No criminal charges as 115 lawyers ‘repay’ £1.6 million to Legal Aid Board

Today’s annual report from the Scottish Legal Aid Board shows an increasing trend among legal professionals – defrauding the legal aid board but not getting away with it as much as before …

Anyway, out of 115 (we hear more – Ed) lawyers repaying at least £1.6 million (no, much more ! – Ed) one would have though the odd criminal charge or two may have been made against the offending solicitor .. but no, as Peter Cherbi’s “Diary of Injustice in Scotland” law blog reports HERE

You can read the Scottish Legal Aid Board’s annual report for 2007-8 here : Annual Report 2007 - 2008 - in pdf format

You can find out which legal firms, advocates & solicitor advocates received the money here : Legal Aid paid to firms of solicitors and Legal Aid paid to Advocates and Legal Aid paid to Solicitor Advocates

The Scotsman reports :

Lawyers repay £1.6 million in crackdown on legal aid

Published Date: 24 March 2009
By Michael Howie

LAWYERS in Scotland have been forced to repay £1.6 million in wrongly claimed legal aid over the past six years.

An investigation by The Scotsman reveals that the number of solicitors and legal firms investigated for apparent legal aid irregularities has increased by 50 per cent in that time.

In 2007-8 alone, 115 individual solicitors and firms were forcedto pay back legal aid.

Much of the money repaid to the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) that year came from the widow of James Muir.

He conned the body out of £1.8 million by embellishing scores of child abuse cases to claim extra money. The solicitor took his life in 2005.

A handful of the cases have been reported to the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office for alleged fraud.

However, it is understood that no solicitor has ever been convicted in a criminal court of defrauding the legal aid board.

The high number of investigations and repayments reflects a drive by SLAB to clean up the distribution of legal aid, which last year cost taxpayers some £155 million – an increase of 3 per cent on the previous year.

The legal aid board says it has "focused" its efforts to rein in falsely claimed funds in recent years. With fraud notoriously difficult to prove, it is often not known whether the false claims were criminal, but experts insist in many cases they will be honest mistakes.

Philip Yelland, director of standards at the Law Society of Scotland, said the "vast majority" of solicitors adhered to high professional standards.

"Any matters referred to us by SLAB follow the society's procedures for dealing with complaints.

"We have a robust investigation process which can lead to the society considering disciplinary action, which may involve prosecution before the independent Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.

"The tribunal, which has different powers to those of the courts, can impose various sanctions from a censure to striking a solicitor from the roll, banning them from practice."

Two solicitors in recent years have been prosecuted by the tribunal.

Paul Kirk's firm was prosecuted for submitting false accounts and inflated charges – netting him thousands of pounds of legal aid which he should not have been paid. The Lanarkshire solicitor was fined £10,000 in 2007.

Meanwhile, Meredith Graham Sykes was fined £2,500 the same year for trying to obtain payment from the board "by misrepresentation".

Labour's justice spokesman, Richard Baker, said the Scottish Legal Aid Board needed to "get a grip" on the issue to ensure all monies paid were claimed properly.

"The SLAB budget has increased greatly over the years and to ensure access to justice for as many as possible, it's vital that the board ensures absolute accountability and transparency."

Robert Brown, Lib Dem justice spokesman, said: "It's absolutely vital that the Scottish Legal Aid Board is as rigorous as possible in these matters and that, where appropriate, cases are reported for prosecution."

Bill Aitken, for the Conservatives, added: "Bearing in mind that the bulk of the money involved has come from one individual, it seems that Scotland's lawyers can claim to have a reasonably clean bill of health.

"Some of them, however, do have to take more care in submitting accounts as, leaving aside the question of criminality or fraud, there are still cases where the claims submitted do not tie up and this costs a fair amount to investigate."

Spectre of John McCabe returns to haunt increasing numbers of Scots fraudster lawyers

The ghosts of the early 1990s return to haunt Scotland’s legal profession, as the numbers of solicitors charged in connection with mortgage fraud & buy-to-let scams increases … but we have been here before … John McCabe … the one time ‘high flying’ partner of the defunct Scott Moncrieff & Dove Lockhart was engaged in exactly the same frauds nearly twenty years ago …

Funny, the Law Society of Scotland said it could never happen again .. (but it did, and again & again & again and now !– Ed)

Even stranger, the people in charge of the Law Society departments policing the profession during McCabe’s reign of fraud, are still in their same positions today .. Isn’t that a bit like keeping on Sir Fred Goodwin after the RBS had to be bailed out –Ed)

The Edinburgh News relives the glory years of fraud via John McCabe :

John McCabe: Solicitor left banks and building societies reeling

Published Date: 26 February 2009
By Gina Davidson

IT was the multi-million pound white-collar crime which knocked the stuffing out of the starched shirts of Edinburgh's legal profession.

When solicitor John McCabe was arrested at Heathrow after an attempted escape to Uruguay, it was revealed that he had lost almost £7 million through a catalogue of property frauds which left the city's banks and building societies reeling – and law firms the length and breadth of Scotland financially worse off.

McCabe perpetrated Scotland's biggest legal fraud over a period of seven years, becoming increasingly devious – even conning his wife – and damaging the reputation of and trust in his profession.

