LPLA Bill to independently regulate crooked Scottish lawyers watered down

More on the Scottish Parliamentary debate on reforms to regulation of complaints against Scottish lawyers, from A Diary of Injustice in Scotland

Scottish Executive & Parliament bow to threats from legal profession and water down LPLA Bill on complaints against lawyers

Well, it seems, as we all know anyway, an elected Parliament & Government, is no match for the legal profession.

We found this out yesterday when the Scottish Executive announced concessions & watered down plans for the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, this coming after weeks of intense pressure from the legal profession in the form of lobbying, meetings, warnings, an assault of paid experts diatribes against the public, even briefings directly against campaigners, individual clients & cases of complaints, and even a few words of warning in the ears of several msps on their future .... a wee bit of arm twisting then, wouldn't you say ?

Independent handling of complaints ? well ... that has now become "consumers' allegations that the level of service they received fell short, but not to look at allegations of wrongdoing in lawyers' work, which will remain for the Law Society and the courts to handle." - reports the Herald, today.

How can the Law Society of Scotland & the courts be expected to look at allegations of wrongdoing in lawyers work when they have failed to do that since it came into being with the Legal Aid & Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1949 ?

If 57 years isn't enough time to demonstrate they can't maintain standards of professional discipline & regulate complaints against members with any degree of transparency, honesty, or independence, then what chance is there the legal profession will change it's ways now ?

When the Justice 2 Committee finished their stage 1 consideration, they were recommending the SLCC handle service complaints, but the Law Society handle 'conduct' complaints in what was obviously a fierce fight from the Law Society, even including somewhat 'contradictory testimony' to retain jurisdiction over conduct matters.

However, one J2 Committee member abstained from the recommendations, apparently, as he believed (rightly) that conduct issues should also go to the SLCC, after hearing & reading the submissions of complainants no doubt.

The main danger of allowing the Law Society of Scotland to handle any complaints at all, in the wake of it's 57 year reign of terror against clients, is that inevitably, complaints which the legal profession want 'put to bed', will be classed as 'conduct' issues, just to get them into the jurisdiction of the Law Society of Scotland - so that nothing would happen of course.

I have said this many times before publicly, and in my submission to the Justice 2 Committee which you can read at : http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2/inquiries/lpla/549_LB549_PeterCherbi.pdf

And what's all this about the courts being able to look at allegations of wrongdoing in lawyers work ?

One of the main reasons we are here today, after years of campaigning and media coverate, talking about how crooked lawyers are, and how the Law Society of Scotland fiddle complaints .. is that no one ever gets to court to have their claims against crooked & negligent lawyers put to the test ... so there won't be much in the way of court scrutiny of clients complaints, Mr Deputy Justice Minister .. that is simply, rubbish - and you know it - just as anyone else who has had their lives & finances ruined by crooked lawyers knows.

It's been interesting to see who has come out in public support of the Law Society of Scotland in the past few weeks ... and reminds me of something a retired Chief Superintendent of Lothian & Borders Police once told me about 'testimony'.

Whenever a witness comes forward in a case to give evidence, or even, volunteer such testimony, the Police, while taking the statement of course, have to look into the motives of the person for giving that information - whether that information be in support of, or against, the suspect. That's obviously because a person could either be a friend, supporter, accessory to, or grudge bearer against a person who either charged with an offence, or is the subject of an investigation.

Similarly, we have to examine the motives of those who have come forward in the past few weeks & months to support the legal profession, even launching vitriolic attacks against a piece of legislation which aims to give the public more rights in their dealings with the legal profession, and a bit more transparency, honesty, and independence, when it comes to regulating complaints against lawyers.

Well, obviously, the first motive of those supporters of the legal profession, would be - because they are members of the legal profession. That's obvious.

There isn't an army of plumbers or builders or newsagents, or teachers, or priests coming out to speak in favour of the Law Society of Scotland retaining jurisdiction over complaints against lawyers.

You could say - oh yes, well, he's a lawyer, so he would support retaining self regulation - so he and his colleagues will get off the hook when they loot their clients funds, overcharge them for poor services .. etc ... and, you would be, correct.

Of course, not all lawyers are crooked, and some lawyers, would welcome an independent regulator, as we have heard over the past few days. Good luck to them. They should raise their voices a bit more then .. why don't they ?

If lawyers who would welcome independent regulation say it in one forum, why not have a press conference and say - oh well, I'm a lawyer, and I'm jolly well am proud of it, and I just want to say I support independent regulation of our profession, in a proper & correct way, and let's get these poor clients of the past's cases resolved and admit wer were wrong to do what we did to them.

Why don't we hear any of that ? Why the silence ?

Someone afraid of sticking their neck out perhaps? afraid of what the Law Society of Scotland will do to them if they speak ? someone maybe .. nothing but a lot of talk and a wig ? ...

It's the time to speak now, so speak out. Go on, I challenge you to stand by your words ... speak out publicly. If you do, you have my support.

Well, it transpires, I found out another, more sinister motive than that ...this being .. the best person to speak out in defence of an obviously corrupt system, is a person with information you have on them, which they are terrified of being made public .. but I have advice for those so affected, who know who they are ... don't think it won't be used anyway .... because it's already been leaked.

You could call that blackmail I suppose, just for the sake of being clear .. and as we all know, those who appear in the highest positions, have the most to loose ... so there must have been some smug grins over at the Law Society when certain people were reminded of matters which would not arise, if they were to speak in favour of the legal profession ... remember now, I haven't named anyone, YET ..

The debate itself in the Parliament yesterday, seemed a bit stiff, don't you think ?

Given the fact every single msp has had volumous amounts of correspondence from constituents on problems with lawyers, problems with the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Legal Aid Board ..etc .. and many of them have written representations for their constituents, which they have went on to repeat for other constituents .. I would have expected more ... but the whole thing felt very meek, very similar to the J2 stage 1 Committee hearings 2 hearings, where some 'seemed' unusually ignorant on matters they knew full well be when it came to asking questions of witnesses, or even understanding what was put to them.

Members of the Scottish Parliament -

Putting on a blank face, when one has witnessed or been told of an injustice, or a crime, isn't a very honest thing to do I think.. but it seems some of you in Holyrood think that wearing the blinkers on such issues suits your conscience & pockets good enough .. that isn't what you were elected to do.

To sit by and watch someone being abused, while doing nothing about it, makes you just as guilty as the abuser - and make no mistake about it - the Law Society of Scotland have been abusing the public for decades - while politicians up and down the length of the UK have stood by and done .. not very much .. in fact .. nothing really.

There is much work to do and much campaigning ahead of us, if the LPLA Bill is to remain a safeguard to consumers as it was designed to be in the first place.

I call on everyone to do there best on this matter to make our politicians understand there needs to be fully independent regulation of lawyers in Scotland - and that the sins of the legal profession from past cases, must be put right.

