Law firm Tods Murray awarded Lexcel ‘quality mark’ after pursuing pensioner for £34K photocopying demand in 16 year court nightmare

EDINBURGH based law firm Tods Murray, who pursued pensioner Andrew McNamara in Scotland’s courts for SIXTEEN YEARS to force payment for a staggering demand of THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS for photocopying at an eye watering £4 a sheet, has been awarded the Lexcel ‘legal quality mark’ by the Law Society of England & Wales. The Lexcel award is handed out after a firm has been ‘independently’ assessed against the highest standards of management practice and customer care (Guess they forgot to ask the clients then ! – Ed)

Tods Murray’s Lexcel award comes amid a crop of other similar lapel pins & certificates handed out to solicitors recently, as part of a somewhat obvious desperate attempt by both Scottish & English industry regulators to drum up business for ailing law firms which have become infamous for battles with their clients such as the Tods Murray v Arakin where pensioner Mr McNamara has been appealing a ruling by law firm favourite judge Lord Woolman he must pay his former lawyers around £90K.

No client of Tods Murray could be tracked down to give a positive comment on the firm’s Lexcel award.

Tods Murray announced : Tods Murray secures international quality mark

Tods Murray LLP has secured Lexcel - the legal quality mark - making it the first solely Scotland-based law firm to hold the international standard.

Tods Murray, which has offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, was awarded the Law Society of England and Wales’ prestigious accreditation having been independently assessed against the highest standards of management practice and customer care.

David Dunsire, Executive Partner at Tods Murray, said: “By securing Lexcel we are sending a clear message - that we meet international standards of customer care and service within legal practice. The legal sector in Scotland is a competitive market, so being the only solely Scotland-based law firm to have Lexcel accreditation makes us stand out. Having Lexcel under our belts says we are a law firm with a reputation for quality.”

Law Society of England & Wales President Lucy Scott-Moncrieff said: “Lexcel is an accreditation scheme which recognises best practice in legal business management, irrespective of where that practice is. As legal service provision becomes more global, so does Lexcel. Lexcel has reached into Canada, the Republic of Ireland, Poland and the Middle East. I see Lexcel as establishing itself as the legal quality mark for firms and in-house legal teams across the world.”

To gain and retain Lexcel accreditation, practices must undergo a rigorous initial then annual application and assessment process. This includes conducting suitability checks and an on-site assessment.

Neil Stevenson, Director of Representation and Professional Support at the Law Society of Scotland, added: “It is great to see a Scottish law firm gaining an internationally recognised standard. Quality marks bring value to the clients and the employees of law firms, and during these difficult economic times firms need to stand out with the particular strengths and benefits they offer.”

In comparison to the announcement of the Lexcel award, Tods Murray faced rumours it was about to go bust, which prompted Executive Partner David Dunsire to write letters to the newspapers denying his firm’s financial woes, reported here : Tods Murray or Bust

The firm is also widely known over the Taxi for McLetchie’ expenses scandal where the Scottish Conservative’s current Justice Spokesperson, David McLetchie was found to have falsely claimed parliamentary expenses for £11,500 worth of taxi journeys claiming he was travelling between the Scottish Parliament & the law firm’s offices even after an investigation by the media exposed the msp’s claims as a lie.

The scandal forced Mr McLetchie to ‘retire’ from Tods Murray and also resign his position as leader of the Scottish Conservatives , but is still a member of the Scottish Parliament.

90 solicitors have criminal records in England & Wales but Scottish statistics on convicted lawyers remain secret

The Law Society of England & Wales has apparently disclosed in a Freedom of Information request to law blogger Peter Cherbi’s Diary of Injustice, there are some 90 solicitors in England & Wales with criminal records.

The Law Society of Scotland however, has unsurprisingly kept silent and has not disclosed the statistics for Scotland.

As Diary of Injustice points out, the Law Society of Scotland's refusal to disclose the statistics for convictions and types of convictions of Scottish solicitors, is possibly due to the fact that while evidence shows many of the convictions in England & Wales relate to the more minor offences, charges & convictions against Scots lawyers are somewhat more shocking, if you care to read on :

Diary of Injustice reports :

Criminal records of lawyers : Scots public kept in dark over convictions while England & Wales get ‘right to know’

Law Society of England & Wales reveals statistics on lawyers with criminal records. The Law Society of Scotland have today been upstaged by their English counterpart, the Law Society of England & Wales, who, responding to a Freedom of Information request, have reported that in the rest of the UK there are some 90 solicitors in practice in England & Wales who currently have criminal records, with an estimated 50 of those solicitors still retaining their practising certificates, entitling them to continue representing the public in legal matters.