In a complex network of fraudulent transactions, he obtained, by lies and forgery, increasingly large loans on already mortgaged property, using the cash to expand his property empire and invest in nursing homes. But as property prices fell and interest rates rose in the late 1980s his debts spiralled and McCabe had to borrow more and more money. By November 1989, he was having to find £120,000 a month to keep up interest payments on loans.

Even his own house in the heart of Edinburgh's affluent New Town was not safe from his greed. The original loan on the Northumberland Street house was just £50,000, but in a series of further loans, on which he forged his wife's signature, he obtained a further £250,000.

The frauds only came to light after the Law Society carried out a routine examination of the books at the now dissolved Scott Moncrieff and Dove Lockhart firm, where McCabe was senior partner. In panic, knowing he was about to be found out, he fled to Uruguay after wiring £300,000 to a friend's bank account.

But the friend, sensing trouble, went to the British Consul, who established McCabe was under police investigation. The account was frozen and McCabe's money impounded by police. Destitute, he gave himself up and helped police unravel his web of fraud. The frauds totalled more than £4m and on top of those he had debts of more than £2m.

The whole fraudulent business began in 1983 when, as a 34-year-old, he decided to raise money on his own house. Borrowing almost £20,000 from the Skipton Building Society, he falsely claimed the cash was to be used to carry out "repairs and improvements" – and forged his wife Helen's signature.

For two years he was satisfied with that financial injection, but in 1985 he again borrowed £19,250 for the same purpose – and again forged his wife's signature.

The following year, in October, he forged her signature for a £54,698 mortgage from the Gateway Building Society to buy a house in Blantyre Terrace.

By 1987 he was stepping up his activities, desperate to become a property developer and enter the then-booming business of nursing homes. He applied for three more mortgages from three new building societies: £33,600 from the Halifax for a house in Maxwell Street, £63,826 from the Yorkshire for a house in Leamington Terrace and £40,000 from the Nationwide for the basement of his house in Northumberland Street. For the last two deals he again forged Helen's signature.

Then McCabe really went for it. In 1988 he borrowed a total of £1,005,136 from ten different agencies. This time he only forged his wife's signature once, but variously stated to the building societies and banks that he had only one on-going mortgage, or none at all.

And he was believed. The banks and building societies accepted what he told them, partly because, while he had not recorded the titles of the properties on which he held mortgages, his word, as senior partner in a reputable firm of solicitors, was considered good enough.

By the end of 1988, McCabe had 11 mortgages on eight properties.

Then in 1989 McCabe went back to the Skipton to raise a further £60,000 on his Northumberland Street home and took another £30,000 mortgage with the Newcastle for a property in Easter Road. He also approached the Jedburgh branch of the Bank of Scotland for a £150,000 term loan, supposedly to inject capital into a company called Peter Moffat (Potatoes). He offered four properties as security without mentioning existing mortgages on them.

In the same month he got an overdraft of £390,000 from the Clydesdale Bank to convert the Leamington Terrace properties into a nursing home, pretending again that there were no existing overdrafts, mortgages or loans.

But McCabe's guest houses and nursing homes were not proving the goldmines he expected them to be, and his debts were growing all the time.

In December that year came his biggest deals yet. On the 6th, he obtained a commercial mortgage from the Alliance & Leicester of £534,870, supposedly with a business associate, to buy a property in Eglinton Crescent. Ten days later, he applied for another commercial mortgage from the Newcastle, for the same house, and got £504,000.

But the Newcastle would not agree to allow him to act for them as well as himself due to a potential conflict of interest in the deal, but asked Edinburgh solicitors JC&S Stewart to act for them.

McCabe's wife Helen was a partner in JC&S Stewart and was given the task of handling this mortgage. She failed to record the title, but instead handed the deed and the file to her husband (later the Newcastle successfully sued JC&S Stewart for negligence).

It was obvious that by this stage McCabe was a desperate man who was prepared to throw away his wife's career to save his own skin.

In 1989 alone, McCabe obtained £1,668,870 from two banks and three building societies and was already paying £120,000 a month in interest on loans. Roughly calculated, at the rates then current on property loans, he would have to have debts of around £7m to incur this amount of interest.

The total amount of fraud for which he was eventually tried, however, was £4,075,226. And that includes further phenomenal borrowings in 1990.

By this time, he must have realised the game was up and decided to go out with a bang. In 1990 his borrowings totalled £1,323,000, with eight mortgages taken out: four on one house in Belford Court, two more on the Blantyre Terrace house (making four mortgages on that property altogether), one "remortgage", one for garage premises and one plot of land. Ten agencies were deceived.

The "improvements" at Northumberland Street reached their peak in June when he again applied to the Skipton for a loan of £118,000 – and got it. A spokesman for the Skipton later said that as long as the client provided proper security, a valuation and proof of income, the loans he had received, totalling £243,000 in seven years, were perfectly acceptable practice.

Eventually realising the game was up, McCabe fled to Uruguay at the end of 1990. But the money he had sent on came back to Scotland – and so did he.

He made a full confession to debts of more than £4m, nearer £5m with interest. He also had personal debts of around £2m. Unsurprisingly when the facts were revealed, there was speculation about gold-plated Jacuzzis and air-conditioned wine cellars, though it appears that the McCabes did not have an ostentatious lifestyle.

What McCabe's case illustrated at the time were the long delays in the recording of title deeds. As long as the properties he mortgaged were not recorded, building societies and banks could not discover that he had already mortgaged them.

McCabe was sentenced in 1991 to ten years in jail after admitting 34 charges of fraud.