Read on for the links to today's articles, from The Herald and The Scotsman, links to follow :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/69677.html

Ministers give way to warnings over legal complaints watchdog
DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor September 08 2006

The Scottish Executive yesterday gave way to warnings its new legal complaints system would undermine the independence of the profession, after facing vociferous attacks from leading lawyers.

Plans for ministers to have wide powers over the proposed independent commission for legal complaints are to be watered down, as the bill makes its way through the committee stage at Holyrood.

Ministers also announced there will be more publicly employed solicitors to provide support to people in rural areas who find it hard to find legal advice and representation in the civil courts.

Hugh Henry, Deputy Justice Minister, hinted strongly yesterday that the growing crisis in access to criminal law advice may require an expansion of the Public Defenders Office, in which salaried government lawyers act on behalf of individuals being charged with criminal offences, instead of private solicitors.

SNP justice spokesman Kenny MacAskill said by not addressing the problem there was a risk of "sleepwalking to disaster" and waking up to find many Scots had lost access to justice.

Leading lawyers have attacked the proposed complaints commission for the planned ministerial powers to appoint and dismiss its members and to direct it, saying it represented a major threat to the independence of the profession and the rule of law.

Lord McCluskey, a former Labour solicitor-general, this week described the proposals as "ill-considered, badly evidenced, misconceived, cavalier and arrogant".

Yesterday saw the first stage debate at Holyrood for the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, at which Mr Henry told MSPs of the new concessions on the complaints machinery.

This is only to affect consumers' allegations that the level of service they received fell short, but not to look at allegations of wrongdoing in lawyers' work, which will remain for the Law Society and the courts to handle.

Mr Henry said that 300 amendments are to be brought forward, and they will include changes to remove ministers' power to instruct the new commission on what it does.

The law is also to create a role for the Lord President, Scotland's top judge, in the removal of members of the commission.

However, it is not yet clear what the role will be. It was stressed that the public appointments commissioner will be involved in the appointing process as a protection against political interference.

Ministers are also to provide security of tenure for members of the commission,with fixed terms of at least four years. A provision is to be withdrawn which would have let let the commission delegate its decision-making to others.

Another change affects the planned levy on lawyers, charged for each complaint that is made. It was planned that the charge would be forfeited, whatever the result. It will now be repaid if the complaint is not upheld.

There is cross-party backing for the principles of the bill, with MSPs saying the legal profession's control of their own complaints system was not appropriate to modern consumer expectations and public perception.

The Law Society of Scotland welcomed the amendments. Ruthven Gemmell, its president, said there was support for an independent complaints body, though it has concerns about the workability of the bill.

"The number of amendments means that the executive has realised there is work to be done on the bill to get it right," he said.

and the Scotsman version - where you can leave comments, of course ...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1325402006

Ministers act to preserve legal complaints system from interference
RHIANNON EDWARD

MINISTERS have announced a series of concessions over a shake-up of the way complaints against lawyers are handled.

It comes amid fears that the independence of the legal system could be under threat.

The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates had both voiced concerns that the proposed Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will, in effect, be controlled by ministers.

But the deputy justice minister, Hugh Henry, announced in parliament yesterday that the Executive will bring forward a series of amendments to underline the new body's independence from ministers.

These will see the removal of ministers' power of general direction in relation to the commission, as well creating a role for the Lord President in removal of members of the commission.

Formal determinations of complaints will only be made by commission board members and members will serve a fixed term of four to six years, giving them security of tenure.

Mr Henry said: "With a non-lawyer majority on its board, consumer interests will be well represented.

"The appointments will be made by Scottish ministers and the appointments process will be subject to oversight by the Scottish Commissioner for Public Appointments. This will ensure appointment on merit."

The new commission will take over the role of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman in overseeing the way professional bodies conduct complaints and will have enforcement powers.

Professional bodies will retain responsibility for discipline and will handle complaints.

Scottish legal profession targets open debate in Scottish Parliament with intimidatory rhetoric on new complaints legislation

This just in from A Diary of Injustice in Scotland

Just what is it, the Scottish legal profession fears so much about losing control of complaints against their members ?

Has the level of control freakery reached such a fever pitch over at the Law Society of Scotland, they must even talk of 'opening their wrists & lying in a warm bath' (as Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill laughably said in the Scotsman on 15 August) rather than letting control of complaints against colleagues go to a new independent body proposed in the forthcoming LPLA Bill ?

Is it such a bad thing to give the public such rights & expectations as transparency, honesty, and accountability in their dealings with lawyers ?

The latest twist in the legal profession's spin machine tactics against the prospect of independent regulation appears in today's Scotsman, with now, the appearance of Lord McCluskey, being reported by the Scotsman newspaper in the following terms: "Lord McCluskey said there had been a lack of serious consultation over the plans and politicians had yet to "grasp the essence of what it is all about".

Well, Lord McCluskey, it's nice to see your comments on this issue, but do you remember when I, Peter Cherbi, from Jedburgh, wrote to you at the Court of Session in October 1994, over what Borders Solicitor Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solciitors, Kelso, did to my family, plundering my dead father's assets for his own benefit.. and that the Law Society was sitting around doing nothing ?

I remember, because I have the letter - and I have your short, if to the point, response - which, was, admittedly, all you could have said at the time.

I would argue, your Lordship, with respect, that it is not the Executive or the Parliament who have yet to grasp the essence of what it is all about ... it is the legal profession - your colleagues, who have yet to grasp the basic concepts of honesty, transparency, and accountability to us, their clients.

What is it that your colleagues over at the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, or even, the serving members of the Judiciary, fear, about independent regulation ?

I don't think it is anything to do with so called fears of political interference ... it is all to do with losing control over one of the most important aspects of how one conducts business.

If that business has become reliant on ripping off clients for unjustified fees, keeping client complaints down, embezzling clients funds, taking posession of clients properties for personal gain, ruining lives, livelihoods, and businesses of clients, making sure that compensation payments are never made, or delayed for decades .. then, it is certainly time to lose control of it.

Lord McCluskey, could you condone a complaints system which sees thousands of complaints made a year against solicitors, with many not even being cagegorised as complaints, just to keep the statistics down ? or cases against crooked solicitors and financial claims for damages running for up to 22 years in one case quoted to the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee .., just because the Law Society of Scotland has a policy of undermining client complaints from the very start ? Is that good, or bad ? I think bad .. but you are welcome to differ ...

How do you feel, your Lordship, about a firm of lawyers filing false reports with the Benefits Agency, Inland Revenue, and Police, against a client & their family in order to intimidate them into withdrawing their complaints to the Law Society ? Maybe even that same firm intervening to find out a client's medical history & records, to use against them, again to intimidate them into withdrawing complaints against quite obviously crooked lawyers ?

If this happened to you, Lord McCluskey, I'm sure you would have something to say about it ... well, it happened to me, and it happened to many others .. so, if you want to gain more experience of the effects of your colleagues actions against their clients, clients whose lives, livelihoods, businesses, personal health & wealth, and even their families, have been totally ruined, then I would suggest, respectively, you make visits to these people. Want some names ?

