Commission as lawyers undermine attempts at independent regulation

SLCC members demanded more perks or would resign. You can read an earlier article where the Commission members threatened their resignation over lack of perks and insurance cover, here : Legal Complaints Commission in crisis amid funds shortage & resignation threats over lack of insurance protection. The resignation threats came even though the SLCC had received a whopping £2 million of public money, and yet more was being paid in by the Scottish Government for demanded perks, as I reported here : MacAskill silent on taxpayers £2million 'write off' to lawyers quango as Complaints boss reveals Law Society defaulted on levies

I also reported that insiders to the Commission don’t even believe the SLCC is up to the job because of too much interference from the legal profession and a lack of will at the Scottish Government to protect it’s intended role, which you can read here : Insiders attack MacAskill's Legal Complaints Commission as 'a front' while millions go on quango which refuses to investigate crooked lawyers

Lets also not forget the SLCC seems to be so mired in problems it has to rely on a veil of secrecy to continue its operations, as I reported here : FOI disclosures censored to law journalists as MacAskill’s legal complaints commission prefers secrecy to public accountability

MacAskill demands 'whistleblower hunt' at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Problems over at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission continue to be reported by Peter Cherbi’s “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland”, where it seems some kind of witch-hunt is on for whistleblowers who spilled the beans on the less than inspiring SLCC’s performance as the single gateway for complaints against the legal profession.

In fact come to think of it, the SLCC doesn’t seem to be doing much at all for the nearly £5million pounds pumped into it … (scroungers – Ed)

Witch-hunt at Legal Complaints Commission 'ends at MacAskill's doorstep' as Justice officials forced to confirm leaks inquiry

SLCC once again under fire. Officials of the Scottish Government's Justice Department have been forced to admit a series of interventions with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, over leaks to the media which depict the quango which handles consumer complaints against solicitors as more interested in protecting the legal profession than investigating actual complaints.

Diary of Injustice reveals SLCC’s secret leaks inquiry. As I revealed earlier last month, a witch hunt at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission began after the Justice Department ordered an investigation into leaks which began in August 2008, one of which gave details on non Law Society staff at the SLCC who were being subjected to an attempt by the Law Society and Scottish Government to 'drive them out of the Commission, ensuring total control of the 'independent' SLCC by the legal profession itself.

You can read last month’s report on the witch-hunt at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission here : 'Culture of fear' grips Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as Justice Department witch-hunt threatens whistleblower staff over leaks to media

You can read my earlier report on the leaks as they began at the SLCC here : Law Society target ‘outsider staff’ for exit at Complaints Commission as lawyers undermine attempts at independent regulation

Scottish Government initially denied any involvement. The Scottish Government was asked to explain why it had ordered an investigation at the SLCC, however officials initially sought to play down and deny, several times, that any such investigation, or even discussions between the SLCC and Justice Department took place. A Justice Department official would only admit : "Staffing is a matter for the SLCC. If they have concerns about security of their information then it is a matter for Eileen Masterman and her team."

Leaked SLCC papers show Justice Department ordered investigation. However, after initial denials from the Justice Department, a further leaked document quoted an SLCC meeting where mentions of “Action and impact arising from the unauthorised leak of information that was raised by the Justice Dept.” exposed the Government's account of matters as completely false. Justice Department officials were then hurriedly forced to admit they had directly intervened with the SLCC and demanded immediate action to curb any information reaching the public. Officials sought to justify their attempt to clamp down on dissent at the quango by claiming that when the leaks be some of the staff under suspicion were still employed by Scottish Ministers.

A Justice Department official sought to play down the leaks investigation and protect the Justice Secretary from involvement, claiming : "I had a very brief discussion with Jane Irvine in her capacity as Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman last summer when it seemed from your website and an approach that you made to her that you were receiving information about the Ombudsman’s staff."

The official went on "These members of staff were at that time employed by Scottish Ministers so it was appropriate that I should be made aware of any concerns. Jane and I discussed whether or not we thought there had been a breach in security and we concluded that there had not been. We agreed that it was unlikely the information was coming from the Ombudsman’s office because it was completely inaccurate and we therefore decided to take no further action.That is why there are no minutes or notes"

However, the Justice Department official had no explanation to offer for how the entire episode came to light in leaked documents from the SLCC (more yet to be published) which reported a meeting where the Justice Department raised the leaks issue and demanded action.