Where did all the money go? None of it was ever retrieved and £4m, at least, was said to have gone on business failures and interest payments.

His wife Helen claimed at that time that she had acted under duress from her husband, and knew nothing about his affairs. But she was later found guilty of professional misconduct by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal and censured over two cases involving building society loans to her husband.

She was also later evicted from 52 Northumberland Street as their home had been left encumbered by mortgage arrears of more than £660,000.

And because McCabe was declared bankrupt, the Law Society of Scotland's guarantee fund, to which all solicitors have to contribute, had to pay out to meet the claims for compensation by victims of the dishonest lawyer. As a result, every solicitors practice in Scotland that year had to pay £900 to the fund.

Perhaps it was Robert Henderson QC, for McCabe, who summed up the case best when he said his client had been an unqualified success as a lawyer but a complete failure in his efforts to branch out into business.

"He was out of his depth and as he became more and more desperate for money, the frauds multiplied. It was a case of fraud on fraud on fraud," he said.

Lawyers would like media to censor portrayals of legal profession as crooked, dishonest

Oh the pain of it - seeing oneself and one's profession portrayed as a money grabbing crooked club .. is just too much for some it seems, as one journalist suggests the legal profession 'work more closely' with the media.

Television often portrays society as it is … perhaps the legal profession would like to clean up its image and infamy which provokes such distasteful portrayals of lawyers as ‘crooked’ ?

The Scotsman reports :

Jennifer Veitch: Rough justice for legal profession on television

By Jennifer Veitch

SO, HAVE you been hooked by the coverage of the trial of the year yet?
No, I'm not talking about the BBC's controversial drama series, Criminal Justice – more of that later – but the bringing-to-book of River City's arch-villain, Archie Buchanan.

Dedicated followers of recent shenanigans in Shieldinch will know that
Archie finally appeared in the dock last week, after being accused of embezzling funds from his clients.

For those who aren't soap aficionados, the dastardly Archie had planned to abscond with his lover Niamh – another crooked lawyer who had blackmailed him and prompted the embezzling – but was hit over the head by his mum, Liz, and dumped over a cliff by his wife Gina and her sister Eileen, only to pop up again at New Year claiming to have lost his memory, the ability to shave, and insisting that everyone call him "Douglas".

Still with me? Do keep up.

It remains to be seen whether Archie/Douglas will actually be sent to jail – his lawyer Charlie Houston (also crooked, of course) has tried his best to suggest that the firm's other partners, Fi Kydd (the recently deceased lesbian alcoholic) and Gerry McGrade (currently recovering from a cocaine-induced stroke) might have had their fingers in the sweetie jar.

So far, so ridiculous, you might think.

Yet the fact that all three solicitors in this fictional firm have had such a raw deal from the River City scriptwriters does beg the question: why are lawyers such a common inspiration for TV villains?

After all, it's not just the Scottish soap world that portrays the profession in a rather dim light. Viewers of EastEnders are probably still having nightmares about that scary solicitor Stella Crawford tormenting poor little Ben Mitchell.

No doubt it will soon be time for her bleach blonde boss, Ritchie Scott, to pop up yet again to save Ben's daddy, Phil, or his uncle Grant, from prison.

Earlier this year, Glenn Close portrayed the deliciously amoral litigator Patty Hewes in Damages, whose dastardly machinations prompted her rival to blow his brains out over her plush office carpet.

But it has taken last week's BBC drama series, Criminal Justice, to really touch a nerve with the legal profession.

The show's array of unethical practitioners, including the bitchy barrister Alison Slaughter, who bullies her hapless client, Ben Coulter, actually prompted the Bar Council to lodge a rather strongly worded complaint with the corporation.

Chairman Timothy Dutton QC said: "Naturally, some licence needs to be taken for dramatic purposes. But Criminal Justice goes too far. Criminal justice is not a game and it is a travesty to suggest that practitioners see it in that way."

It is perhaps fair to say that Dutton didn't find the show all that entertaining.

I have to say that even as a lowly law student, I have found that my smattering of knowledge about the legal systems of Scotland and England is beginning to ruin my enjoyment of televisual legal drama.

For example, at Archie's trial in last week's River City, his solicitor was wearing not only a wig, he was making an opening speech and addressing the judge, not the jury.

Of course you have to suspend your disbelief when watching soaps, but such jarring inaccuracies, which could easily have been checked, don't help.

When the public's perceptions of the legal system must be shaped by what they see on TV, can the profession do anything about it?

Perhaps lawyers could do more to influence what is being written for the small screen by improving the way that the profession communicates with the media and, by extension, the public.

For example, it is surely not beyond the professional bodies to club together to provide a website that explains – in plain English – how the different legal systems of the UK are structured and the basic legal procedures that are followed in the criminal and civil courts.

Scriptwriters, editors, journalists and anyone interested in the law could use it as an easy-to-follow resource.

And then there would be no excuse for Auntie's bloomers ruining our enjoyment of Archie getting his comeuppance.

Arguments over funding for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission leave public in the dark

More From A Diary of Injustice in Scotland which reports on the arguments on funding the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. not a good start to what was supposed to be an independence complaints body, which is being staffed by the same people from the Law Society of Scotland who have been responsible for some of the worst investigations into lawyers complaints for decades.

