Govan Law : Dailly resigns from Law Society, accuses President of killing free speech, says tiny elite run undemocratic Scots legal profession

Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly resigns from Law Society. THE Law Society of Scotland has been accused of acting against Free Speech, Democracy & the Scottish Public Interest by well known Glasgow lawyer Mike Dailly, who is reported to have resigned his position on the Law Society of Scotland’s Council and his Convenership of the Society’s powerful Access to Justice Committee, after disagreements emerged between the Law Society’s Council and Mr Dailly’s Committee over suggestions to merge the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).

The friction between the Law Society’s Council, SLAB & the Access to Justice Committee which has led to Mike Dailly’s resignation appear to be linked to a story reported in October 2010, where Mr Dailly’s Committee suggested the Scottish Legal Aid Board & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission should be merged in the name of saving money. The idea was widely attacked at the time by SLAB, the SLCC & the Law Society as neither wanted to be merged with the other (SLAB & the SLCC afraid of losing their big staff budgets, expenses claims etc – Ed)

Independent law publication “The Firm” has published the full text of Mr Dailly’s resignation letter to the current Law Society President, Jamie Millar. In the letter, Mr Dailly pulls no punches in his criticisms of the way the Law Society operates, telling the President he has no confidence in him or the Law Society’s Council, who appear to have been determined to axe the Access to Justice Committee after discussions had allegedly taken place between the Scottish Legal Aid Board & the Law Society to reign in Mr Dailly’s Committee.

Mr Dailly’s resignation letter is reprinted below, detailing a number of serious allegations against the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Legal Aid Board, many of which appear typical of the way both organisations have operated over the years in what can be described as a most undemocratic manner, to put it midly (also dont forget the SLCC, although they are more incompetent than undemocratic ! - Ed).

Mike Dailly's Resignation : The Letter, in full (Reprinted from The Firm’s website)

This is the text of the letter sent by the Law Society's Access to Justice Committee Convener Mike Dailly to President Jamie Millar this afternoon.

It is reproduced here in full in the interests of transparency and promoting debate amongst solicitor members about the operation of the Law Society

Dear Jamie

Resignation from Council of the Law Society of Scotland and the Convenership of the Access to Justice Committee: Free speech, Democracy & the Scottish Public Interest

I write further to your telephone call this morning whereby you advised that ‘many members of Council had expressed concern about the activities’ of the Access to Justice Committee (AJC) and how ‘this needed to be brought to a head’.

When I asked what ‘activities’ caused concern you confirmed the AJC’s work in relation to Scottish legal aid, the leak of the Scottish Legal Aid Board’s secret response to the AJC’s Discussion Paper, and comments I have made as AJC Convener on legal aid.

You concluded the conversation by saying you ‘could not work with me’ and that the position of the AJC would be determined at the next meeting of Council, after the AGM on Friday 25 March 2011. I am grateful for the courtesy of your call.

I find it deeply troubling that the Council of the Law Society of Scotland (LSS) is incapable of standing up for free speech and open public debate on matters of importance to the Scottish public and the Scottish legal profession. Particulary, as this is a primary statutory function of the LSS.

At last year’s AGM, the CEO of the LSS, Lorna Jack, was full of praise for my appointment as convener of the AJC – the previous AJC having been defunct and invisible for 18 months or so - and indeed our AJC was highly praised for its work highlighting the adverse impact of the welfare benefit and public funding cuts in Scotland, and the need to protect access to justice in order to alleviate the worst injustices from these cuts.

Yet, later last year when the AJC suggested how savings could be made in the administration of Scottish legal aid – to protect front line public services in Scotland - and started a public debate on how things might be done better in the administration of legal aid for the benefit of the Scottish public, the AJC was undermined and attacked by you, Council and the CEO of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), Lindsay Montgomery.

I expressly advised you of the lengthy telephone call Mr Montgomery, made to me following our suggestion that things might be done differently with legal aid. It was an intolerant and quite inappropriate call from a senior Scottish public servant.

I explained how he had nothing but contempt for Scottish solicitors, suggesting they were useless and unable to count. I sought the support and backing of you and Council to tackle this unacceptable hegemony in the interest of the Scottish public.