A Justice Department official on being handed a copy of one of the leaked documents said : "I have no idea why the matter was raised at a meeting of the SLCC in October. I was not at the meeting."

However, an insider at the SLCC countered "That is pure rubbish from the Government's point of view. We were all warned to shut up after these discussions between Jane Irvine and the Government. The fact of the matter is there has been a lot of inequality between members of staff at the SLCC and the Law Society want everyone out who isn't under their thumb."

"Law Society staff who transferred over were being paid higher salaries and were to be considered for more senior positions. Whoever denies that is a liar and they know it, and even though you reported it there is still an undercurrent of mistrust between Law Society staff and non Law Society staff."

"What I said last year to you stands, the present Scottish Government are simply allowing the Law Society to dictate terms to the SLCC and we are not able to perform our role as was intended under the previous administration which created the SLCC in the first place."

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill must have known his department intervened with SLCC. A senior source within the Government said however, he doubted the Justice Department’s explanation on the matter and pointed to the leaks of documents, and reports of bitter infighting within the Commission as a direct challenge to the reliability of the Government’s explanations.

He said “I doubt this was left to an official to clear up, considering there is a great deal of interest in your reporting of the matter and criticisms of regulation of the legal profession”.

“I understand the Cabinet Secretary for Justice knows all about what took place and probably wants to shut the whole discussion on leaks down because ultimately the quango is his responsibility and the people there are at his appointment.These reports of problems at the Commission are making life very difficult for those who want to keep control of regulating lawyers for themselves.”

“Clearly responsibility for this rests with Kenny MacAskill himself no matter who tries to throw themselves into the path of the oncoming train and the Law Society has to be stopped from gaining full control of the Commission if the public are to be properly protected”

The insider went on to refer to claims in the Justice Department’s statement there were “no minutes or notes” of the Government’s intervention with the SLCC on the leaks issue.

He said : “It is preposterous to claim there are no minutes or notes of such a matter given the importance of it and implications for the SLCC and the Justice Department and why did they even put such a thing in their statement. I regret to say I sense this issue is being covered up deliberately to protect people here in Government, at the SLCC and probably at the Law Society.”

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine. The Commission’s Chairman, Jane Irvine was asked for comment on the situation, but refused. This does seem to leave the obvious impression the Commission is indeed in crisis, amid staffing problems, threats of resignation by its own members unless they get increased financial perks & insurance protection, and the intense layer of secrecy which the Commission has been operating under, seeking to blank out most Freedom of Information requests specifically to law journalists while releasing the same information to elements of the legal profession.

A brief history of leaked reports relating to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission :

The story that started the ball rolling on leaks at the SLCC : Law Society target ‘outsider staff’ for exit at Complaints Commission as lawyers undermine attempts at independent regulation

SLCC members demanded more perks or would resign. You can read an earlier article where the Commission members threatened their resignation over lack of perks and insurance cover, here : Legal Complaints Commission in crisis amid funds shortage & resignation threats over lack of insurance protection. The resignation threats came even though the SLCC had received a whopping £2 million of public money, and yet more was being paid in by the Scottish Government for demanded perks, as I reported here : MacAskill silent on taxpayers £2million 'write off' to lawyers quango as Complaints boss reveals Law Society defaulted on levies

I also reported that insiders to the Commission don’t even believe the SLCC is up to the job because of too much interference from the legal profession and a lack of will at the Scottish Government to protect it’s intended role, which you can read here : Insiders attack MacAskill's Legal Complaints Commission as 'a front' while millions go on quango which refuses to investigate crooked lawyers

Lets also not forget the SLCC seems to be so mired in problems it has to rely on a veil of secrecy to continue its operations, as I reported here : FOI disclosures censored to law journalists as MacAskill’s legal complaints commission prefers secrecy to public accountability

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission decides to pay back solicitors levy while dumping complaints work

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which was supposed to fix the problems of ‘regulatory cronyism’ by the Law Society of Scotland, has decided to reduce the level of levies each solicitor must pay to fund it … probably because the quango is refusing most of the complaints put to it so far …

Peter Cherbi’s “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland” reports on goings on at the SLCC :

Commission budget 'protects lawyers not consumers' as taxpayers £2 million fails to be repaid despite economic meltdown

While Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is in Canada, wasting yet more taxpayers money on the failing "Homecoming" project, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been engaged in spinning out a story to cover up the SNP controlled administration's little talked about multi million pound gift to the lawyers complaints quango, which has mostly went on personal benefits, huge salaries, pension schemes and personal insurance policies for a bunch of lawyers, retired Policemen, and other alleged experts in the field of regulating complaints against lawyers.

