New Chairman of Law Society’s Master Policy brokers, Marsh & McLennan is Tory Peer Lord Ian Lang, linked to 90’s Scots Tory scandal cover-ups

Conservative Peer Lord Ian Lang, Baron Lang of Monckton has been named as the new Chairman elect of the US Insurance giant, Marsh & McLennan Companies, of which their UK arm, Marsh UK insure all Scottish solicitors under the infamous Master Insurance Policy, an arrangement enforced by the Law Society of Scotland requiring all Scottish lawyers & law firms to be a part of, if they wish to practice law. Lord Lang is listed in Marsh’s 2011 annual report as currently chairing their “Compensation Committee” as well as sitting on its Directors & Governance, Executive & Finance Committees.

While Lang’s appointment as Chairman was announced in a Press Release from Marsh UK last year, there was apparently no mention of the fact the Tory peer had been named in a 2005 Consolidated Class Action against Marsh & McLennan Companies, which claimed : “Defendant Lang has been a director of Marsh since 1997. Lang was Chairman of the Company's Audit Committee between 1998 and 2001 and has also served on the Board's Executive, Compensation and Governance Committees. During the Class Period, Lang signed SEC filings containing materially false and misleading statements.”

The Class Action, which can be downloaded in its entire 291 page form, HERE went onto allege Lord Lang, along with several other identified directors of MMC were involved in supplying ‘materially false & misleading statements’ : “Defendants Greenberg, Wijnberg, Rapport, Cabiallavetta, Fanjul, Groves, Hardis, King, Lang, Olsen, Simmons, Sinnott, Smith, King and Schapiro either authorized registration statements containing materially false and misleading statements and/or served as directors at the time the Company issued securities pursuant to false and misleading registration statements.”

In 2004, the Independent newspaper reported that : “Lord Lang of Monkton, the president of the Board of Trade in the last Conservative government, is being sued for his role as a director of Marsh & McLennan, the US insurance broker accused of orchestrating a massive fraud against customers. Lord Lang is one of a number of directors accused of breaching their fiduciary duty to Marsh's shareholders in a class action organised by the New York law firm, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow. The move is a blow for Lord Lang, who has kept a low profile since Marsh was last month accused by New York's combative Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, of manipulating insurance bids to collect inappropriate fees. The action increases pressure on Lord Lang to step down from Marsh's board.

Goodkind's case alleges Marsh forced its employees to use their retirement savings programmes to invest heavily in its shares. Employees face heavy losses since the company's stock plunged after Mr Spitzer's allegations."Marsh's 'bid rigging' schemes were fraudulent and illegal, and have opened the company up to massive civil and criminal liability. For these reasons, the defendants knew or should have known that Marsh stock was an imprudent investment alternative for the [retirement] plans," the claim says.”

Lord Lang joined the Marsh McLennan Companies Board in 1997. He chaired the Audit Committee from 1998 to 2001 and has served as chair of the Compensation Committee since 2007. Lord Lang began his career as an insurance broker. He later served as a member of the British Parliament from 1979 to 1997; in the Cabinet as President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from 1995 to 1997; and as Secretary of State for Scotland from 1990 to 1995.

MMC’s profile on Lord Lang fails however, to mention activities reported in the Scottish Press in March 1997 where Lang was accused of being among “Tory top brass who covered up the gay double-life of shamed chairman Sir Michael Hirst” during a series of reports on appointments within the Conservative Party in Scotland at the time which were later claimed to have “buried the party in Scotland”.

The reports from the Daily Record stated : “Tory top brass covered up the gay double-life of shamed chairman Sir Michael Hirst. Former Scots Secretary Ian Lang knew about his homosexual affairs with TWO young Tories. But he took no action after Hirst denied the flings with former researcher Andrew Barnett and personal assistant Paul Martin. Barnett blurted out the secret at the party's Brighton conference two years ago. One senior Tory said: "This went all the way to Ian Lang."