Reading the Scotsman article further, I am honestly amazed at the former Zimbabwe Law Society President Mr Sternford Moyo's pro-Law Society of Scotland comments, given the experiences of people I know who have suffered at the hands of lawyers and the Law Society of Scotland.

Is the Law Society of Scotland so desperate to maintain control over it's crooked membership, it is willing to compare the loss of regulating the complaints process to the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe ?

Surely, that is an affront to the suffering of a nation's peoples under it's present 'Government', an affront to the very fundamentals of Human Rights itself... or does such a comparison promoted by the Law Society of Scotland and it's allies really show the extent of the Scottish legal profession's attempt at dictatorship itself - in trying to thwart a debate in an elected Parliament on the subject of it's workings ?

Mr Mayo, with all respect to your position, I have news for you - the legal profession in Scotland is run just as badly by it's leaders, as Zimbabwe is run by Robert Mugabe - and there are plenty within the ranks of the Law Society of Scotland, who feel just as intimidated by Douglas Mill & his colleagues, as you were in your position as President of the Law Society of Zinbabwe by Robert Mugabe.

It's odd, but I've had this same conversation with some lawyers here in Scotland, at one of the regional Bar Associations, who have compared the Law Society's bosses with Mr Mugabe himself .. you know .. giving Ministers expensive cars to keep their support, intimidating the opposition (and clients) to maintain power ... printing money to dig their way out of hyperinflation (sort of like the Law Society dishing out accreditation awards to those who might threaten it).

A good comparison, don't you think ?

Getting back to the debate later today at the Scottish Parliament, I hope the party whips and Parliamentary staff haven't been doing too much in the way of interference with msps in what they are going to say in the debate.

After all - remember, people, I have seen the levels of correspondence which msps receive from their constituents each year on problems with lawyers, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, the Crown Office, etc ... and even copies of all the representations msps have written on behalf of their constituents to, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Executivce, the Crown Office, etc ... so, not one msp can deny they haven't been involved in this matter previously.

I often wondered though, as I perused the correspondence between MSPs & MPs to the Scottish Executive (and it's various earlier forms) on the subject of constituent's difficulties with complaints against lawyers and how the Law Society of Scotland had treated them ... just why all those representations for all those different constituents, seemed to be .. well .. similar .. none of them really mentioning something like .. "What on earth is going on with the Law Society as I have 53 constituents now writing to me on the same thing and I hear my colleagues have similar or higher levels of cases" ..

A bit strange really ... but you know .. to me, well, I'm just a lay person you know, just an ordinary guy really .. if people wrote to me on an issue .. and well, there were many more letters from people on the same type of issue, I would put 2 & 2 together, to make 4, write a stinker of a letter and say - "I have 43 people writing to me on the same matter .. get something done about this, while I offer all of them the chance to contact ach other to compare their cases" .. but as we know .. no one wants that, do they ... people talking to each other comparing similar problems with lawyers.

Peter Cherbi's message to the Scottish Parliament :

Please do something today for the people of Scotland - your constituents, and don't be intimidated by the selfish Scottish legal profession, no matter what dirty tricks they pull out of their hats against the LPLA Bill.

Give the public the right to expect transparency, honesty, and accountability in their dealings with the legal profession, and vote for progress in the LPLA Bill - but be careful of attempts at crooked amendments such as those proposed by ICAS - which are definitely against the spirit of independent regulation in the LPLA Bill as it stands.

Read on for the article from today's Scotsman, link at :
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1319742006

Former judges join call to reject legal reforms
MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

SENIOR figures from Scotland's legal profession yesterday mounted an unprecedented attack on ministerial plans to overhaul the way complaints against lawyers are handled, branding them a threat to the independence of the law and an attack on democracy itself.

Former judges joined the leaders of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates in an effort to persuade MSPs to reject some of the proposals.

The Scottish Parliament will today debate the Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill, which proposes to strip the Law Society of the authority to deal with "service" complaints against solicitors, creating a new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission whose members would be appointed by ministers.

The idea of ministerial appointment was savaged by a series of high-profile legal figures at the Balancing the Scales of Justice debate in Edinburgh yesterday.

Among those who spoke out were the former High Court judge Lord McCluskey; Sir David Edward, ex-European Court of Justice judge; advocate and former MSP Duncan Hamilton; and Roy Martin, QC, dean of the faculty of advocates.

They were joined by Sternford Moyo, a former president of the Law Society of Zimbabwe, who was arrested by Robert Mugabe's regime and accused of "subversive" activities. He said a new legal complaints quango controlled by ministers threatened to undermine the democratic principle of legal and judicial independence, providing legitimacy to dictators who sought to control the rule of law.

Mr Moyo said the legal profession ensured "good governance, accountability, observance of human rights and prevention of abuse of power", which demanded it "be free from any control by the Executive". He added that undemocratic regimes would look to learn lessons from legal reforms in Scotland and elsewhere.

Lord McCluskey said there had been a lack of serious consultation over the plans and politicians had yet to "grasp the essence of what it is all about". Duncan Hamilton added: "The legal profession is driven by the public interest but the Executive does not accept that."

But Hugh Henry, the deputy justice minister, insisted the body would safeguard the interests of clients. He added: "We are absolutely committed to the principle of a fully independent legal profession. We also want to see a legal profession which is properly regulated. Consumers need to be assured their complaints will be handled impartially and efficiently."

and the Herald version - probably better, since it exposes the fact that the event which Lord McCluskey was speaking at, was actually timed to put pressure on the msps in the debate today in the Parliament, link from the Herald at : http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/69610.html

Lawyers condemn reform
DOUGLAS FRASER, Scottish Political Editor September 07 2006

The legal profession yesterday stepped up its onslaught against Scottish Executive plans to impose a complaints system on solicitors and reform the judiciary.

Some of the most respected figures in the legal establishment lined up to attack executive policy as a threat to the independence of Scots lawyers and judges.

A Law Society of Scotland event, timed yesterday to put pressure on MSPs ahead of a crucial vote on the issue today at Holyrood, featured a warning from one of Zimbabwe's top lawyers about the risks of letting the state interfere in the profession.

Sternford Moyo, former president of the country's law society who was arrested and intimidated by Robert Mugabe's regime and had his firm's offices raided, said the legislation would set an example on undermining lawyers' independence that would be welcomed by dictators in developing nations such as Mugabe's.

The theme was picked up by Lord McCluskey, a former Labour solicitor-general, who attacked the executive for "rushing into ill-considered, badly-evidenced, misconceived legislation…bringing the judiciary and the legal profession under an unprecedented degree of government control". He added: "The rule of law should not be treated in this cavalier and arrogant fashion."

Growing tensions between the profession and the executive were also stepped up with the release of figures yesterday that showed the large gap between legal aid payments for individuals and the amount the executive is willing to pay lawyers to do its own work.

The highest hourly rate for legal aid, paid to the best qualified solicitor, is £76, exactly the same as the lowest rate paid to a para-legal or trainee for carrying out work for ministers. The top rate for executive work is £180 per hour, and the bottom rate for legal aid goes as low as £21.