Funding argument over Scottish Legal Complaints Commission conceals lawyers interference in 'independent' complaints body

While in-house lawyers such as those working for the notorious Government Legal Service for Scotland (GLSS) and other public bodies hope to escape paying the bulk of the new levy of "around £400 a year" to fund the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the remainder of the Scots legal profession will have to pay the full amount plus the practicing certificate which is currently £735 a year, if of course, lawyers want to remain lawyers.

However, while the Law Society of Scotland are grumbling over the amounts to be paid by various factions of the legal profession, attempting bargains based on the rate of complaints that the likes of in-house lawyers or members of the Faculty of Advocates receive, the true picture of how the formation of the new SLCC is taking place is being slightly skewed, it seems in the benefit for the legal profession itself.

For a start, most of the staff of the new SLCC are migrating over from the Law Society of Scotland itself, many of those staff being qualified lawyers or those studying to qualify for the LLB and thus gain a practicing certificate, which the Law Society itself controls via admissions exams and awards at it's whim.

I reported on that matter in an earlier article here : Law Society staff secretly migrating into 'independent' complaints commission will ensure continuing problems of regulating Scottish lawyers

One wonders the, why there is such a fuss over who pays for what when all that is really happening is a piece of 'musical chairs', where the legal profession is, yet again, getting its way with its members migrating into the new 'independent' body to carry on investigating complaints against fellow lawyers, in the very same manner they have been doing for years at the Law Society of Scotland.

The definition of independence of this new 'independent' complaints bodyu slightly wears thin when taking that prospect into account ...

Further, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's 'appointees' to the new Commission are on around £300 plus a day for attendance which was envisaged as 2 or 3 days a month, but which it is now acknowledged by staff at the Justice Directorate that it will could be much more than a couple of days a month ...

Those highly paid £300 plus a day 'appointees' from Mr MacAskill. are ex-Police, lawyers and ex members of Law Society Complaints Committees who have tactically come out of the Law Society of Scotland to 'join' the new 'independent' SLCC.

Still think the new SLCC will be independent ?

Would anyone out there like £300 a day plus expenses to sit & look at complaints against fellow lawyers and friends in the legal profession ? Nice little earner isn't it .. getting £300 a day plus expenses to do a few inevitable whitewashes on crooked lawyers while leaving the poor client ruined as is usual at the Law Society of Scotland.

Even the new Chairman of the SLCC, Jane Irvine, the current Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman acknowledges she wasn't consulted on the backgrounds of some of those appointees, one of them being a lawyer whose legal firm has worked in key cases involving the notoriously corrupt Master Insurance Policy of the Law Society of Scotland, which saw revelations by Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney of massive corruption by Law Society officials right up to the Chief Executive Douglas Mill.

You can read more about John Swinney's revelations on corruption in the Master Insurance Policy and at the very heart of the Law Society of Scotland here : Law Society boss Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints.

Another of the appointees, a former Policeman was in the Scotsman newspaper as being involved in serious internal investigations by his own Police Force against him, which are now being kept secret by Kenny MacAskill for fear of tainting the SLCC further, amid revelations this same ex Policeman sat on Law Society of Scotland Complaints Committees as a 'lay member' ...

I have reported on the sleaze in the SLCC's appointments process in previous articles here :

Call for MacAskill appointments 'sleaze investigation' as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

Calls for full disclosure on legal complaints commission members as Justice Department 'covers up' conflicts of interest in appointments scandal

It does seem that what was planned to be an 'independent' commission to consider complaints against crooked lawyers has actually been co-opted by the legal profession even before it has come into existence, such seems to be the power and influence of Scotland's legal establishment and its members, who are bent on keeping control of regulation, complaints, and the public's access to justice for themselves.

The current Justice Secretary, Mr MacAskill, as duly obliged his colleagues at the Law Society by following orders, despite the revelations from Mr Swinney in key areas which should have affected to a much greater extent the appointments and formation process of the SLCC which now looks little more than a "new" Law Society of Scotland, staffed by the same people, with many of it's allies and former members at the most senior levels of the Commission itself.

This is not what was envisaged as an 'independent' organisation to deal with complaints against the legal profession. This is just another corruption of the regulatory issue, and an insult to all Scots who are users of the poor legal services we are currently forced to take from closed shop Scots legal services market.

Lets hope someone has the guts to create a proper fully independent organisation to look into complaints against the legal profession and maintain regulation in an opened legal services market, not this half way house already infiltrated by the legal profession itself. That person who could create such an organisation, is not Mr MacAskill.

Here follows the Scotsman's take via an LLB hopeful, which also gives a take on Richard Keen, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates who criticises the fact the Faculty has no representation on the new SLCC.

Well Mr Keen QC, you should have spoke up then for a place, shouldn't you ? I mean, why should Advocates let the Law Society of Scotland control the SLCC's staffing, appointments and budget plans while the Faculty is left out of everything .. tut tut ...

Just not Keen on 'taxation without representation'

By JENNIFER VEITCH

SOLICITORS can expect to pay a levy of around £400 a year to fund the new independent body being set up to handle legal service complaints, it has emerged. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) is consulting the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates on its budget proposals – including the levy that the professional bodies will have to collect from their members.

The figures, which have still to be finalised, would see most solicitors pay an annual levy, estimated at £420. Combined with the practising certificate fee – which is currently set at £735 a year – the cost of continuing to wear the badge of solicitor is likely to rise to more than £1,000 a year.