Earlier this year, Lord Lang who is also now the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets the jobs of former ministers was back in the news, attempted to justify the ‘Establishment’ make-up of his committee, which comprises four peers, two knights and a dame. The Daily Mail newspaper reported that Lord Lang said : “Bus drivers, waitresses and other people in ‘unimportant’ jobs are not fit to sit in judgement on the business interests of former ministers.”, more on which can be read here : Bus drivers and waitresses? Those sorts of people aren't important claims Tory peer

The Daily Mail article also reported on Lord Lang’s interests :

Former Cabinet minister Ian Lang knows more than most about the links between the worlds of politics and big business. Lord Lang, who served as trade secretary under John Major, has carved out a highly lucrative portfolio of private interests since losing his seat at the 1997 election.

The 70-year-old peer, who was educated at Rugby School and Cambridge University, is a director of no fewer than five corporations. His most prominent role is at giant U.S. insurance firm Marsh and McLennan, where he due to become chairman in May this year. He is also a non-executive director at the hedge fund Charlemagne Capital and the Russian energy firm SoyuzNefteGaz. Other directorships include Ukrainian wine company OJSC Sun Valley and management consultants SI Associates.

Last year Lord Lang was one of a number of senior politicians caught up in a sting by Channel Four’s Dispatches programme. Researchers set up a fake lobbying firm to establish what politicians would be prepared to offer. Lord Lang submitted his CV and went for an interview. But he insisted yesterday that he had never agreed to lobby on behalf of the firm’s clients and had only been interested in a job on its advisory board.

Marsh & McLennan Companies Press Release of last year stated : “The Board of Directors of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) announced today that Ian Lang, Lord Lang of Monkton, will succeed Stephen R. Hardis as Independent Chairman of the MMC Board of Directors when Mr. Hardis retires from the Board in May 2011.”

“I am honored to be taking the role of Independent Chairman of this Board of experienced leaders,” commented Lord Lang. “Steve Hardis has set the bar high, but I look forward to following his fine example in seeking to help MMC achieve its strategic goals and in providing value for shareholders.”

The MMC 2011 annual report made little mention of Lang’s history, simply stating : “Our following directors were marked as “Flagged (Problem) Directors” by The Corporate Library due to their Marsh & McLennan board tenure when MMC was sued by the State Attorney General for alleged bid rigging, price fixing, and kickbacks: Gwendolyn King, Stephen Hardis, Adele Simmons, Oscar Fanjul, Morton Schapiro and Ian Lang. Our entire Nomination and Executive Pay committees were filled with “Flagged (Problem) Directors.” Nonetheless “Flagged Director” Ian Lang will become our Chairman in 2011.”

Scots legal firm Brodies & Dean of Faculty threaten Parliament over asbestos claims legislation

Legislation designed to allow sufferers of medical illness related to asbestos exposure is to be challenged by the insurers, who have taken on legal representation in the form of Edinburgh legal firm Brodies LLP, and Richard Keen QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates

Peter Cherbi’s “A Diary of Injustice in Scotland” reports the insurers idea is a judicial review against Parliament’s law making powers on this legislation :

Insurance firms with links to Scottish Government threaten legal challenge against Holyrood on asbestos claims reforms

Dean of Faculty Richard Keen QC to fight asbestos claims law. Insurance firms and lawyers who have strong financial relationships with the Government and the Scottish Parliament, have teamed up in an attempt to defeat through the courts, the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, expected to be passed this week at Holyrood, which will allow victims of asbestos related illnesses to claim compensation from insurers for suffering such conditions as lung scars, which are an indication of exposure to asbestos.

The Edinburgh legal firm of Brodies has been called in by several insurance companies, identified in the Sunday Herald newspaper as AXA, Norwich Union, RSA and Zurich, to mount a judicial review legal challenge to the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, which goes through Parliament this week. The insurers legal position is that the legislation proposed will allow people to claim compensation who suffer from ailments associated with asbestos exposure, which the insurers currently don't classify as harmful.

Richard Keen as you all know, appeared in the media only a few weeks ago demanding that class actions be allowed in Scotland against banks, however I take it that class actions for the victims of asbestos claims are not included in his thinking at the time.