The profession complains that the legal aid system, also being reformed, has fallen so far behind that it is leaving "advice deserts" for individuals in need of legal help, where law firms refuse to take on work, particularly on civil cases.

Kenny MacAskill, the SNP's justice spokesman, secured the figures in a question to ministers, and said they showed there was "a two-tier justice system" for ministers and for poorer individuals.

The main thrust of the profession's complaints against current executive policy is that the new complaints commission will be controlled by ministers. They can appoint and dismiss members, while the bill would allow them to instruct the commission and set its funding.

A separate proposal is to unify the judicial system, putting the Lord President in charge of all High Court judges, sheriffs, and justices. A civil service department is to help him, but lawyers believe that will link the system too closely to government.

Yesterday's debate turned into more of a rally as lawyers expressed their exasperation that they had not been listened to. All MSPs and law officers were invited, but only two opposition MSPs turned up.

There were calls for an upper house at Holyrood to balance the parliament when committees fail to scrutinise issues adequately, and there was a clash with the head of the Scottish Consumer Council, who said claims of threatening legal in-dependence were exaggerated.

Professor Sir John Edward, a former judge in the European Court of Justice, said there was extreme concern and dismay about the judicial reform plans, and accused ministers of inappropriate and "slavish imitation" of English reform.

Lord McCluskey warned that the Lord Advocate, Lord Boyd, has lost his independence by sitting in the Scottish cabinet.

Allegations of interference in Parliament debate amidst protests by lawyers on loss of jurisdiction over regulation

This from A Diary of Injustice in Scotland

Scottish Parliament debate mentions of crooked lawyers & LPLA Bill to be restricted ?

The heat is certainly on for tomorrow's debate on future legislation at the Scottish Parliament, with allegations abouncing today that party whips & Parliamentary staff are attempting to restrict msp's mentions of constituents's problems with the Scottish legal profession.

Today, I have fielded all sorts of emails, phone calls, meetings & more on this very subject.

What on earth is going on, when some newspaper journalists have to run round to an internet cafe to email me, from pcs outside their own job network .. or email me from their mobile phones .. for fear that the newspaper lawyers will see the email correspondence and threaten their jobs ?

Is the legal profession in Scotland so powerful they are telling journalists - print anything from Peter Cherbi and you are sacked ? - and not just on my case - it seems to be ... print anything detrimental to the legal profession - and you are sacked.

I thought we were living in Scotland ? not the old Soviet Union ? Goodness .. it seems journalists might have more freedom in China than Scotland these days ... considering the comments & phone calls I have had today .. and it doesn't stop there either ... now, because of fears that emails between myself and some [unnamed] politicians .. the same is happening in such correspondence as with my press associates.

A little bit over the top ... but sadly it seems to be a reflection on what is going on with regard to the LPLA Bill .. with the legal profession pulling out all the stops to kill it.

I'm glad to see there has been support for my call for people to ask their msps to speak tomorrrow.

It is a duty - an obligation, for all politicians to speak out on the issue of problems with the legal profession - and with every single msp in the Scottish Parliament having had many letters from constituents who have encountered difficulties and scandals with the likes of the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Crown Office, and the rest ... there should be no shortage of msps standing up to tell horror stories of constituents - THE ELECTORATE - who have had their lives ruined due to the actions of some crooked lawyer who enrolled the Law Society of Scotland to get them off the hook.

To keep up the pressure on the forthcoming debate, there was an interesting article in Tuesday's Scotsman, reporting on the 'fears' of the Scottish legal profession that they were going to lose their 'independence'.

The so-called 'fears' are being dressed up as lawyers concern of political interference in judicial independence and the interests of the public .. but such concerns are nothing other than the fact the legal profession will probably suffer under independent regulation - yes, they will suffer because they won't be ab le to rip their clients off and get away with it in the knowledge the Law Society of Scotland will be able to fiddle the thousands of client complaints which come in each year.

Most solicitors think of clients who complain as being vexatious complainers .. but there would be no vexatious complainers if the Law Society of Scotland had done it's job in the first place. Simple as that.

Peter Cherbi's message to lawyers :

Want to avoid client complaints running for years ?

Then settle the matter quickly (a month at most) and pay proper & deserving compensation for ALL the ruined lives of clients, ruined businesses, ruined livelihoods,looted possessions of deceased clients .. etc .. and don't fake up evidence and files to try and get yourself off the hook from complaints, don't enroll crooked Law Society officials, the likes of James Ness & his friends, to get you off the hook on false claims of stress or personal importance outweighing the client's right to exist - because that's what you've all been doing over the years.

How long has all this been going on ?

Long enough to the time when Jedburgh Solicitor David Sturrock's grandfather, who was also a solicitor, went off and killed himself because he was about to face charges for looting a deceased client's estate .. and he was also the then local Procurator Fiscal ! .. the evidence ... being discovered in the rubbish round the back of the offices of Turnbull Simpson & Sturrock in Jedburgh, in the mid 1930's.

So that's how long it has been going on for ... think about that ... lawyers have always been crooked - it's just that they have got a little more inventive over the years ... and when the Law Society of Scotland came along a few years later - they made sure complaints against lawyers was one of the most least talked about issues in Scottish political life .. and that continues to today .. where we now even have the spectacle of newspaper being used against newspaper by elements of the legal profession to debunk reports on the antics of senior Law Society officials.

Even the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates has been wheeled out to defend the legal profession's right to self-regulate it's members, since as many who have tried to make complaints against Advocates know - this is one of the most corrupt parts of the legal profession when it comes to fiddling complaints ...

Roy Martin QC's letter in the Scotsman the day after the article, tags on all manners of excuses as to his concerns of the proposals surrounding the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ... but really, Mr Martin - it really comes down to stifling complaints against your Faculty members for poor or negligent service, and to make sure clients are never compensated for wrongdoings which can never be admitted to, doesn't it ?

Why don't you just be honest about that ? instead of dusting off old chestnuts of concern for the taxpayer's wealth ?

Your Advocate colleagues have no concern for the taxpayer's pocket, other than to fill their own from it's trough of legal aid, exhorbitant client fees, and the rest.. and to make sure their colleagues in the legal profession are protected from any threatening legal action.

Read on for the following article from the Scotsman, and the Dean's letter, links following :

This article: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=1314662006

Opinion - Letters
Wed 6 Sep 2006
Fears of independent law

In your report, "Scots law fears for its independence" (5 September), there is a reference to my having branded the proposed new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission a waste of money. I am certainly concerned about the cost to the taxpayer and the increase in bureaucracy and complexity that will inevitably result from the setting up of the commission.

However, my primary concern is that a body appointed by and accountable to the Scottish Executive for the regulation of the legal profession will undermine its independence. That independence is recognised throughout the democratic world as vital for the protection of the citizen, and is one of the hallmarks of a free society.