But it is likely that in-house solicitors, who make up around a quarter of the profession, will be offered a significant discount to reflect the fact that they rarely receive complaints. The In-House Lawyers Group has won support from the council of the Law Society of Scotland in recommending its members to pay a third of the levy, or around £140.

Newly qualified solicitors are also set to receive a 50 per cent discount, in line with the fact they pay only half the practising certificate fee during their first three years. As the commission is due to open in October, half-way through the financial year, all lawyers will be asked to pay a half-year levy to cover costs for its first six months.

Advocates will also have to pay the levy, at a rate being estimated at around £332 a year. But Richard Keen, QC, the dean of the Faculty, revealed he has written to Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, to express his "fundamental concern" about the prospect of "taxation without representation".

Keen points out that advocates have no member sitting on the commission, and have generated far fewer service complaints (just 26 a year) than solicitors (around 3,500).

"We are not represented on the commission, but we are being asked to pay its budget," he says. "We are being asked to pay an annual levy on a per capita basis. The illustrative figure is £166 per person (for six months]. That means the Faculty is going to have to pay around £160,000 a year to the commission. That is not so they can deal with 26 complaints, because they are only dealing with service complaints. We are talking about something of the order of ten complaints that are going to be dealt with."

He adds: "What concerns me is we may have created an enormous mallet to crack a very small nut as far as the Faculty is concerned. We are paying far, far more than solicitors in order to have this commission deal with service complaints and yet we are the ones with absolutely no representation on the commission. That appears to me to be inequitable."

Keen added the levy would end up being reflected in the fees charged to clients.

"We have to remember that every layer of bureaucracy has a cost, and someone has to meet that cost, and generally it ends up being the consumer," he says.

Philip Yelland, the Law Society of Scotland's director of client relations, says the rate of the levy would reflect the fact the commission was going to cost double what was originally forecast.

"The budget is still at a draft stage," he says. "One of the things we have been very conscious of is that the cost of the commission is significantly in excess of the original (estimate]. When this went through the finance committee of the Scottish Parliament, the figure was £1.5 million. It is now around double that.

"I think the commission will cost what the commission costs, and they have to set a budget that is fair and reasonable."

But he acknowledged its initial budget could not include what revenue might be generated by case fees – as it is not possible to forecast how many complaints it will deal with – and the commission will have an ongoing responsibility to consult the profession annually.

"They will have an additional source of income which will be case fees," he says. "That is something that clearly, in year one, they can't include in their budget." While the Law Society of Scotland will no longer handle service complaints, solicitors should not expect to see a reduction in the cost of their practising certificate, he adds.

"To say a levy at £400 per annum would mean £400 could come off the practising certificate would be an unrealistic expectation," he says. "If they start on 1 October, our role won't stop. We have still got conduct complaints to deal with (and] we are being given additional powers to deal with unsatisfactory professional conduct."

The society will also need resources to address the impact of the commission's decisions on standards, he says.

But Yelland adds the society is already working closely with the commission to ensure a "smooth transition" from the new complaints handling system.

"We have had a very good positive constructive discussion with them," he says. "They are setting up a new body and judging how many complaints they will get.

"They have clearly recognised that we have been dealing with service complaints since 1989 and they have been very keen to learn from us.

"They have been very keen to talk to us, and we have been very keen to pass on our experience and the information that we have."

Jane Irvine, chairwoman of the commission and the current Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, says work is ongoing to set the levy and rates. But she adds that the commissioners recognise the need to "budget wisely".

"Members of the SLCC are currently working on setting a budget for the first year of our operation, and considering how case fees should be charged," she says.

"In doing this, we are extremely conscious that we owe duties to everyone who will use our service to create an efficient and effective body, so we must be adequately funded and operate a practical case fee system.

"We want to create systems that work effectively and lead to early resolution of complaints. We also recognise we owe duties to the legal profession and to their clients to use the independence we have to plan commercially and budget wisely, as ultimately our costs will be levied on the legal profession."

Janet Hood, chairwoman of the In-House Lawyers Group, says she is pleased the Law Society of Scotland is supportive of a substantial discount. She concedes the cost is "hardly a bank-breaker" for most employers, but argues that in-house lawyers rarely generate complaints.

"We are hoping to pay about a third of what the commission fees will be," she says. "I do hope the commission will listen to not only the In-house Lawyers Group but to the Law Society of Scotland. And if there are lawyers with the commission, they will be in-house lawyers too."

Business urged to tell the truth online but Scots lawyers dare not do the same

Almost like teaching Granny to suck eggs, as some would say, but good advice as always for businesses is to tell the truth online otherwise you can expect trouble later on ...

However, Scots legal firms and lawyers dare not take their own advice because if the complaints histories and scandals of solicitors were to be on public display, no customers would ever dare come through the doors !

Just think how many clients would want to hire you if they found out you had been sued for negligence 14 times !

The Scotsman reports :

Let customers know the truth online or you can expect trouble

By JENNIFER MCMULLAN

THE internet has become so familiar that it is hard to think of life without it. A website is a very versatile tool, no matter what your trade or profession. Having said that, it's important your site stays in line with the law.

Anyone who uses the internet regularly will know there are plenty of bogus web adverts and websites – and users are often being misled by even genuine traders. As a result, there has been much controversy in recent years surrounding the way in which airlines in particular advertise prices. Consumers are tempted by "unbeatable" or "unmissable" deals. To provide an example, an airline ticket might be advertised for 1p, but after taxes, fuel fees and other charges, the actual price is likely to be around £50.