I wrote a previous article on the Parliamentary hearings, which saw lawyers representing the legal profession attempt to argue that ‘pleural plaques’, a condition which indicates exposure to asbestos, was “good for you”, here : Insurance lawyers argue against laws to help asbestos victims asserting part of their suffering 'is a good thing'

Law Society’s insurers threaten Parliament. It is of note that two of those Insurers - Royal Sun Alliance (RSA) and Norwich Union are backers of the Law Society of Scotland's infamously corrupt Master Insurance Policy, which insures every member of the Scots legal profession including the dean of faculty himself, all other advocates, and even the legal firm of Brodies, who themselves have been caught up in claims made by clients against their negligence cover.

You can read more about the Law Society’s Master Insurance Policy here : The Master Insurance Policy, Marsh UK & corrupt practices by insurers of the Scots legal profession

A legal insider who was approached for comment said "It is true that all advocates are part of the Master Policy, although it is generally left to individual advocates to arrange their own Indemnity Insurance cover, albeit through the same firm. It is fair to say the dean of faculty is probably insured by the same insurers now challenging the asbestos claims legislation".

On being asked for his thoughts on revelations the same insurers deal with Government, he said : "It is my understanding that Marsh also arrange insurance cover for many public institutions, including Government. This insurance cover will also be underwritten by many of the same insurance firms who are affected in the asbestos damages bill now before Holyrood."

Scots Govt pays millions to insurers now threatening legal action. The Master Policy, run by Marsh UK, a subsidiary of the US Insurance giant Marsh, which itself has been caught up in insurance fixing scandals, amazingly shares among its clients, the current SNP controlled Scottish Government, which pays out millions of pounds of public money in Professional Indemnity Insurance cover for all Government Departments, many public bodies & quangos, and also the Justice Department's 'goliath' Government Legal Service for Scotland, staffed by 175 seriously well paid lawyers who under Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, also get their huge insurance subscriptions paid as expenses perks by the taxpayer.

You can read more about the Government Legal Service for Scotland (GLSS) and exactly what contribution they make to us here : Scottish Government's £10m in-house lawyers make their mark against legal reforms & public access to justice

Scottish Parliament also has links to insurers. Even the Scottish Parliament itself is not immune from associations with the insurers who are now challenging the legislation to help asbestos victims. The 13 lawyers assigned to the Scottish Parliament from the GLSS are also themselves insured by the same insurers who are threatening legal action against Holyrood, and several departments of the Scottish Parliament also allegedly rely on insurance services provided by Marsh UK and the RSA for their own indemnity insurance !

An official from a consumer organisation today who declined to be named said : "One could speculate a great deal on whether such involvement at all levels of government by a single insurance firm, or cartel of insurers, may give rise to the conclusion by some there is an inherent conflict of interest going on, which may lead to ineffective or badly worded legislation being passed, or a general lack of will on the part of politicians to do the right thing for consumers, on the basis they don't want to upset their services provided by the Insurance community."

So, we have a situation where the same insurers who are now threatening legal action against Parliament to prevent asbestos sufferers receiving compensation, are at the same time, receiving millions of pounds in taxpayers money from Government, the Parliament, and many public authorities in Scotland, to ensure protection against financial claims for wrongdoing or negligence in public office. Is that right ? Is this an acceptable state of affairs ?

Is it ethical to pay millions of pounds of taxpayers money to the same insurers who are fighting proposals of reforms in the legislative process which are designed to make life better for those who are suffering fatal illness ?

Let us remind ourselves of the arguments put forward by the insurance companies lawyers in Parliament against asbestos sufferers :

Scots lawyers argue ‘asbestos related illnesses are good for you’ :

From the Sunday Herald :

Insurance giants to challenge new asbestos legislation

Firms will fight move to allow Scottish workers to claim £50m in damages

By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

BRITAIN'S BIGGEST insurers are planning an unprecedented legal challenge to a new law which would allow Scots workers to sue for asbestos exposure.

Four firms are preparing to seek a judicial review of the legislation, which is expected to pass its final stage at Holyrood on Wednesday with over-whelming cross-party support.

The law is designed to give workers the right to seek compensation for scars on the lung known as pleural plaques, which indicate exposure to asbestos, but which are themselves harmless.

It is understood the Edinburgh law firm Brodies is co-ordinating the judicial review on behalf of AXA, Norwich Union, RSA and Zurich.

The lawyers have already engaged two of Scotland's most formidable advocates to attempt to overturn the law at the Court of Session. Leading will be Richard Keen QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, and he will be assisted by Jane Munro.