This week, desperate to avoid any further bad publicity or hard questions on its income, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission issued a Press Release to newspapers calling their budget proposals a "budget reflects needs of both consumers and legal practitioners"

However, the quango has refused to pay back the millions of pounds it received from the Scottish taxpayer, at the behest of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who himself has acknowledged he will not seek the return of the much needed public money already wasted on the Commission, which has yet to generate the increased consumer confidence in the Scottish legal services market it was created to do.

I reported earlier on the Mr MacAskill’s multi million pound ‘gift’ to the SLCC here : MacAskill silent on taxpayers £2million 'write off' to lawyers quango as Complaints boss reveals Law Society defaulted on levies

The Commission's controversial decision to lower the annual complaints levy which solicitors must pay to fund the body which investigates complaints against Scottish lawyers, rather than repay the public purse, despite receiving over £2.4 millions pounds from the Law Society of Scotland by the end of last year, raises questions on just who the SLCC is serving, as clients of solicitors now find it is almost impossible to get the Commission to actually investigate complaints against solicitors, with many encountering a huge list of excuses given for the quango to take on cases against crooked lawyers.

Jane Irvine, SLCC Chairman. Jane Irvine, the SLCC's Chairman was asked for comment this week on why, despite having huge surpluses of cash, the Commission had failed to repay the millions of pounds of public money it had received, before lowering the amounts solicitors had to pay to keep it running.

Short of an explanation it seems, for the obvious, where one would think in these tough financial times, public money should be repaid rather than being handed over to lawyers, Ms Irvine denied any responsibility for the matter, and simply replied "The two sets of monies are not linked and it is not within my control."

Well, that's just great isn't it ... people all across Scotland are waiting to get into hospitals for life saving operations, people's homes are being repossessed, public services are in danger of being cut back, many of Scotland's financial institutions have had to be rescued by the Bank of England, but the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and the Justice Secretary Mr MacAskill, himself a lawyer, are happy to shower a group of lawyers with millions of pounds of public money.

Does anyone think that is justified ? particularly in these troubled financial times ?

An insider at the Justice Department commented to me "there have been moves by the Scottish Government to hamper public discussion of the sensitive subject of public funding of the SLCC" .. and little wonder, given that the SLCC has spent most of the money on itself and personal benefits so far, rather than doing the actual work the Scots public were promised it would actually carry out.

You can read more about how the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been spending millions of pounds of public money on itself and its high salaried officials here : Complaints Commission 'unfit for purpose' as secret meetings with insurers & pensions take focus over consumer protection against crooked lawyers

However, not so long ago, the Commission was embroiled in bitter internal squabbles and fights over personal benefits and a shortage of funds, which I reported on here : Legal Complaints Commission in crisis amid funds shortage & resignation threats over lack of insurance protection

From the actual SLCC Press Release on their budget proposals earlier this week, it does appear that sources within the Justice Department are correct on their claims of "a culture of spin" at the lawyers complaints quango, so lets have a look at what Jane Irvine said to the newspapers to try and get the Commission's own message out :

Jane Irvine : “As an independent, impartial and accessible organisation, the budget has been developed after listening to the views of both consumer organisations and legal practitioners."

Independent, impartial & accessible ? How can that be, when one of the first decisions the SLCC took was to refuse to investigate any complaint against a solicitor involving work which took place before 1st October 2008. The SLCC is of course, staffed by members of the Law Society of Scotland, and its Board is made up mostly of lawyers, ex Police officers & others who have been involved in self regulation for years .. hardly impartial or independent or accessible.

If you want to read how independent, impartial & accessible the SLCC actually is, have a read of the following article : Legal Complaints Commission to delay monitoring of discredited lawyers insurance as worries increase over poor regulation of crooked lawyers

Jane Irvine : “The economic downturn has already impacted upon the legal profession and a *recent survey of 196 firms indicated that 304 people, mostly support staff, had already been made redundant.”