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has taken action against numerous airlines for advertising in such a way. Ryanair, having missed an OFT deadline to remove misleading prices from its site, shut down the site for three days in an attempt to meet OFT standards. This will have proved very expensive for them.

To address these offenders, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) carries out spot-checks on random commercial websites and handles specific complaints. If "irregularities" are uncovered, the ASA can ask the OFT to carry out a thorough investigation and take whatever action is necessary. The law is being changed to make it favour the consumer even more.

This isn't just for airlines! To stay in line with the law, it is important for your business to operate an accurate, unambiguous site. Consumer protection is on the rise and businesses must adequately protect themselves from legal action. It is also good business. It is simpler to quote actual prices inclusive of all extras than to mislead the consumer and face the legal consequences.

This is the time to eradicate any misleading statements or unfair contract terms lurking on your site. One thing which is very important when dealing with customers is sellers ensuring the ordering process requires the customers to acknowledge reading and agreeing to the seller's terms and conditions. Best practice is to ensure terms and conditions are included as a distinct 'gateway' in the sales process which can't be avoided and which requires the customer to do something (such as clicking an "agree" button) before proceeding to place an order.

You should make sure you:

*advertise in clear and unambiguous terms;

*display key information;

*ensure you do not have additional services available which are set to "yes" by default – this is a trap for the consumer and can be regarded as unfair;

*have adequate disclaimers in place where appropriate;

*have terms and conditions clearly displayed and easily accessible;

*correct any possible irregularities on your website as soon as you become aware of them.

Jennifer McMullan is a trainee solicitor at CCW.

Fiscal who 'lost' vital files also mislead client over ill health claim in case now time barred

It is reported a well known Fiscal is the subject of a serious complaint after costing a client at least £150,000 by misleading him.

Adrian Fraser is being investigated by the Law Society of Scotland over his handling of an ill health claim by a pensioner who claims Fraser mislead him, lost or destroyed vital files and time barred his claim.

Almost a common complaint these days against solicitors in Scotland, who are now creeping into the statistics of providing the worst legal service to corporate and private clients in all of Europe ...

The Sunday Mail reports :

'Lying' Fiscal Ruined My Life

Mar 9 2008 By Steve Dinneen

Exclusive Oap's £150k Claim

A TOP fiscal has been accused of costing a client s150,000 by misleading him.

Adrian Fraser - who prosecuted shamed peer Mike Watson - is under investigation over his handling of the ill-health claim.

He was hired as a solicitor by Alexander Davidson in 1995 to represent his compensation battle with ex-employer Scottish Power.

Alexander, 72, of Falkirk, had been told by a court-appointed advocate he could received £150,000 after exposure to hazardous substances.

But he claims Fraser did not file his Legal Aid application in time and "deliberately misled" him to cover his tracks. He is also accused of losing or binning vital files.

Alexander's case eventually became timebarred and he had to settle for just £3000.

He said: "Fraser has torn my life apart."

The LawSociety of Scotland ruled his actions "could amount to professional misconduct" and referred the case to the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal but a report has still not been filed. They also ordered Fraser to pay Alexander £1000.

Philip Yelland, Law Society of Scotland director of regulation, said: "Complaints against Adrian Fraser are being investigated."

Fraser became a fiscal in Edinburgh in 2004. His cases include that of former Labour MSP Watson, who was jailed in 2005 for fire-raising.

Lawyers demand critics be silenced, vent bitterness against reforms

Having a chip on the shoulder is one thing, but having a chip on the shoulder the size of ice shelf is something else, as Donald Reid vents his frustration over critics of reforms to the legal profession.

Its good to have opinions of course, although Mr Reid ends his piece with a plea that victims of the legal profession itself should not be allowed to have any input into the debate on reforms to the legal profession itself.

Go tell the same to rape and abuse victims Mr Reid - ban them from having any say in reforms to the law too ...

The Scotsman reports :

Lawyers … and other reptiles

By Donald Reid

IDLING on The Scotsman website, I found some feedback on my last piece. I'm so flattered. It's all hate mail.

One correspondent, however, inadvertently gave me a good bit of advice, namely to read Jess Brallier's (now out-of-print) book, Lawyers and Other Reptiles. It's wonderful. I have always loved lawyer jokes and quotes, and this book is full of them. All I can say is the title is a bit hard on reptiles. What have they done to be cast as bedfellows with the lowest form of living scum?

My favourite quote so far is from the New Yorker: "I told you that you should've got yourself some legal advice before running to a lawyer."

It hints at several of the reasons why such expressed vitriol against our noble profession so proliferates. The first reason is money. Lawyers are expensive. If you "run" to a lawyer, the chances are you'll get a bill, and a hefty one at that. No-one likes bills, and an easy way to externalise this dislike is to blame the biller rather than the billed. In the excitement of their initial consultation, I find it hard to get clients to face the financial reality of their principled crusade, or their precarious venture. I have to tell them that the practice of the law, and the results obtainable, are not necessarily the same as the client's perception of justice.

Yes you should think twice before going to a lawyer. The fact that the money you pay him or her is substantially to cover the overhead he or she has to maintain in order to give you the service you seek is not an easy swallow. After all, you've seen his/her Merc.