Law Society of England & Wales statement on criminal records of solicitors : "The Law Society is not notified, as a matter of course, when a solicitor is charged with an offence but we are notified if a solicitor is convicted. There are currently 92 solicitors who have been convicted of criminal offences."

"50 of the 92 have current practicing certificates and are therefore currently entitled to practice. A random check of some of the 50 indicate that the convictions in those circumstances mostly relate to driving offences."

This is believed to be the first disclosure of such details on UK solicitors, and even though the Law Society of England & Wales are not bound by Freedom of Information laws, they acceded to the FOI request in the interests of assisting journalism and keeping the public informed of matters of potential concern

Law Society of Scotland refuse to reveal details of criminal records of solicitors. While members of the public in England & Wales now have such information to hand, to assist in their choice of legal representatives, people in Scotland will not have access to such radical disclosure of solicitors criminal history, after the Law Society refused to publicly disclose any such details of the criminal records of Scottish solicitors.

Criminal convictions of Scots lawyers relate to very serious offences and many with criminal records still practise law. A senior Law Society insider today spoke of his concern that revealing the types of criminal charges and criminal convictions of lawyers in Scotland may well put people in fear of choosing a lawyer, given that while in England & Wales, many of the convictions seem to relate to driving, or minor offences, criminal convictions in Scotland range from very grave criminal offences of rape, child abuse, assault, fraud, embezzlement, drugs running, and even accessory to murder, rather than being limited to driving offences and the mode mundane.

He said : "There wont be many within the Scots legal profession or the Law Society of Scotland who will feel inclined to follow the lead of our English cousins in disclosing statistics on criminal records, simply because the seriousness of some of the criminal convictions of solicitors in Scotland would probably make people run a mile from many a legal firm."

"There is an even greater problem in that the numbers of solicitors who are actually charged with a criminal offence is, to be expected, much higher than the figures showing the number of resulting convictions."

He went on : “I personally know of several solicitors currently practising who have been charged with very serious offences, one of rape, one of internet grooming of children, several charges relating to significant financial frauds, not only against clients, but also involving financial institutions, and several younger solicitors in Edinburgh who have recently been charged with drug abuse and possession of cocaine.”

He ended the interview by concluding : “If clients were entitled to this kind of information, the affected law firms would suffer financially from loss of business, but you do raise an intriguing point in that if I were a member of the public I might want to know if my solicitor had a criminal record and what he or she had been charged with or what offences they were convicted for."

Rent boys are a popular theme in criminal charges of leading Scots lawyers. I am all too aware of the seriousness of criminal activity and convictions of solicitors in Scotland, where in recent years we have seen a raft of solicitors hit the headlines such as Angela Baillie, who transported drugs into prison and was herself sent to jail, a Glasgow solicitor who was charged with gun running, also sent to jail, countless solicitors who have been charged with fraud, against clients & banks, some of whom seem to escape with lenient sentences, solicitors who have committed perjury in open court, and of course, the ever popular list of criminal charges relating to offences of a sexual nature, where some of the Scots legal profession's most senior members have been caught with boy prostitutes in shopping centre toilets and other equally sordid cases of rape & abuse - all a far cry from a few ‘driving offences’.

An angry client who was confronted with the fact their advocate has faced charges of serious sex offences today said : "This is an outrage we are not entitled to this kind of information in Scotland. Personally I am horrified at the revelations of what is going on inside the Scottish legal profession, and I think there has to be an immediate change in the law that all clients of solicitors know exactly who they are dealing with."

John G O’Donnell has 21 negligence claims but no criminal charges, and is still practising – Your lawyer might have a similar record but no one will know until it is too late. I, of course, fully support the public's right to know whether or not their legal representatives have a criminal record, and also support the idea of full regulatory disclosure by all solicitors to clients, so that people can make up their minds whether the person or legal firm trusted with their legal affairs, is fit and honest enough to carry out the work entrusted to them.

It surely must be the right of clients to check out their solicitors first to see just how honest they are and how they have dealt with regulatory issues arising from perhaps, complaints from other clients. Also clients must of course be able to find out the conduct & negligence record of solicitors, which would in anyone’s mind certainly impact on their choice of legal representation.

I have written about full regulatory disclosure in an earlier article here : Disclosing the regulatory history of lawyers in Scotland to help give choice to the consumer and a more recent article here : Regulatory disclosure to solicitors clients 'a must' as legal ombudsman's report fails to name & shame rogue lawyers

SLCC currently hold no information on criminal charges or records of Scots lawyers. In view of the English Law Society's break from secrecy on the issue of criminal records of those in the legal profession, I asked the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission what they were doing about the issue north of the border, given the public interest would most definitely be served by clients being able to obtain both regulatory disclosure and also disclosure of criminal records or convictions of their solicitor.