Your response and that of Council was to introduce a ‘gagging order’ to prevent the AJC from expressing any public view without the permission of you and your media manager, Kevin Lang. Indeed members of the LSS’s Legal Aid Negotiation Team expressly stated that SLAB had asked for the AJC had to be reined in and controlled.

Despite the LSS media gagging order, the AJC continued to develop its ideas and recently published a Discussion Paper on legal aid. SLAB sought to prevent this Discussion Paper from being published by the LSS, by attacking the paper with a very long written response which it insisted must not be made public.

Neither I nor the AJC had any difficulty with SLAB challenging our paper and ideas – for that is the essence of a public debate. Yet, we can have no public debate because SLAB operates privately and Council would rather challenge my right, and the right of my colleagues on the AJC, to express a view in public.

I regret to advise I have no confidence in you or Council. At a time when the hunger for democracy and free speech has spread across North Africa and the Middle East like a fire, I am ashamed to say, you and most members of Council (the majority of whom are unelected) would prefer to kill free speech and extinguish the fire of democratic accountability and freedom.

Next month Council will seek the adoption of its proposed new constitution. This would further exclude the right of its members to influence the policy of the LSS, and would permit a tiny elite to do as they see fit in the name of 10,500 Scottish solicitors. Many Scottish solicitors will object to this on democratic principles, and I will stand by them.

My experience on Council of the LSS has taught me two things:

· the people of Scotland deserve an independent statutory regulator of legal services and;
·
the Scottish legal profession deserve the right to choose who represents them.

I herewith tender my resignation as a member of Council of the LSS, and as Convener of the Access to Justice Committee of the LSS. Said resignations are of immediate effect.

Yours sincerely
Mike Dailly
Principal Solicitor
Govan Law Centre

Glasgow Bar Association ‘considers’ court challenge to Law Society's authority over legal aid row, remains happy with self regulation powers

Law Society of Scotland is unloved by GBA over legal aid money row, however the Society's complaints fixing powers are still acceptable. THE Glasgow Bar Association, the representative group of many solicitors & law firms on the west coast of Scotland is reported to be “actively considering a court challenge” against the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, which requires every solicitor in Scotland be a member of the legal profession’s regulator & governing body, the Law Society of Scotland (yawn, GBA to malky the Law Society over money worries ? not again ! – Ed)

Friday 18 February 2011’s Herald newspaper featured an exclusive report on the latest arguments between the GBA & the Law Society of Scotland over cuts in legal aid fees for cases that go before stipendiary magistrates. Solicitors who are members of the GBA feel the Law Society did not campaign enough against the cuts, which solicitors and legal observers feel may interfere with individuals’ access to justice, where levels of legal aid may make it unprofitable or unworkable for solicitors to properly represent their clients.

The Herald’s report came hot on the heels of reports on certain online legal websites earlier this week, such as “The Firm”, who, as we reported on Thursday, claimed a former GBA President, John McGovern had accused the Law Society of Scotland of having a “fundamentally dishonest at its core” – something many inside & outside the legal profession may well agree with, given the accumulation of evidence over the years the Law Society fails to represent either the profession or clients best interests.

However, in The Herald’s coverage, no such claim was reported to have been made by Mr McGovern against the Law Society, and the newspaper further reported a bar association source said: “We have no problem with the Law Society’s regulatory role – we just don’t think it should represent us as well.” (Ah, so its really a case of the GBA having their cake and being able to eat it too – Ed)

The GBA may want to consider a cheaper & more effective alternative to a-surely-to-fail court action against the Law Society, by throwing in their lot with a petition, Petition PE1388, filed at the Scottish Parliament asking for the repeal of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, an issue which has been reported by one of our very own law journalists, Peter Cherbi, on his “Diary of Injustice in Scotland” law blog : HERE

Report from the Herald follows :

Exclusive: Law Society faces legal challenge to its authority

David Leask Investigations Reporter

18 Feb 2011

REBEL lawyers are plotting to end the grip that the governing body for all Scottish solicitors has on their profession.

The Glasgow Bar Association (GBA), which describes itself as the voice of the legal profession in the west of the country, is actively considering a court challenge to laws that require every solicitor in Scotland to be a member of the Edinburgh-based Law Society of Scotland.