ROY MARTIN, QC
Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
Parliament Square
Edinburgh

.. and the article which provoked the Dean's comments .. along with plenty interesting comments from readers .. and lawyers alike ...

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1307922006

Scots law fears for its independence
MICHAEL HOWIE HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

MORE than one-third of lawyers believe the Scottish Executive has no respect for the independence of the legal system, according to a survey which reveals widespread disapproval of the political elite among solicitors.

The survey, conducted by the Law Society of Scotland, also reveals that only one-quarter of lawyers believe legislation passed by MSPs has been of much benefit to the public.

More than one third of those asked (36 per cent) felt that ministers had no respect for the independence of the legal system, with 44 per cent believing independence was only "slightly" respected.

An overwhelming majority of solicitors - 77 per cent - said the independence of the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be compromised if appointments are made by ministers, as is proposed under a bill going through parliament.

The survey of more than 500 lawyers found that only 22 per cent thought the Scottish Parliament had been a great benefit to the legal system. Some 38 per cent thought it had been of "slight" benefit, with 39 per cent responding "not at all" to the question.

Of those asked , 27 per cent regarded the parliament as having been of great benefit to the public generally, with 22 per cent believing it had been of no benefit to the public.

Concern has been mounting over ministerial reforms of the legal system and judiciary, which have prompted accusations of political interference and threatening democracy.

Roy Martin QC, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, has branded the proposed new complaints commission a waste of money.

Meanwhile, advocates and senior judges have voiced alarm at proposals to place the control of all Scotland's courts under one person, the Lord President. Critics claim such a burden would force him to employ vast numbers of civil servants, exposing the judiciary to the risk of Executive interference.

Concern over legal independence has prompted the society to stage a one-day conference tomorrow in Edinburgh on the issue.

The conference comes on the eve of a parliamentary debate on the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which controversially proposes to strip the legal profession of much of its powers of self-regulation by creating a separate legal complaints body.

Ruthven Gemmell, the president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "Democracy sits balanced between the law and politics and that balance can be fragile. That is why the society and its members have raised strong concerns about aspects of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill.

"The concern is that there is inadequate regard paid by the Scottish Executive to the independence of the law in Scotland. That means that we must all be aware that what may seem like a good idea does not in fact diminish Scotland's democracy and why we must work to ensure that independence is safeguarded."

A spokeswoman for the Executive insisted: "The proposed legislation has been informed by an open and thorough consultation that allowed all interested parties to contribute."

She said the Executive had worked "ceaselessly" to create a more efficient criminal justice system. "It is the duty of government to remain independent from the legal process, but also to ensure that the structures within which those processes operate are effective, fair and transparent," she said.

LPLA debate this Thursday in Scottish Parliament

Taken from A Diary of Injustice in Scotland by Peter Cherbi at http://petercherbi.blogspot.com

Debate on reform bill against crooked lawyers this week in the Scottish Parliament

MSPs at the Scottish Parliament are going to have a chance to "consider the general principles of the LPLA Bill in the light of the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report, during the afternoon of Thursday 7 September 2006" - reports the J2 Committee by email to me

So, if you want to support independent regulation of the legal profession - and bring in reforms which will put the stops on some of those crooked lawyers, you better email or contact your msp to air your support for the LPLA Bill before Thursday of this week.

If the Parliament agrees to the LPLA Bill's principles, it will then proceed to Stage 2 - where amendments may be heard.

As the J2 Committee reports, no amendments can be lodged until the msps of the Parliament agree to the Bill's general principles this coming Thursday... so, who do you think might disagree ?

Maybe an msp who is sympathetic to lawyers, and hates the guts of clients and constituents who write to them about how lawyers ripped them off ?

Maybe even an msp who is a lawyer, or who is affiliated with the Law Society of Scotland or the legal profession in some way .. might just throw in some obstructions .. so the crooked lawyers can keep on robbing the public ?

Who would do such a thing ? - believe me, there are a few candidates who may have some dirty tricks up their sleeves, according to sources in meetings I've had this past weekend ...

It will certainly be an interesting debate .. and only time will tell this week how the LPLA Bill will progress .. when we see the 'friends of the legal profession' come out to try and 'pork out' the LPLA Bill with various seedy twisted corrupt excuses .. just to keep their pals happy over at Drumsheugh Gardens .. and earn perhaps, a wee bit extra on the side for their part in derailing important pro-consumer reforms, just for the sake of a few lawyers filling their pockets some more.

On the subject of amendments .. those of you who read my blog are aware I am opposed to the proposed amendment by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) - to allow their member accountants to handle wills & probate services - which is currently handled by solicitors.

I reported on my opposition to the ICAS amendment in previous coverage at :
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/07/scottish-accountants-try-to-amend-lpla.html &
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/07/concerns-over-scottish-accountants-and.html

Amendments to the LPLA Bill await to be lodged - since the Bill still has to be considered firstly, by the Parliament this week ... but since amendments can only b e lodged by an msp - it will be interesting to see who comes out for the just-as-crooked Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and posts their amendment ... no doubt someone with a sympathetic ear to ICAS ... maybe even someone affiliated to ICAS in some way .. who may even earn a big bit on the side for getting their amendment through - since ICAS seem so desperate to get this one in the pot.

Why are ICAS so desperate to get their amendment to favour their accountants through on the LPLA Bill ?

Well, as I reported before, if accountants are allowed to handle wills & probate services, when your accountant makes a mess of it - which they will surely do - you, the public, won't be able to do anything about it - because accountants are regulated by their colleagues at ICAS.

The scenario of accountants regulating accountants over the years has proved just as bad as crooked lawyers being investigated by the even more crooked Law Society of Scoltand - which is why we are here talking about the LPLA Bill in the first place.

If the ICAS amendment goes through - accountants will still be under their shield of self-regulation, where complaints go buried and no one gets proper, if any, compensation - while lawyers will have to face the scrunity of the new independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - where clients and the public will have a much better chance of getting their grievances heard against crooked lawyers who have overcharged, embezzled money, stolen from or defrauded their clients, failed to do work .. ruined livlihoods & businesses .. etc ..

Here's the catch though - if an accountant takes on the business of handling your will, and subcontracts much of the work back to a lawyer (as a secret agreement between ICAS and the Law Society of Scotland seems to suggest). then, when they take what's yours for themselves, instead of giving it to whoever you have left it to - there will be nothing your beneficiaries will be able to do about it - as the only complaint you will be able to make will be against the accountant, and ICAS will make sure that nothing happens - and it doesn't stop at wills ... no .. the Chartered Accountant will be able to strip your assets bare - and there will be not one thing - nothing at all, you can do about it ..

If you want an example of this - then read this : http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/03/norman-howitt-crooked-borders.html
&
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2006/08/dont-trust-your-lawyer-or-accountant.html

- where a Borders Accountant - Norman Howitt, of Welch Accountants, Hawick, raided my family for every penny - a real con artist - and ICAS made sure nothing happened to the crooked accountant Howitt, despite the many frauds he has been involved in against my family. To make matters worse, it was the Director of Legal Services at ICAS - Tom McMorrow - who let Howitt off the hook - after a sham of several house visits to me, assuring everything would be done .. but it was all lies .. pure lies - nothing was done, and Howitt got away with it to rip off others.