I asked Jane Irvine, the SLCC Chair, whether the SLCC have any information regarding solicitors or advocates who are members of the Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates have criminal records, or are currently subject to criminal investigations or investigations from the Legal Aid Board or any other Government Department.

The Commission admitted it had no such information, despite a brief perusal of the newspapers showing plenty lawyers in the headlines for just about any criminal offence imaginable, and some which are too sordid to imagine.

Given the SLCC is now the sole gateway for complaints against the legal profession, one would think there surely exists a necessary role in collating such statistics relating to criminal activity within Scotland's 10,000 solicitors, given that such information may well be relevant not only to complaints investigations but also inquiries from members of the public who suspect or simply wish to enquire as to the honesty of their solicitors & legal firm.

Criminals from within Scotland’s legal profession staged a mafia hit on Law Society Chief in 2006. There amazingly seems to be no obligation on the part of solicitors or advocates to inform the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, or the Law Society of Scotland that they are the subject of criminal investigations, or criminal charges or convictions. The only way the Law Society gets to know if a solicitor has been found guilty of a criminal offence, is from the Crown Office, and according to sources questioned on this issue today, the Law Society of Scotland does not always want to be told one of their solicitor members has been found guilty of criminal offences … unless the media asks first.

I asked the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission if they thought there should be such an obligation on the part of solicitors & those in the legal services market to report to them that they are facing or are the subject of criminal investigations, or criminal charges,or indeed have been convicted of a criminal offence.

The Commission responded by saying "We deal with complaints under our Act - Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Under our legislation there is no obligation on the part of solicitors or advocates to report to the SLCC that they are facing or are the subject of criminal investigations or criminal charges."

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine. While the Commission's Chair, Jane Irvine recently supported the idea that the Law Society of Scotland should be brought within the scope of Freedom of Information legislation, which I reported on here : Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity, there does seem to be a more pressing need for the public to be able to access all kinds of information relating to their legal representatives, to assist making a decision on who will represent their legal interests which often involve the most important parts of their lives, from buying a house, to making a will, to the defence of criminal charges or handling civil litigation of all types.

Simply, wouldn't you want to know if your lawyer has a criminal record ? or a negligence record ? or a poor complaints record ?

Law Society in England & Wales fined for poor complaints handling - never in Scotland !

Something the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman could never do (it seems) was to fine the Law Society of Scotland for the poor handling of complaints. Mind you, the SLSO never asked for such powers anyway, so its not surprising such powers were never granted !

The Times reports :

Law Society faces fine for poor complaints system

The Law Society's procedures for dealing with complaints are dismissed as "inadequate" as a £275,000 fine is imposed

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor, and James Rossiter

The Law Society, the professional trade body for all solicitors in England and Wales, has been hit with a £275,000 fine for its complaints-handling system, its second such fine in two years.

Zahida Manzoor, the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, yesterday criticised as “inadequate” the Law Society's complaints-handling plan for the current financial year, which ends in March next year.

The Law Society, a self-regulatory body, paid a £220,000 fine for its 2006-07 complaints plan, which the Commissioner also declared sub-standard.

More than ten thousand complaints about solicitors are made to the Law Society each year.

It passes those complaints made by members of the public to the Legal Services Complaints Board (LCS) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Both these bodies report to the Law Society.

Investigations can take up to a year or more to process and can lead to disciplinary action being taken against members of the legal profession or entire law firms.

Ms Manzoor accused the LCS of “a preference for remaining within a comfort zone and avoiding difficult decisions until some point in the future”.

Solicitors pay in total more than £31million a year in fees to fund the LCS but it was described by Ms Manzoor as “not a value-for-money service” for its lawyer members.

“I have always welcomed improvements in timeliness and quality of processes but they have come at a financial cost that is unsustainable. This must stop. LCS has to address working practices, reduce costs and become more effective and efficient,” she said.

The Law Society and the LCS called the Commissioner's decision “completely unjustified” and accused Ms Manzoor of “disproportionate action”.

Deborah Evans, chief executive of the LCS, said: “It is important when developing a complaints handling plan that we do not make false promises. We didn't - we set stretching targets but not ones that it would be impossible to achieve.”

Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said: “The performance of the LCS compares favourably to other similar organisations and on any reasonable measure must now be regarded as an effective complaints handling body.”

Professor Shamit Shaggar, chair of the board of the LCS, said: “By any reasonable measure this is a disproportionate action by the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner that brings no benefit to either the legal profession or consumers of legal services.”

The LCS will be replaced in about two years by a new Office for Legal Complaints which should be independent from the Law Society. Ms Manzoor said it was likely that another 40,000 consumers could have their complaints handled by the LCS before it closes. “The standard of customer care must therefore continue to improve,” she added.