If successful, the challenge would humiliate the government and dash the hopes of thousands of people negligently exposed to asbestos.

While the average payout would be around £8000 per person, legal costs would be twice as much again, and ministers estimate the total cost to private companies will top £50 million.

Frank Maguire of Thompsons Solicitors, which represents many Scots asbestos victims, said the court would be loath to reverse the will of parliament, especially as it was a clarification of the existing law.

He said: "We have researched all the angles and we are pretty confident that this will be overcome. We believe this judicial review will be defeated."

A spokesman for justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "We are entirely confident that this bill is within the legislative powers of the Scottish parliament. There is a moral imperative here that the SNP government in Scotland is acting on, even if Westminster is not. The House of Lords judgment means that people diagnosed with pleural plaques would have to live with the worry of possible future ill health for the rest of their lives, with no recourse to claim damages."

The judicial review will not surprise the Scottish government. During a consultation last year, insurance firms warned the proposed legislation was "wholly wrong", would open the flood-gates to similar dubious damage claims, and ought to be dropped. Some warned of potential legal challenges.

One of the main complaints against the legislation was that it would allow people to sue for a condition that causes them no physical harm: pleural plaques are symptomless, and do not develop into fatal mesothelioma. Allowing people to claim damages for something that hasn't damaged them is perverse and up-ends centuries of case law, critics argued.

But advocates of compensation said people who discover they have plaques suffer psychological stress.

In October 2007, after more than 20 years of people being able to claim compensation for plaques, the House of Lords ruled plaques were too trivial to merit damages. The Westminster government has so far accepted the ruling, but in Scotland asbestos victims persuaded the Scottish government to legislate to restore the "status quo ante", and let workers pursue damages for the condition once more. Wednesday's third-stage vote will see the culmination of that two-year campaign.

Last week, ministers were forced to issue a revised financial memorandum to the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, after realising it had underestimated the likely cost of compensation.

Settling the backlog against private firms is expected to cost £11.8m to £20m, followed by annual costs of £3.7m-£7m.

Councils also face bills of around £850,000 to settle existing cases, and annual bills of around £500,000.

The Ministry of Defence, which runs the Rosyth Naval Dockyard, and the UK Department for Business, which inherited liability for defunct shipyards, face total costs of around £7m, a bill the UK government could choose to hand back to Edinburgh.

Christine O'Neill, of Brodies, added: "We have been instructed by a number of insurers to look at a challenge."

Insurance firms seen to 'control' public access to courts as medical negligence claims in Scotland lag behind rest of the UK.

While some believe a growing "compensation culture" is draining vital health services in the country, others who have tried to make medical negligence claims against poor treatment in the NHS have discovered such cases fall directly to the control of the indemnity insurers rather than doctors, as is same case when trying to pursue a negligence claim against most professionals in the UK.

Difficulties in obtaining legal representation in medical negligence cases in Scotland can be put down to the fact that the same indemnity insurers of the legal profession insure large parts of the medical profession and indeed other departments of Government & public services.

Trying to get one professional insured by a group of insurers to sue another professional who is insured by the same insurers has to be one of the most difficult things to achieve in court today ... and thus is reflected in the poor levels of legal representation available to the public - a well known scandal which an opened legal services market may bring to an end.

The Sunday Herald reports :

Fear of ‘compensation culture’ as Scottish NHS payouts more than double

By Judith Duffy, Health Correspondent

THE NHS in Scotland was forced to pay out a record £23 million in compensation for medical errors last year - but campaigners have warned that patients north of the Border are being prevented from seeking justice when mistakes occur.

According to new figures, the bill for clinical negligence claims more than doubled in 2006-7 compared to the £9.8m paid out the previous year.

Concerns have been raised that a growing "compensation culture" is draining vital health service resources. Last month, a record payout of £5m, awarded to actress Leslie Ash after she contracted a superbug in a London hospital, provoked a storm of controversy.

But the "exceptional" increase in Scotland is said to be due to a larger number of high-value settlements, and is only a small fraction of the £600m paid out annually by the NHS in England for medical injury cases.