So, we will have to wait and see who crawls out of the woodwork to represent the crooked accountants amendment to the LPLA Bil to promote their quest to get their greedy snouts in the trough along with lawyers, and rip off the deceased, just as Norman Howitt did in a fine example if ever there was one needed ... that;ll be a 'nice little earner' for whoever was bought off - sorry, I mean .. represents the views of the crooked accounting profession.

Here's the email from the Justice 2 Committee announcing progress this week - so get writing everyone - and make sure your MSP stands up and tells Parliament just how much correspondence they get from their constituents - and how, over the years, they have made thousands of representations to the Scottish Executive and the Law Society on behalf of constituents ...

From: Anne.Peat@scottish.parliament.uk
To: petercherbi@
Subject: RE: Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill - amendments &
debate
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006

Mr Cherbi

The Parliament is expected to consider the general principles of the LPLA Bill in light of the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report, during the afternoon of Thursday 7 September. If the Parliament agrees to the Bill's general principles, the Bill will then proceed to stage 2, the amending stage.

No amendments can be lodged until the Parliament agrees to the Bill's general principles, therefore the earliest date that any amendment could be lodged would be Friday 8 Sep. Amendments can only be lodged by MSPs and all amendments lodged will be published in the Business Bulletin and considered by the Justice 2 Committee. I do not know whether any MSP will decide to adopt the proposed ICAS amendment and lodge it.

All amendments lodged will appear in the Parliament's business bulletin which is published daily, other than in recess. It can be accessed here and any amendments lodged will appear in Section G.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessBulletin/index.htm

I hope this is helpful.
Anne Peat
Justice 2 Committee
The Scottish Parliament
Direct Dial Telephone 0131 34 85220
Fax 0131 34 85252
RNID Typetalk 1800 1 0131 34 85047

Law Society of Scotland seeks discrimination law specialists from client discriminators

The most corrupt organisation in Scotland today, which practices systematic discrimination against client complaints, is seeking applications from solicitors who wish to become specialists in discrimination law.

This is being reported as the latest specialist area of law as part of the Law Society's 'accreditation scheme' - although many view this as just another way to create business for cash hungry lawyers who need every penny they can fleece from clients to maintain their lifestyles, rather than the PR line - caring lawyers out to battle discrimination .. !

One of the seedier aspects of today's article in the Herald newspaper, sees the Law Society's Deputy Director of professional practice talk up the scheme as being "important recognition of the hard work and dedication of solicitors who have developed specialist knowledge during their careers." .

James Ness, who is also the Director of "Law Care" is also better known for being a crooked lawyer himself, where he has used his position in the past to sway Complaints Committees against client complaints, in favour of negligent and even, criminally corrupt lawyers, to get them off the hook and keep them in business ... James Ness has even lied to Committees in the past, fabricating evidence against clients, to save the skins of the crooked lawyers he represented ...

Indeed, the Scotsman newspaper has reported in the past, the activities of James Ness, who has appeared at Complaints Committees to represent lawyers on serious offences such as fabricating files to cover evidence, faking up file notes, indulging in criminal deceptions of clients and financial institutions, including Banks and even the inland Revenue ... yes .. Mr Ness has been a busy lawyer representing crooked lawyers against client complaints while he has been in his various positions at the Law Society of Scotland - from Convener of the Competence Committee - to Director of "Law Care" to being the Deputy Director of Professional Practice.

In a rare article in the Scotsman newspaper, which slipped through the spin machine & threats of the legal profession to prevent such publication ... an article entitled "Jury still out on law in the dock", by Jenny Booth (2 March 1998) reported on how James Ness falsified evidence and lied to a complaints committee against a client compleint, to prevent the prosecution of a thoroughly crooked Borders solicitor - Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso.

Faced with the fake evidence and spurious claims made by the then Convener of the Competence Committee, the Complaints Committee who had originally recommended prosecution of crooked lawyer Penman, reversed it's decision, without challenging any of the lies & false claims made by Ness in favour of his criminally corrupt colleague ... so this is the reality of James Ness ... just another crook who's only purpose is to get other crooks off the hook when they get into trouble ... and while he touts the existence of anti discrimination lawyers as a good thing for the law - James Ness is one of the biggest discriminators of them all - a client hating crooked lawyer.

Read on for the article, from The Herald, at : http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/69294.html


Discrimination law latest specialism at Law Society
PAUL ROGERSON September 04 2006

The Law Society of Scotland is inviting applications from solicitors who want to become accredited specialists in discrimination law.

This is the latest specialism offered by the society as part of its accreditation scheme, launched in 1990. A six-strong panel has been created to consider candidates' applications. It comprises: Brian Napier QC; Muriel Robison from the Equal Opportunities Commission; Lynn Welsh of the Disability Rights Commission; Shona Simon from the Employment Tribunal Service; Jill Bell, director of Anderson Strathern's Discrimination Law Service; and employment law solicitor Stuart Robertson.

James Ness, deputy director of professional practice at the Law Society of Scotland, said: "The specialist accreditation scheme offers important recognition of the hard work and dedication of solicitors who have developed specialist knowledge during their careers.

"In addition it helps the public choose a solicitor whom they know has the expertise and experience required to provide them with the advice they need, particularly in more complex cases.

"As a rule, those attaining accreditation as specialists are recognised by their colleagues within, and even outwith, their firms as especially knowledgeable within a particular area of law.

"They would have dealt with complex or unusual cases which has allowed them to build on and apply their expertise and also probably have contributed to the development of the area of law in articles or training."

Of the 10,000 solicitors in Scotland, around 400 are now accredited specialists across 23 areas of law.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland pass themselves off as honest crooks without guarantee fund

The lie that is honesty within the accountancy profession, takes a turn in an article sent into Injustice Scotland, were the Report on the Financial Memorandum of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, issued by the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee saw their lack of understanding of the way in which ICAS - the Institue of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, regulates the accountancy profession.

Focussing particularly on the levels of complaints received against accountants in Scotland - the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee seems to think there are a low level of complaints against Chartered Accountants in Scotland, noting the following in their report :

6. Decreasing number of complaints in recent years: from 239 in 1998 to 56 in 2005; thought largely to tightening up of professional standards.

Well, the fact of the matter is there are a great many more complaints made each year against Scotland's 15,000 Chartered Accountants - it's just that Tom McMorrow's Department over at ICAS does such a great job of refusing many client complaints, fiddling the statistics, and making sure that client complaints either get buried, or in the most serious instances, paid off with a small sum .. that there is such a preposterously low figure of complaints noted for last year - 56.

How could there only be 56 client complaints against a profession of some 15,000 Chartered Accounants when there are over 5000 complaints a year against Scottish lawyers and other members of the legal profession ?