Scandal of lawyers caught in insurance fraud kickbacks spread to Scotland

It was recently reported in the Times newspaper that several firms of solicitors south of the border are being investigated alongside many claims handling companies for alleged insurance fraud ...

Rumours now circulating in the Scots legal fraternity claim many of our 'top notch' legal firms have been receiving insurance kickbacks for years .. one 'well respected' Edinburgh solicitor who was named to a Scottish reporter, is claimed to have been in tow with several insurance companies for years .. possibly accounting for the 9 cars he owns, together with four houses ...

The Times reports :

Solicitors face inquiry over insurance fraud kickbacks

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

Ten solicitors’ firms are being investigated with dozens of accident claims-handling companies for alleged insurance fraud.

The investigation, reported in the Solicitors’ Journaltoday, is being undertaken by the Insurance Fraud Bureau.

The alleged frauds involve law firms paying kickbacks to claims-handling companies for work. This is legal if it is open and transparent, but some of the claims turn out to be fraudulent.

Law firms may be unaware that the claims being made are fraudulent but could still be guilty, according to the Insurance Fraud Bureau. Sue Jones, head of unit at the bureau, is urging partners of law firms to keep accurate records of clients and cases referred to them by claims management firms.

“If you’ve paid a referral fee to a claims management company and you end up taking money into your client account from a fraudulent claim, then you could be facilitating that fraud.”

If insurers were saying consistently that they did not believe an accident took place, solicitors should review the claim, she said.

English Law Society faces battle with QCs - couldn't happen in Scotland ?

Unusually the Law Society south of the border is facing a legal battle to publish parts of its code it had originally given consent to be published, then withdrew ...

The Times reports :

QCs battle against the Law Society

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor of The Times

The delicious spectacle of dog eat dog — two QCs pitched against the Law Society in the courts — looks as if it will settle, thus avoid an embarrassing dispute.

In the legal action Andrew Hopper and Gregory Treverton-Jones last month issued proceedings in the High Court against the solicitors’ professional body.

Mr Hopper, who is also a solicitor and was the first solicitor-advocate outside the City of London, and Mr Treverton-Jones are both — among other things — specialists in professional regulation, defending solicitors against complaints about their conduct. The pair have written The Solicitors Handbook, a guide to the detailed rules solicitors now have to comply with. As part of the book they wanted to reproduce the full text of the solicitors’ code of conduct that came into force last July.

And here is where the dispute arises. The QCs sought permission from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which is responsible for rules of conduct in the profession, regulation and training. An SRA official told the men’s publishers, LexisNexis Butterworths, that they could go ahead.

Then, having written the book, the authors were informed by the Law Society that they did not have permission after all and could use only extracts of the code.

As Andrew Hopper put it: “We appeared to be caught in a power struggle between the SRA, which supports us and wants the book published in the interests of good regulation, and the commercial people at the Law Society, who see it as competition for their own publications.”

It is ironic, he added, that the handbook was written “from the defence perspective, to help solicitors to understand the rules of their regulator and how everything works. The prosecuting authority wants it published — but the ‘trade union’ wants to suppress it.”

There is nothing like a wrangle between lawyers. At least they have the best advice at their disposal. The pair brought in Herbert Smith, the City law firm, acting “no win, no fee”, together with a prominent member of the Bar on the same basis. Proceedings were served.

This week they applied for summary judgment in the High Court, asking for an order that the Law Society, which owns the copyright, permit them to reprint the code of conduct, a crucial element of the book.

But today it looks as if behind-the-scenes negotiations may produce a settlement beneficial to both sides. The QCs declined to comment “having regard to discussions taking place between the parties”. A spokesman said: “It is understood that it is likely that the dispute will shortly be resolved amicably in a manner that will enable the handbook to be published in the near future.”

Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said: “We are working to try to find a mechanism to settle this matter amicably.” Meanwhile, though, the pair have not withdrawn proceedings and the society is still defending them.

It maintains that the SRA had no authority to give a licence for the code to be published. Mr Hudson said: “What we have said all along is that clearly there is a significant difference as to what happened here and the legal implications. But if we can find a way to resolve it, we shall do.”

Some say that the case exposes the fundamental tension between the two limbs of the Law Society now that it has split its regulatory functions from its representative ones. The latter, of course, needs to be mindful of maximising its income — such as from commercial activities — when in the not too distant future solicitors will be able to choose whether or not to subscribe to support it.

Mr Hudson strongly disagrees. But he does concede that “the Law Society and the SRA are at different points in this process of change and the Law Society is facing different financial circumstances, post-Clementi. They have a different set of issues facing them and it is not surprising, therefore, that financial matters are not as high up the agenda as they are at the Law Society.”