Yes, so it seems .. but it seems the economic downturn has caused many solicitors to start faking up their bills to clients, adding fictitious work and inflating accounts, along with threats & menaces if bills aren't paid within a few days ... and strangely enough, or perhaps conveniently for Ms Irvine and her associates, the 'independent impartial & accessible SLCC is telling people it wont investigate such cases if the work happened before 1st October 2008.

I reported on solicitors inflating their bills and double charging their clients here : Lawyers stealing from clients to earn 'double fees' while Law Society looks the other way in vast network of legal aid fraud & embezzlement

Jane Irvine : “Legal practitioners already working to high standards will benefit from the levy being reduced from **£409 to £275 and the £200 charge for mediation will be removed.”

What high standards are we talking about here ? Scotland has the poorest quality legal services market in the developed world, with clients paying up to 10 times more for legal services than anywhere else, and still not getting success or satisfaction in their legal affairs.

Jane Irvine again : “However, consumer organisations want to see higher standards of service and early resolution of complaints. With this in mind, the SLCC will double charges where a complaint is upheld. The minimum charge will rise from ***£250 to £500. The financial implications of an increased complaints levy should encourage practitioners to resolve complaints at an early stage."

Really ? I don't think anyone with a shred of experience in dealing with solicitors will believe that for a second ... rather it will simply increase the amounts that lawyers are prepared to steal from their clients, all because they know they can get away with it due to the very poor and very biased way in which regulation of complaints against solicitors are still being handled in Scotland, by a Commission which claims itself to be "independent, impartial & accessible"

As a final kicker to the story, revelations surfaced this morning it was the legal profession itself in the form of the Law Society of Scotland who had been campaigning for a reduction in the levies, and it seems judging by the SLCC’s Press Release, that campaign was successful so its lawyers before clients once again in Scotland. What that how it was meant to be with the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007 ?

So, we must ask ourselves, who is it the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is actually here to serve ? the public ? or solicitors and the Law Society of Scotland ? and why is the Justice Secretary simply dismissing consumer interests at every turn and siding each time with the legal profession over regulation issues ?

Here follows the SLCC’s budget statement, and HERE is a link to the story in the Scotsman newspaper, who sadly fell for the badly spun argument of paying public money to lawyers instead of returning it to the taxpayer.

SLCC budget reflects needs of both consumers and legal practitioners

JANUARY 2009

SLCC budget reflects needs of both consumers and legal practitioners

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has announced budget proposals for 2009/2010 which should benefit both consumers and legal practitioners.

Set up under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLCC investigates complaints made by members of the public about services provided by legal practitioners in Scotland. The Commission opened for business on 1 October 2008 and although operating wholly independently of the legal profession, it is funded by legal practitioners in Scotland through the payment of an annual levy and charges imposed when a complaint is upheld.

Commenting on the proposed budget, SLCC Chair Jane Irvine said: “As an independent, impartial and accessible organisation, the budget has been developed after listening to the views of both consumer organisations and legal practitioners.

“The economic downturn has already impacted upon the legal profession and a *recent survey of 196 firms indicated that 304 people, mostly support staff, had already been made redundant.

“Legal practitioners already working to high standards will benefit from the levy being reduced from **£409 to £275 and the £200 charge for mediation will be removed.

“However, consumer organisations want to see higher standards of service and early resolution of complaints. With this in mind, the SLCC will double charges where a complaint is upheld. The minimum charge will rise from ***£250 to £500. The financial implications of an increased complaints levy should encourage practitioners to resolve complaints at an early stage.”

The original budget for the Commission’s first year of operation was £3,493,823. Operating costs for the next twelve months are significantly reduced with a proposed budget of £2,985,102.

ENDS

For further information contact:

Doreen Graham, SLCC Head of Communications

Editors Notes:

*Source: Economic Impact Survey, December 2008 published by the Law Society of Scotland.

**A 12-month annual levy charge for 2008/09 should have been £409 but the actual charge for the 9-months of operation was £307.

Proposed levy charges for 2009/10 are:

Solicitors with 3 plus years experience £275

Advocates £223

Solicitors within first 3 years of practice £138

In-house solicitors £91

***Complaints levies are charges made against legal practitioners when a complaint is upheld. The proposed complaints levies for 2009/10 are:

Mediation levy £0

No complaint upheld £0

Complaint accepted – First Settlement £500

Complaint accepted – Second and Further Settlements £700

Formal Determination – First £800

Formal Determination – Second £1,200

Formal Determination – Third and Further Determinations £2,000