Campaigners say difficulties in accessing specialist solicitors and legal aid in Scotland are preventing many patients from seeking compensation when they have been victims of medical injury.

Peter Walsh, chief executive of charity Action Against Medical Accidents (Avma), claimed the notion of members of the public being highly litigious was a "common myth".

"There is only a tiny fraction of people who could claim for negligence who ever actually make a claim," he said. "In Scotland, even with this big leap in the amount that has been paid out, it only really reflects just a small number of high-value claims.

"It is still just the tip of the iceberg of people who really deserve and need compensation who aren't getting justice."

Leading compensation lawyer Cameron Fyfe also pointed out that the current system of claiming compensation for injury from the NHS was a difficult process.

"You have to prove that no ordinary doctor or consultant would ever have acted in this way, which in layman's terms means it was a very serious error which no-one else would make," he said.

Despite this, Fyfe said the number of NHS negligence cases he was dealing with had risen by around 30% over the past 18 months.

"I get the impression that individuals are more educated about their right to claim compensation, especially medical compensation," he said. "In the past, people thought I can't sue my doctor' - doctors were like gods, really - but now people realise they are just human like the rest of us."

Ten years ago, the NHS in Scotland paid out just £3.5m in compensation, but by 2006/7 that had risen to just more than £23.1m. The largest amount paid out last year was by Lothian health board, which had a total bill of £7.2m.

John Matheson, director of finance at NHS Lothian, said this was due to a number of long-running cases being settled, with four cases accounting for 93% of the total.

He added: "Most claims of medical negligence occur in a small number of specialities, and steps are always taken to learn from rare incidents of this nature so that the chances of their recurrence are minimised."

The SNP pledged in its election manifesto to provide an alternative system for compensation, which would introduce a right to redress without necessarily having to go through a legal battle, an idea which has been backed by Avma and the British Medical Association.

Liz Macdonald, policy manager at the Scottish Consumer Council, also welcomed the idea of the "no fault" compensation scheme.

"At the moment, if you bring a negligence action it is a particular clinician who is in the firing line," she said. "If you have no-fault compensation, in a way it is easier for doctors to hold up their hands and say something did go wrong.

"In most of these cases, it isn't because an individual doctor or member of staff is at fault, it is because of the way the system is working."

She added: "All the research shows the thing people want most is an apology and an assurance it is not going to happen to anyone else. Only about 10% of people actually want compensation.

"There are these worries about opening the floodgates and massive increases in compensation, but you have to keep that in perspective as that is not what everybody wants."

A spokeswoman for the Scottish government said the total number of claims for clinical negligence cases had remained steady, with around 150 reaching settlement every year, and the amount of money paid out accounted for around 0.1% of health board budgets.

She added: "The Scottish government intends to introduce a no-fault system for compensation, which we believe will help foster a more open and respectful relationship between patients and clinical staff. We will consult fully on our proposals."

You Tube video forces resignation of Law Chief who misled Justice Committee, Cabinet Secretary over 'negligence claims' memos

Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill has been forced to resign after widespread distribution of video clips showing the Law Chief contradicting the content of his own case memos to the Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament and the now Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney MSP.

Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill misleads Scottish Parliament & John Swinney - Q: When is a lie a big lie ? A: When it comes from a Law Chief ...

Mill, who has served as dictator Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland for the past 11 years, leaves the profession badly damaged after many failed policies and a disastrous anti client witch hunt which some say has even led to suicides.

Leading members of the legal profession and law critics today suggested there should now be term limits on the post of Chief Executive, as the last 11 years under Douglas Mill's rule has seen record scandals involving solicitors embezzling clients funds, record numbers of complaints many of which went unresolved, record negligence actions which were halted in their tracks by Law Society officials - some of them by Mill himself, and bitter public witch hunts against clients & law critics in the media and in their personal lives - all supported and sanctioned by the Chief Executive's office.