But the quote is tellingly ironic as well. How can you get legal advice on whether to get legal advice? The fact is you can't really. Lawyers are no doubt expensive, time-consuming, anxiety-broking vultures (now we're insulting scavenging birds), but they are necessary. You can't avoid them. One of the ironic outcomes of the political drive to treat lawyers like bad children is the enormous length of the engagement letter that solicitors are now required to issue before any work is done. My tongue is not entirely in my cheek when I say that clients should perhaps get a different lawyer to check over the intended lawyer's terms and conditions. But who checks the terms and conditions of the checker?

I think the main reason for books such as Brallier's is this: lawyers don't deserve it, and the lawyer-bashers know this full well. The jokes are only funny because they are jokes. They express the angers and frustrations of litigants and clients precisely because their lawyers have not caused the problems, but rather have earned a living out of them. I can understand the epithet "parasite" but it can be used, with greater or lesser justification, upon all sectors of service industry. Yes, there are some very serious cases of bent, greedy and self-serving lawyers. But if these were the norm, rather than demonstrably the tiny minority, the whole joke culture would collapse. After all, no-one makes jokes or collects pithy sayings about perverts or genocidal maniacs, bankers or any other persons held to be truly reprehensible. Do they?

These critics will say that they are the victims of bad lawyers whose actions have damaged or ruined them beyond any joking. Perhaps they are right; certainly they are humourless; but they are a minority. They allege corruption at the very core of the profession and its governing body, which is surely beyond credibility. Is it right to allow them such influence in current demands for reform? There may be a few rotten apples. But the tree is still healthy.

I'm not joking.

Edinburgh tagged as 'crooked lawyers centre' in Europe as business customers stay away from Scots legal profession

Nothing like having another tag added to our great city - this time not one of the better ones as Edinburgh becomes known as the "crooked lawyer" centre of Europe.

As many firms now try to avoid doing business with Scottish legal firms over infamously poor service, corrupt practice and huge bills, many wonder when the legal services market reforms will be implemented ...

Space in the Moray Firth to clean up the Capital ?

The Scotsman reports :

Legal bigwigs moving in on city

By MICHAEL BLACKLEY

A BOOM in legal firms moving to the Capital has seen the city establish itself as one of Europe's top centres for lawyers.

A series of high-profile moves in 2007 means that 24 per cent of all office relocations involved the legal sector – a higher ratio than any other European city.

Just under four per cent of all major legal offices opened in Europe in the first three quarters of last year were in Edinburgh.

Although the Capital still lies well behind the "big five" legal centres on the continent, it attracted more firms than two of the top cities – Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

The latest comparison of Edinburgh in a global context by real estate consultants Cushman & Wakefield comes as separate new data has revealed the number of office deals in the city rose by 26 per cent in 2007 compared with the year before.

Cameron Stott, director for Jones Lang LaSalle in Edinburgh, said the city had long had a strong legal sector.

Increased business from London for some of the city's biggest firms had seen them look to move into bigger head offices, Mr Stott said.

He added: "The legal sector in Scotland has been going through quite a significant expansion. Law firms are increasingly becoming more commercially aware, getting more work across the UK and looking to expand."

The financial services sector continues to be the dominant one in Edinburgh, but not many firms in the sector have been leasing space in the past 12 months.

Instead, companies such as Royal Bank of Scotland, Standard Life and Scottish Widows have bought and developed their own buildings.

It has resulted in the legal and professional sectors being dominant in snapping up space.

The biggest leases signed by legal firms in 2007 saw Shepherd & Wedderburn rent 57,000 square feet of space at Exchange Place, while Maclay, Murray and Spens rented 48,000 sq ft in the top floors of the new Quartermile commercial development.

Other major deals saw Biggart Baillie move to Lochrin Square, and Brodies signed a deal for Clydesdale Bank Plaza.

Chris Cuthbert, of Cushman & Wakefield, said: "Legal firms tend to be a bit more image conscious and want to give their clients the right impression.

"The top law firms want to be in the best possible space and keep up with the competition. It's a bit of 'keep up with the Joneses'."

The legal sector is still buoyant despite the wider economic slowdown. Mr Cuthbert said: "Solicitors have dominated the larger end of the market, showing that even when there is a dip in the economy, legal practices tend to be more resilient than most."

Lawyer jailed after fleecing disabled client in 'Iain Catto' style fraud

In shades of Iain Catto, the senior Scottish Conservative and lawyer who was jailed for stealing money from his disabled client, Thomas McGoldrick, a crooked lawyer who stole £1.25million he had won for a client paralysed in a crash. has also been jailed after a similar scam.

Strangely enough, a fairly well known Edinburgh solicitor is facing similar charges over doing another "Iain Catto" and also robbing a disabled client of a significant amount of money .. but so far the Law Society has refused to do anything about it.

Some in the profession must feel its open season on disabled clients - time to sort out the thieves among us ?

The Daily Mail reports :

Lawyer jailed after using disabled client's £1.25m payout to fund 'obscene' spending spree

Lawyer jailed after using disabled client's £1.25m payout to fund 'obscene' spending spree
By JAMES TOZER Last updated at 21:54pm on 22nd February 2008

Thomas McGoldrick: The court heard he squandered the stolen £1.25m on a life of 'obscene extravagance'

A crooked solicitor stole £1.25million in compensation he had won for a client paralysed in a crash.