Doesn't such a figure sound a bit stupid, when it turns out that in quite a few of the complaints made to the Law Society of Scotland about crooked lawyers - invariably, there turns up a crooked accountant somewhere in the complaint too, who has either been working with the crooked lawyer, or fiddling the financial evidence so the lawyer gets off the hook from the client complaint ?

Some could be forgiven for thinking it's a bit strange the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee could be so stupid in their determination of such a matter ... but perhaps the dark hand of ICAS is more responsible for that - as ICAS have a lot of influence, politically, at the Scottish Parliament - having regular behond-the-scenes meetings with politicians and "access when it wants" - as one senior member of the Scottish Parliament staff put it, in a disclosure on the heavy influence of ICAS and the pressure it exerts on msps & others at the Parliament.

One such a complaint, brought to the attention of our very own Peter Cherbi, saw the Director of Legal Services, Tom McMorrow, clam up on a complaint raised by a deceased client's wife, which saw her accountant cashing cheques in her dead husband's name.

What was done about it ? Nothing ... and even, strangely enough, the Bank involved in this case, did nothing either.

How could a dead man sign cheques for tens of thousands of pounds and the accountant receive the money ? - and that when the complaint was made, all efforts were made to bury the matter so nothing ever happened, and there was no media attention ?

Yes .. it's strange indeed, the Scottish Parliament has such an unusually idiotic and ignorant percepton of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland - but there again - maybe, just maybe - this is the paid-for-view which the power & influence of the accountancy profession in Scotland has purchased ...

Read on for an excerpt from the Finance Committee's report on their quite wrong assumptions into how 'honest' accountants in Scotland are - and our thanks at Injustice Scotland go to the [unnamed] senior staffer at the Scottish Parliament who sent us some material on this .. as well as interesting details on cases where constituents have asked their msps to do something about their crooked accountants ...

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/finance/reports-06/fir06-lpla.htm

5.0 COMPARATOR PROFESSIONS

5.1 Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

5.1.1 ICAS has 15,000+ members, who are mainly (80%) employees rather than in private practice. Recently, there has been a significant increase in student members, especially located in England; thought to be due to quality of training and education provided by ICAS.

5.1.2 Not all accountants are members of ICAS; name ‘accountant’ is not legally protected. However, term ‘Chartered Accountant’ is reserved to members of ICAS, founded in 1854 by Royal Charter. ICAS is not ‘generally able to intervene in legal disputes between a client and their CA’ (ICAS, Complaints against Chartered Accountants, 2001: 5.18). ICAS requires practising members to take out Professional Indemnity Insurance (5.3). Fee Arbitration Service uses CA arbiters appointed to act as Auditors of Fees (7.1).

5.1.3 Where complaints cannot be resolved by conciliation, they are referred to the Investigation Committee (9.1), which is made up of CA and lay members. Having lay members began in late 1980s, when ICAS went to Scottish Consumer Council. In a committee of 20, around 7 are lay members. These are ‘people from other walks of life who ensure that the Committee deals fairly and even-handedly with every complaint’ (9.1). Adverts are placed in newspapers; lay members are paid a per diem fee. Discipline Committee also has a number of lay members, and functions similar to a court or tribunal. ICAS also advertises for lay members of Council; council members cannot sit on Investigations Committee or Discipline Committee.

5.1.4 Lay members mainly come from law and related professions (e.g. former police officers). ICAS looks for qualified lay members according to matrix of skills required e.g. of small businesses or whatever.

5.1.5 ICAS Response to Professional Oversight Board for Accountancy (POBA) report entitled ‘Complaints and Discipline Procedures Review’.

1. For 20 years, ICAS has had an arbitration scheme (Auditor of Fees); not independent, being administered by ICAS and featuring only ICAS members as arbiters; deals only with fee-related complaints.

2. The paper takes a robust attitude to ‘growing regulatory burden’, and its response to POBA recommendation is ‘underscored by the belief that the reparation or compensation culture (an important subsidiary of the ‘Complaints Industry’) that has rapidly permeated society militates against enterprise and has tipped the balance unfairly against professional of every kind.’

3. ICAS proposes three stages to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): in-house conciliation; external mediation; and external arbitration (note that arbitration only follows mediation). It does not believe that ICAS has responsibility to resolve disputes where internal conciliation fails. It supports independent administration of mediation, away from ICAS, and at no cost to it. Arbiters therefore should not be given powers to compensate, and calculation of consequential loss should not fall within arbitration scheme; ‘There is no substitute for the Courts in this respect’.

4. ‘ … any complaint that cannot be settled by secretariat conciliation in the first instance, must not be remitted to a mechanism that begins to erode the private law position of the member against the client. For that reason alone, members should not be compelled to remit disputes involving clients to arbitration. The mediation mechanism that ICAS proposes is the optimum from the point of view of keeping private law positions of member and client as equal as possible.’ (p.6)

5. ICAS is also concerned that POBA would prefer a single scheme in which all accountancy bodies are participants, and which would almost certainly be run from London. ‘ICAS does not believe a dissatisfied client in Scotland would willingly cede authority for the conduct of his case by someone at so far a geographical remove … In any event, contracts between clients and members which are performed in Scotland are therefore governed by Scots Law.’ (p.6)

5.1.6 General Observations:

1. in 2005, failure of proposed amalgamation of ICAEW and CIPFA, and opposition to ICAEW name-change to ICA (Jack McConnell also voiced opposition, as did Australian body)

2. ICAS: complaints about individual members (E & W complaints against firms; also has schedule of penalties; ICAS doesn’t); ICAS does not have powers to compel witnesses to give evidence.

3. POBA gave ICAS a clean bill of health. Powers to suspend members are being beefed up at moment.

4. ICAS has no equivalent of Guarantee Fund.

5. ICAS does not have tribunals established by statute; it is inspected by DTI and Insolvency Service.

6. Decreasing number of complaints in recent years: from 239 in 1998 to 56 in 2005; thought largely to tightening up of professional standards.

7. New rules being negotiated via Privy Council (governed by Royal Charter slows things down); ‘polluter pays’ scheme being introduced. There will be an additional levy to pay for this. New joint disciplinary scheme with ICAEW.

8. Setting up of Accountancy Investigation and Disciplinary Board (AIDB), POBA successor to Review Board.

9. ICAS seems based on model of private professions who are largely self-regulating, but with lay members on committees; no suggestion of state regulation; autonomous and independent body from ICAEW (competitive?); jealous of independence; seems quick on its feet. It has managed to reduce significantly number of complaints against its members over the years, and to expedite these.

Lawyer convicted of criminal offence allowed to remain in legal practice by the Law Society of Scotland

It's not unusual that a lawyer with a criminal conviction is allowed to remain in legal practice, retaining their practicing certificate - despite what some newspapers might have us believe.

The Law Society of Scotland will do everything to protect it's own members, and disregarding a criminal conviction to allow a solicitor to continue in business illustrates the lack of standards, where those who break the law, or break the public trust are allowed to carry on regardless.