Law campaigner Peter Cherbi said : "Its high time the solicitor membership of the Law Society got themselves a vote in what goes on in their own institution. People in positions such as Douglas Mill cannot be left in office for years to pursue their own policies out of self interest & self preservation at the expense of the rest of society"

A solicitor who did not wish to be identified said : "I am relieved a sad chapter in the history of our profession is coming to an end. Here's hoping a streamlined Law Society might actually speak for the rest of us instead of telling us what to do"

While Mill may be best remembered for telling extensive porkies to John Swinney & the Scottish Parliament, he also smuggled an English QC north of the border to threaten the Parliament with legal action over the LPLA (Scotland) Act 2007, which saw the Law Society lose control of service complaints, and he even had a pop at the FSA, inferring they would come to blows with the Parliament over the same complaints-busting legislation which Mill feared so much.

Lets also not forget the access to legal services debate where Douglas Mill definitely does not want any public choice in an opened up legal services market .. preferring the closed shop monopoly the Law Society has presided over for decades.

Peter Cherbi sums up Mill's departure very well, in what can only be described as a blow by blow account of Mill's blatant and very public hunt against the well known law critic - read that here : Breaking News : Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill who lied to Parliament, pursued 'personal vendetta' against critics - to resign

Business Journalist Ian Fraser, who writes for the Herald, has a very good story on Douglas Mill's departure which can be seen here : Douglas Mill takes a hike

Douglas Mill to go in October - a lingering departure of failure .... oh and just a couple of days before the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission begins its work .. coincidence perhaps ?

The Herald reports :

Law Chief leaves post

BRIAN DONNELLY
January 26 2008

The chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland is to leave the post after 11 years, it was announced yesterday.

Douglas Mill, 57, will continue as chief executive until he leaves in October. Mr Mill said: "It has been a time of much change and there is a great deal more to come. I wish the society all the very best for the future and look forward to seeing it continue to thrive."

Richard Henderson, president of the society, said: "I would like to put on record the considerable debt the soc-iety owes to Douglas for his work over the past 11 years."

The Law Society Press Release ... forgive the spin !v:

Chief Executive of Law Society of Scotland to leave in October 2008

Douglas Mill, has decided to leave his position as Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland in October 2008.

Until that time Douglas, who joined the Society in 1996, will continue to undertake some of his duties and commitments as Chief Executive and will also undertake some project work for the Society.

In addition Douglas will continue to act as an ambassador for the Scottish Solicitors profession in undertaking his duties as President of ILACE (International Institute of Law Association of Chief Executives).

Richard Henderson, President of the Society said: "I would like to put on record the considerable debt which the Society owes to Douglas for his work over the past eleven years.

"The Society is a more business like and modern organisation than the one Douglas joined as Chief Executive and under his leadership the organisation has met many significant challenges.

"It is indicative of Douglas' professionalism that he is ensuring that the transition can be as smooth as possible."

Douglas Mill said: "It has been an honour to be the Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland for the past 11 years. It has been a time of much change and there is a great deal more to come. I wish the Society all the very best for the future and look forward to seeing it continue to thrive."

Investigation into solicitors 'negligence' insurance reveals corruption by Law Society officials

The honesty of the Master Insurance Policy - the Professional indembity insurance scheme of Scottish solicitors, organised by the Law Society of Scotland and brokers Marsh UK, is brought severely into question by Peter Cherbi in a recent article on his web blog "A Diary of Injustice in Scotland"

While guidelines the Law Society claims to adhere to allegedly prevent it from meddling in negligence claims against solicitors, the evidence is to the contrary, revealing the most senior members of the Law Society to have personally intervened in client negligence actions against legal firms to prevent their progress, denying clients all access to legal services, and compensation settlements.

Peter Cherbi reports :

Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

Kenneth Pritchard, Douglas Mill's predecessor as Secretary & Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, admitted as far back as 1994 in the media the Master Insurance Policy professional negligence insurance scheme was primarily "... there to protect the solicitor, his practice and his family...".

The Herald Wednesday August 17th 1994

Policy is to protect both says Law Society

Law Society secretary Kenneth Pritchard described as "utterly wrong" claims that solicitors professional indemnity insurance sets out to deny genuine claims for negligence and delay settlements to clients.

Mr Pritchard was responding to allegations made by Paisley house builder Iain McIntyre that solicitors insurance protects the profession at the expense of the client.

Mr Pritchard made it clear that he did not wish to comment on the conduct of any court action currently being pursued by Mr McIntyre and restricted his comments to the operation of the master policy for professional indemnity insurance operated by the Law Society.