GBA members have been at loggerheads with the society and its leadership for months and will focus on whether they are being denied the “human right” to choose who represents them in negotiations.

The current rules, which insist the society both represents and regulates all lawyers in Scotland, have been enshrined in Scots Law since 1980.

The latest bone of contention is over cuts in legal aid fees for cases that go before stipendiary magistrates.

Glasgow is the only place in Scotland with such magistrates – so city solicitors felt the cuts, imposed by the Scottish Government, unfairly targeted them.

Last week senior Glasgow solicitors came to the conclusions that the cuts to “stip mags” – as the Glasgow judges are called – had been suggested by Law Society negotiators during talks. That sparked fury.

A bar association source said: “We have no problem with the Law Society’s regulatory role – we just don’t think it should represent us as well.”

David O’Hagan, a former president of the GBA, said: “The credibility of the Law Society as a representative body is now at rock bottom for many Glasgow solicitors.

“The GBA are now actively looking at a legal challenge to end compulsory membership of the society and with a view to setting up their own independent representative body for its members.”

Yesterday it emerged that a senior Glasgow lawyer, John McGovern, another former GBA president, had stood down from the Law Society’s Council, a “parliament” of 52 Scottish lawyers. Mr McGovern is understood to have been deeply unhappy with the society’s role in negotiating legal aid fees.

Mr O’Hagan has kept his seat on the council.

The society’s chief executive, Lorna Jack, yesterday stressed most of the body’s members were happy with its unusual dual rule as both regulator and representative. She cited a referendum carried out last year that brought a 73% majority in favour of the status quo.

She said: “The majority of solicitors in Scotland recognised that they benefit from keeping the dual roles of regulation and representation together.

“The very essence of what it is to be a profession is bound by its ethics and principles as well as any common knowledge and skills.”

Ms Jack also defended the society’s negotiating stances with the Scottish Government. Ministers, who have been trying to slash the legal aid budget, initially came up with a plan to do so by expanding the tiny band of public defenders who work in Scottish courts.

That horrified many private lawyers, who have had their own war of words with the Public Defence Solicitors’ Office or PDSO, as revealed in The Herald. It also upset the Law Society, which came up with its own set of alternative cuts, including a drop in “stip mags” fees.

Ms Jack explained: “On the cuts to the criminal legal aid budget, the proposals put forward by the Scottish Government on a large expansion of the PDSO were seen as unacceptable by the society and the profession. The society asked for a wide range of scenarios to be costed as an alternative way of saving £4.5 million, which would have been achieved by expanding the PDSO.

“This included cuts to the core fees in summary legal aid cases and stipendiary court fees and greater use of the existing PDSO offices.

“The position on the cuts was discussed and backed by the Council of the Law Society last month.

“The council asked that further representations be made to the Scottish Government on the stipendiary fee, which was done. The Scottish Government has since agreed to improve on their original proposal the amount paid to solicitors on this.”

Scots to wait three years or more for legal services reform under MacAskill

Title says it all .. most sensible lawyers are quite happy to usher in the new opened legal services market, although the Law Society of Scotland certainly is not, fearing it will signal their demise which has long been hoped for by the majority of the membership.

The only catch - the public will have to wait at least three years before the SNP Government does anything about it, and with Kenny MacAskill as Justice Secretary, the Law Society can surely be guaranteed a few more years of squeezing every penny it can get out of clients at the expense of the profession's bad good reputation.

A new page in three years or more delays ?

The Scotsman reports :

Inside law: Legal advice with your cornflakes

By Michael Howie

IT'S a centuries-old tradition that has ensured Scotland's lawyers have held an elevated and privileged status in society.

But the monopoly the legal profession has over the ownership of law firms has, for some, become more a hindrance than a benefit.

Many of the big corporate firms worry that they are losing out to their rivals south of the Border, who have already swept away restrictions over the market. That means they can now attract more capital from outside the legal industry, allowing them to expand and net bigger contracts.

Now Scotland wants to do the same. Earlier this month, the Law Society of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to break the monopoly solicitors have over the ownership of legal firms in Scotland.

I understand that the Scottish Government will bring forward legislation within three years that will change the legal landscape. A senior government source has told me it is likely that historic proposals will be introduced to parliament in the current term.