Thomas McGoldrick, 59, was facing jail last night for blowing most of the payout on "obscene extravagance".

The money was supposed to fund a lifetime of care for 45-year-old Keith Anderson who had lost the use of his arms and legs.

But McGoldrick, who was massively in debt, used it to continue enjoying the high life with his millionaire neighbours.

The cash went on holidays to Portugal and Barbados and prep school fees for his two children.

McGoldrick also spent £15,000 on a new kitchen and drove a Mercedes and a Jaguar with personalised number plates.

By the time the lawyer was caught, only £224 of Mr Anderson's original £1.8million compensation award was left.

The victim, who had no idea his account was being emptied, was left so short of cash that he had to return a bike he had bought for his six-year-old daughter.

Yesterday a jury convicted Belfast-born McGoldrick on 59 counts of fraud.

He was remanded in custody to await what the judge said would be "a significant term of imprisonment".

Judge Roger Thomas, QC, told McGoldrick he had been convicted "on what is, quite frankly, overwhelming evidence of a very serious offence".

Home: McGoldrick's £800,000 property has been sold off

David Friesner, prosecuting, said McGoldrick had been leading an "obscenely extravagant" lifestyle and was a "dishonest, bent, dishonourable solicitor".

Mr Anderson crashed his company van in 1996 when he was working as a contract cleaner in Mitcham, South London.

He lost control of the vehicle late at night on a road flooded because drains had not been cleared.

He suffered a broken vertebra which left him paralysed from the neck down and in hospital for 18 months.

His wife contacted a local office of the firm run by McGoldrick for legal advice and in 2002 they sued the local council for negligence.

They won a £1.8million award largely because of the state of the road.

McGoldrick, who had loan and credit card debts of £1.4million, personally took over the case at his other office, in Altrincham, Greater Manchester.

Scene: Keith Anderson was left paralysed and needing compensation after he broke his neck in this 1996 crash

The first £500,000 of the payout went on fees and adapting a house for Mr Anderson.

McGoldrick advised his client to let him invest the rest in property to fund the £76,000-a-year annual care bill.

But over two years he plundered the property account to try to keep his massive debts under control.

The solicitor was also feeling the pressure from regular audits carried out by the Law Society.

Accountants spotted a series of irregularities in his financial dealings and alerted police.

They broke the grim news to Mr Anderson.

He told McGoldrick's trial at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester: "It was really shocking, I just couldn't believe it.

"I didn't let my family know until days after.

"I just couldn't think how like this could happen. Your solicitor is someone you have trust in.

"He gave me advice on everything. How could he do something like this to me?"

Mr Anderson's lost money has been returned through the Law Society's compensation scheme.

McGoldrick fled to the U.S. before he could be questioned by police, saying he needed to "clear his head".

Arrested on his return, he produced a letter in which Mr Anderson apparently offered to split his award 50-50. It was a crude fabrication.

Yesterday, he was convicted of 53 counts of false accounting, two counts of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, one count of forgery and three counts of money laundering.

McGoldrick, who is married to Cheryl, who was a part-time secretary at his firm, has been declared bankrupt.

His £800,000 house in the village of Mobberley, near Knutsford in Cheshire, was put up for sale.

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."

England names & shames crooked lawyers as MacAskill remains determined to prevent Scotland following suit

Kenny MacAskill certainly doesn't want to upset his colleagues in the legal profession by allowing the naming & shaming of crooked lawyers, nor does he want to allow independent regulation of the legal profession or a fully opened legal services market.

We could do with a new Justice Secretary who acts for Scotland, not his colleagues and his own interests ...

The Times reports :

Public shame for lawyers who break the rules

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

Thousands of solicitors who are found guilty each year of a range of crimes and misdemeanours, from ignoring letters to plundering clients’ money, are to be identified publicly.

Solicitors in England and Wales found guilty of breaching professional rules will be listed on a Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority (SRA) website open to the public.

The move took effect at the start of the year and is the latest initiative by the SRA, which is responsible for the training, standards and discipline of 100,000 solicitors. Details are expected to appear at the end of this month.

The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal, which deals with the most serious cases of misconduct, publishes its findings. By the end of this year it will have dealt with more than 300 cases, 20 per cent up on last year. But hundreds more solicitors are disciplined by the authority for lesser offences of misconduct, which are dealt with privately. In the past 12 months from November 2006 1,984 solicitors had conditions put on their practising certificates and 351 were given warnings, rebukes and reprimands.

Peter Williamson, chairman of the board of the SRA, said: “The findings of misconduct that we deal with are not those most serious ones that go to the tribunal. But they are the majority, and you could say that any finding of misconduct is a serious matter in itself.

“This is about making our decision-making process transparent, which in turn helps create public confidence in the system for regulating solicitors by demonstrating where action has been taken. That is the most important thing.

“It will also provide information to the public to enable prospective clients to make a more informed choice, as well as enabling people to decide if a solicitor’s behaviour is such that it should be reported to us.”

All cases leading to a reprimand, rebuke, fine or conditions on practising certificates will remain on the website for three years, along with cases where the regulatory authority steps in to take over the running of a firm, for example when a solicitor has absconded with clients’ money. The website will also give details where the solicitor takes action to remedy a failing, such as refunding a client.

The regulatory authority came into effect a year ago as a body run independently from the Law Society, in a move to distance the regulation of the profession from the representative or trades’ union activities.