"The master policy, in common with any other third party policy, is there to protect solicitors, but also to provide indemnity to their clients who have suffered loss. That is absolutely no different from any other third party type of policy, for example car insurance"

The Government has legislated that nobody can drive on the public highway without having third party insurance. The Law Society, in the interests of its members and the public, requires a solicitor in private practice to hold cover under the master policy before he gets a practicing certificate.

The only difference between third party insurance and the master policy is that it is imposed by the solicitors own body and not by the Government.

"Of course it's there to protect the solicitor, his practice and his family, but it's equally there to provide a fund for proper compensation to the client who has suffered loss"

Mr Pritchard complained that while the Law Society organised and administered the master policy and ensured that it provided the necessary range and amount of cover, negotiations over a claim were a matter for the client, solicitor and insurer.

He described the suggestion that the system operates to deliberately delay settlements or deny settlement when it was due as utterly wrong.

The Law Society's rule is to monitor what the master policy is intended to do and that it is to deal speedily and effectively with claims. In the main we are quite satisfied, although there are cases which go wrong.

There are two quite separate issues, the first being liability.Were the solicitors negligent ? If that is established, the second big issue is how much does the client get paid ?

There is an inevitable regulation - indeed there may well be an inevitable gulf - between what the client perceives as justified and what the insurers backed by their experience of settlements awarded by the courts, believe that a particular claim is worth.

Mr Pritchard also denied the allegation that firms which carry an excess on their insurance policies try to avoid liability because cash would have to come from their own pockets.

My perception from talking to firms is that, if they accept that the claim is due, the sooner it gets settled the better. There is no advantage in haggling over liability or the amount of damages because all you are doing at the end of the day is adding interest to the claim.

What lay behind that 1994 report in the Herald newspaper, were revelations that Kenneth Pritchard intervened in negligence claims against the legal firms of Wright & Crawford of Paisley, MacRoberts of Edinburgh, and Grant & Co, writing to the petitioners legal representatives, Skene Edwards Solicitors, on 21 June 1995, asking them to "protect their back" and that such correspondence would remain confidential between Mr Pritchard and Skene Edwards Solicitors, the petitioner's legal agents, and should not be disclosed to the client, Mr McIntyre.

As you can see from the above extract of pleadings, Kenneth Pritchard, apparently not satisfied with the terms of his previous letter, then wrote back to Skene Edwards Solicitors , two days later on 23 June 1995, ordering them to withdraw acting for their client in the negligence litigation against several legal firms.

You can read some more about Iain McIntyre's case on the Scottish Parliament website in pdf format HERE

Kenneth Pritchard is currently a serving Sheriff, and has unbelievably, written a book on professional negligence. The book must be very insightful on how to protect the legal profession from the public interest .....

Kenneth Pritchard's involvement in the above case, is certainly evidence enough the Law Society of Scotland directly intervene in clients negligence claims against solicitors ... and to continue the theme of Law Society intervention, Mr Pritchard's successor, Douglas Mill, was again, caught interfering in a client's negligence action, this time by the details of his own memo where Mr Mill, and various elements within the Law Society and the insurers, were seeking to delay & destroy several negligence claims by Mr Stewart MacKenzie against solicitors.

My own case too, has seen such intervention, with Douglas Mill directly intervening with the Scottish Legal Aid Board to cancel my legal aid funding for (i) a negligence claim against a solicitor and (ii) a case against the Law Society of Scotland to expose their mishandling of claims & my complaint against Andrew Penman.

Mr Philip Yelland, the Law Society's Director of Regulation, then contacted my own solicitor, akin to Mr Pritchard's interference in the other case, ordering my legal agents not to undertake instructions from me and to abandon my case.

Well, there is no surprise to learn that such 'intervention' by the Law Society of Scotland is commonplace against clients who try to claim compensation against a crooked lawyer, or pursue a negligence case using a lawyer to sue a lawyer which is the current & only method for pursuing cases against solicitors ....