But will the ordinary person in the street notice any difference? The answer is a resounding … "probably".

Breaking the monopoly will open the way to competition from supermarkets and banks. That is why it has been dubbed "Tesco Law". People will, theoretically, be able to buy legal advice when they're getting the groceries in.

Already, the AA and the Co-op have moved to establish legal services companies in England, where legislation has been introduced to open up the market, and will be enacted in 2010.

Conveyancing and will-writing are among the legal services that other organisations such as supermarkets will be able to provide.

One legal source tells me practices like solicitors relying on letters to maintain formal contact with clients – which can be a costly business – will be swept away, to be replaced by more practical methods of communication, such as e-mail.

The fear among lawyers is that the market will become too unregulated, with the possibility of conflict of interest and plain bad practice leaving consumers worse off. As one solicitor to whom I spoke put it: "Do people really want to buy legal services when they're getting their cornflakes?"

Maybe not. But one thing's for sure: the legal industry will never be the same again.

Law Society of Scotland computers identified in Wikipedia censorship war

Much too complicated a story for our meager resources at Scottish Law Reporter, but Peter Cherbi delivers the explanation on why the Law Society of Scotland decided to censor it's Wikipedia entry and edit out critical paragraphs

It is of course, disappointing to see the Law Society identified as a censor of free speech yet again, but indicative of the style of leadership at Drumsheugh Gardens which seems to prohibit debate at any cost.

Wikipedia manipulated & censored by Law Society of Scotland in propaganda war against critics & reformers

It's taken the media long enough to report something I covered 18 months ago back in February 2006 where the Law Society of Scotland were censoring out information on it's Wikipedia entry, critical of it's operation as self regulator of the legal profession.

Today, Scotland on Sunday and a few other newspapers finally report on the story, giving the Law Society's editing out the critical information as part of the legal profession's media campaign against criticism of it's ways, which we all know to be less than honest ....

Here are some screenshots of the changing face of the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia entry.

This is how the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia entry looked with some more truthful details before the censorship started ...

Next up follows the edited version by the Law Society, and the current version, which can be seen to omit any criticism at all of how the Law Society functinos or deals with complaints against it's members ...

Of course, manipulating the media is a common thing for the Law Society of Scotland when it comes to news reports critical of it's performance as a self regulator of complaints against it's own member solicitors ... and sometimes officials have even resorted to threatening journalists careers if they report too many (or any) stories of client complaints against legal firms in Scotland.

I've covered some of those media manipulation stories by the legal profession in previous articles here :

Law Society of Scotland actively censors the Scottish Press to kill articles on crooked lawyers

Scottish Legal Profession censors the Press to kill off bad publicity - Part II

Law Society of Scotland claims success in gagging the press over Herald newspaper revelations of secret case memos

Scottish media opinion being manipulated by legal profession against Parliamentary reforms of LPLA Bill ?

... with some more upsetting articles on Law Society manipulation of the popular media here ;

Scots Law Chiefs turn hostile on consumer organisation in propaganda war against deregulation of legal services markets.

Lawyers complaints system thought to have caused intimidation of clients for years

Lawyers protests over low legal aid fees revealed to be fake as Law Society's own research points to increase

Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland branded a liar after FSA denies claims of intervention to block complaints body

Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

Scottish legal profession campaigns against open debate in Scottish Parliament on independent regulation of complaints against lawyers

Fairly obvious then, after reading through those previous articles, the legal profession in Scotland hates criticism of itself and prizes control over the media and free speech as being one of it's main weapons against reforming the complaints system against lawyers and keeping the public silent on the culture of injustice within the legal profession itself.

For my own part, I am reminded of the Law Society of Scotland's special briefings against myself and other critics of the legal profession on the same night & day after their Chief Accountant was attacked, apparently in a 'hit' arranged by crooked lawyer(s) ...surprisingly .. yet to be caught some 19 months after the 'hit' took place ...

Scotland on Sunday reported that story here : Cash laundering link to law chief stabbing and dutifully mentioned my blog - which was only 3 weeks old but apparently causing consternation in the Law Society HQ and other parts of the Scottish legal profession...