Lawyers with criminal convictions who remain in service are as much a danger to clients as child abusers are to children if they were left in charge of a school nursery. Any crooked lawyers who break the law certainly can't be allowed to remain in a job dealing with issues of law for members of the public. How could such a person every be trusted ?

How bad can the legal profession in Scotland get, when members sport criminal records but fail to reveal their secrets to their clients, and even some within their own ranks are suspected of ordering mafia style hits on their own bosses like in the attack on the Law Society's Chief Accountant, Leslie Cumming.

Certainly give's added weight to the saying - it takes a crook to catch a crook - but when it comes to regulating their own, crooked lawyers just seem to love letting other crooked lawyers off the hook.

Here's another thought - recently the numbers of criminal convictions of serving Police officers were revealed - I hear the numbers of lawyers with prosecutions on criminal charges / criminal convictions is much higher, because I looked into it when the story on the cops came up ... but trying to make an FOI request to the Law Society will see you informed the Law Society is exempt from FOI ! - and the Crown Office's response to an FOI on this very same issue of criminal convictions / prosecutions of lawyers on criminal charges, saw the Lord Advocate's Office initial response by demanding to know why those statistics were required .. then they clammed up, saying - "we don't keep those kinds of records"

It seems the Crown Office are good at dragging out statistics on convictions for plenty other offences ... but not for crooked lawyers .. but maybe that's to be expected - because some of those in the statistics might be revealed as .. Fiscals .. such as the one who was recently found guilty of a sex offence in Glasgow .. and another who was dragged out in the middle of a court case because his pc was full of child porn.

There are many more Julian Danskin's (child abuser) and John McCabe's (lawyer who ran off with £4million of clients money in the early 90's) walking around still representing clients today - which would give many ordinary people the shudders if they knew who they were dealing with as their lawyer.

This goes to the heart of what the public need to know about the people who are trusted to represent issues of legal importance .. so one more lawyer remaining in legal practice, just because she was found guilty of a criminal offence of fraudulently claiming child benefit, isn't that unusual ...

Read on for the article, from the Sunday Mail, at :
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/sport/unpdate/tm_objectid=17670488%26method=full%26siteid=64736-name_page.html


3 September 2006
£5K FRAUD LAWYER KEEPS JOB

A LAWYER who admitted a £5000 childcare tax fraud is being allowed to continue practising.

Mum-of-three Louise Hay - nicknamed Ally McSteal - pretended to be a single parent and claimed cash she was not entitled to for more than two years.

She received £5187.78 Working Family Tax Credit by signing Inland Revenue forms with the name Hazel Mears. She was fined £750.

But the Scottish Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal have ruled Hay, 38, can remain a lawyer because there is little chance of her re-offending.

Hay, of Broughty Ferry, is expected to try to get a new job with a firm in Dundee.

The Law Society of Scotland said: "She can only act as a qualified assistant under supervision and will not handle money."

Firth of Forth oil transfers to go ahead - act now to stop it

For reasons of money and no doubt certain officials earning a wee bit on the side for allowing such horribly dangerous proposals to go through, the oil transfers in the Firth of Forth are reported to be ready to go ahead, by the Scotsman newspaper.

Why have our politicians been so ineffective in stopping this ludicrous proposal which could see a calamity hit the Scottish coastline in the inevitable accident ?

Who has been bought off to look the other way ? Who has used their political influence and muscle to force Government Departments to allow this scheme to go though, touted as something which will bring in money for Scottish industry ? .. when all it will do will ultimately destroy our environment ?

Read on for the article, from the Scotsman, at :
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1296612006

Battle goes on as oil transfers get green light
AURA SABADUS

CONTROVERSIAL plans to pump Russian crude oil between supertankers in the Firth of Forth were yesterday given the go-ahead despite fears from environmentalists that an accident would cause a catastrophic spill in the area.

The announcement by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) follows the revelation that an investigation had been launched by the European Union to assess whether the proposals were in breach of environmental regulations.

Under the newly approved plans, Sunderland-based Melbourne Marine Services is set to pump about 7.8 million tonnes of Russian crude every year between tankers lying four miles off the Fife coast. Forth Ports, the harbour authority, stands to earn more than £6 million a year from the transfers.

Last night, a coalition of MEPs, MSPs and wildlife campaigners raised concerns about the scheme, claiming that the Firth's habitat - including its two designated Special Protection Areas (SPA) for seabirds - would be put in serious jeopardy if the proposals went ahead.

Fife and East Lothian councils are also exploring legal avenues to stop the transfers. Richard Evans, sites policy officer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland, said the charity would watch with "great diligence" the activities taking place in the Firth of Forth.

"We remain extremely concerned about the disastrous potential of this activity in the Firth of Forth and its impact on the internationally important bird life.

"We and other concerned parties, including MSPs, MEPs and local authorities, will continue to watch the activities of Forth Ports with great diligence over the forthcoming months."

Speaking about the recently launched EU investigation, Mr Evans said the Scottish Executive, which ensures the plans comply with environmental laws, could be exposed to legal action if the investigation finds the EU habitat directive is not being upheld.

"The buck in these cases goes from the European Commission on to the Foreign Office and then on to Defra [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] because it's a wildlife case," he said. "Defra would pass the buck on to Scottish ministers and what we don't know at the moment is what leverage they [ministers] have to make sure that the authorities in charge do a proper job with regard to the requirements of the habitat directive.

"This is a very long way off but, yes, it could leave ministers to carry the can."

Alyn Smith, the Scottish National Party MEP who instigated the EU investigation, said the outcome of the exercise could ultimately overrule the latest decision by the authorities in charge - the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Forth Ports.

"I think this is an unfortunate decision by the MCA. What I hope is that the commissioner will look into this and say if ship-to-ship oil transfers are taking place in the Firth of Forth, it would contravene the legislation. If it contravenes the legislation, then it can't happen," Mr Smith said.

"We are pushing for these plans to be overruled. We have a powerful ally in Europe and we can now go to the MCA and say, 'We have an ally who has the power to overrule you'."

Three months ago, the MCA indicated it would approve the plans but stressed that any final decision would not discharge Forth Ports from its statutory duty in relation to the EU's habitat directive.

Mark Ruskell, the Green MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife and the party's spokesman on the environment, said: "This battle is far from over. Forth Ports - already in the public eye following the recent chemical leak in Grangemouth - could now face a huge legal battle, and investor confidence in a plc that has anything but a clean reputation could be shattered.

"It's quickly coming round to D-Day for Executive ministers. They hold the licensing powers where protected species such as dolphins are threatened - they must now use them."

Ship-to-ship transfers already take place at Scapa Flow in Orkney, Sullom Voe in Shetland and at Nigg in the Cromarty Firth.

Last night, the Scottish Executive refused to comment until officially notified of the EU investigation.

A spokesman for the MCA said: "Forth Ports is under a duty to have regard to the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest when formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions.

"It must take into account the effects which the proposals may have."