The Scottish Government of course, know this to be the case. They are not as stupid or ignorant as they pretend to be. Indeed, John Swinney MSP, spoke on the issue of Kenneth Pritchard's intervention in the above case, during the LPLA Bill debate in December, and you can view Mr Swinney talking about it here :

Similarly, the Scottish Parliament and every single one of it's msps, are well aware of these problems of incessant Law Society intervention against any court case or complaint, or claim for financial loss which threatens member solicitors.

If everyone knows about it, when why is nothing done about it ?

Well, the simple answer to that question is the Law Society and the legal profession require that no action be taken to protect the public interest, over the interests of solicitors, and politicians are left in no doubt that if they support legislation which might end the corrupt arrangements of the Master Insurance Policy, they will be facing electoral oblivion or a lack of financial perks so many have been used to.

Any client of a crooked lawyer, who has tried to make a claim for damages against their negligent solicitor has certainly found this to be true, with the full wrath of the legal profession & insurance industry dirty tricks brigade being brought to bare on them. I among them.

I covered some of the dirty tricks carried out by the Law Society of Scotland, Marsh UK, and the insurers against client claims in an earlier article here : The Corrupt Link Revealed - How the Law Society of Scotland manages client complaints & settlements.

To this day, the Scottish Government, and it's previous incarnations, have afforded obsessive secrecy to the operation of the Master Insurance Policy which 'protects the solicitor, his practice and his family' for reasons it seems, the Government itself may significantly benefit financially, from it's own direct relationship with Marsh UK and the same insurers.

In an earlier article I wrote on the Scottish Executive's in house legal team, an FOI revealed the cost of running some 114 lawyers at around 5 million pounds, although that figure is now understandably suspect, given further revelations since i wrote the piece here : Scottish Executive budget on lawyers salaries revealed at over £5 million pounds while public face restrictions on legal representation

In an effort to get to the heart of the seemingly impenetrable workings of the Master Insurance Policy during the progress of the LPLA Bill through the Scottish Parliament, a short lived saga developed, where John Swinney MSP, at the time in opposition, wrote to the then Deputy Justice Minister Hugh Henry MSP, asking for "minutes of any meetings that may have taken place between the Scottish Executive, the Law Society, the brokers & the insurers for the Master Policy in connection with any provisions within the BILL that may affect the Master Policy."

A few days after Johan Lamont MSP responded to Mr Swinney, the Scottish Executive had apparently consulted the Law Society of Scotland and decided against releasing any information, sending Mr Swinney a two page letter excusing themselves from release of the information, on grounds of disclosure not being in the public interest - this coming after an apparent demand from the legal profession to keep the information secret.

Mike West, of the Justice Department, responded for the Executive, denying release of the information ...

"We endeavor to provide information whenever possible. The information you requested is related to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill which is currently going through it's parliamentary process. As this information is a contribution to the formulation and development of government policy, it is exempt from disclosure under Section 29(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 which states the information held by the Scottish Administration is exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of government policy.

In addition, as the information you requested consists of ongoing deliberations to assist with development of policy, it is likely to inhibit substantially the free and frank provision of advice, and free and frank exchange of views, and is thus exempt from disclosure under section 30(b)(i) and (ii) of the 2002 Act.

In reaching our decision about releasing the information, we have applied the 'public interest test' where we carefully weigh up the balance between whether it would be in the public's best interest to either release or withhold the information. We considered that, release of information would be likely to result in the loss of input into policy development from valuable stakeholders. On both occasions, we considered that it would not be in the public interest to release the information."

Interestingly, the Scottish Executive at the time obviously felt unable to release discussions with a well known to be corrupt insurance policy arrangement with the legal profession, because it would apparently be 'against the public interest to do so' .... I wonder why that could be ?

John Swinney MSP duly replied to his constituent on December 11 2006, informing Mr MacKenzie of the Scottish Executive's refusal to release the information sought on meetings over the Master Policy.

Of course, now that Mr Swinney is in Government, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, there should be no problem in his ordering the release of such information, and I await with interest to see if he does so, defying the commands of the legal profession to the contrary ...

After all, you can't have meetings & policy discussions on external insurance arrangements for public bodies which are supposed to be outside the control of government, and then tweak proposed legislation (which may run counter to that same public body's interests) to suit, unless there is a degree of collaboration & involvement in those issues & insurance arrangements, which it seems are certainly against the public interest, not for it ...