Senior officials at the Law Society called a few journalists and asked them in for 'special briefings' to be given files on myself & others, with orders to run stories alleging it was critics of the legal profession who were responsible for the attack on Mr Cumming, and that they should be immediately silenced, websites taken offline - and one identified official - very senior in rank at the Law Society, allegedly said to a journalist that [named] campaigners against crooked lawyers "should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay for a bit of torture" ... something the press sadly decided to leave out ... it would have made a good headline though as the journalist knows himself - something like Law Boss calls for critics to be tortured ? ...

Here's today's Scotland on Sunday article on the Law Society of Scotland up to it's usual tricks of media manipulation ...

Wikipedia warzone

MURDO MACLEOD

THEY are the Wikipedia timewasters, anonymous cyber-vandals who use one of the internet's greatest resources to abuse rivals, spread gossip and cause widespread confusion.

But Scotland on Sunday can today reveal that many of the culprits are staff at major companies, councils, government departments and other organisations who spend their time sabotaging the free online encyclopaedia rather than working.

From the Prince of Wales's official residence to British Airways, the Ministry of Defence and Aberdeenshire Council, this newspaper has established precise numbers, times and details of how employees used work computers to anonymously edit Wikipedia articles, often to spread abuse, bigotry and outright nonsense.

Among the biggest Wikipedia timewasters in the UK appear to be MoD employees, who were responsible for more than 4,600 anonymous edits in the past four years.

They included 100 entries about Formula One, contributions about the 1970s cartoon series Captain Caveman and several disparaging references to Scots Pop Idol winner Michelle McManus.

MoD computers have been used to edit the entry on the Faslane Peace Camp, claiming the submarine base was vital to the local economy and that if the nuclear base left, the campaigners would find something else to complain about.

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and currently has two million English articles, all of them written and edited by computer users around the world. The site has always been vulnerable to abuse and last week it emerged the CIA had edited articles including those relating to casualty levels in Iraq.

Many malicious editors of Wikipedia try to mask their identities, but using sophisticated scanning software, Scotland on Sunday has traced thousands of edits back to hundreds of organisations, several of which last night launched investigations to track down those responsible.

Computers operated by Scotland's local authorities were used in 16,190 Wikipedia edits in the past four years.

Top of the league is Aberdeenshire with 2,004 changes. They were used to make no fewer than 12 entries about Jaffa Cakes, along with a comment that all "neds" are "gay".

In second place was South Lanarkshire Council, which recorded 1,505 Wiki edits, including obscene and bigoted remarks about Celtic FC and Rangers owner David Murray.

Perhaps one of the most surprising sources for anonymous Wiki editing is Clarence House, the home of the Prince of Wales. An enthusiastic linguist at the royal residence added a paragraph on the usage of the Australian greeting "G'Day", while another remarked on the sexuality of a Surrey businessman.

In addition, a computer on the network of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was used to make comments about Rangers, calling them "the world's most bigoted football club". And a Scottish Parliament computer was used to change Tory MSP Phil Gallie's date of birth to 1839.

British Airways computers have been used to make anonymous edits about the 2005 Helios air crash north of Athens, which killed all 121 on board. Meanwhile, a BBC computer was used to remove criticism of its iPlayer software.

Computers at the Law Society of Scotland have been used to make anonymous edits which removed a paragraph which was critical of them.

Wikipedia is also being used as a weapon in disputes within organisations. Lesley Hinds, chairwoman of NHS Health Scotland, was criticised in an anonymous, ungrammatical and misspelt Wikipedia posting which came from an NHS Health Scotland computer.

It said: "Health Scotland is under the relocation review which will most likely see it being moved from Edinburgh to Glasgow. Lesley Hinds appears to support this which is surprising since she is meant to represent the interests of Edinburgh in her Lord Provost role. When this policy was released it was expected she would of resigned is [sic] protest but instead has continued working in both jobs."

Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: "Most employers would expect anyone wanting to edit Wikipedia to do it at home and in their own time. Employers are not Attila the Huns who will ban everything and they accept a little bit of give and take, but it is hard to see how vandalising Wikipedia pages is acceptable. A ringleader for this kind of activity could even find themselves being dismissed."

Andre Coner, a consultant with computer security firm Commissum, said: "It's a myth that everyone is anonymous online. They're not. In order for you to send and receive information, the various servers need to know where your computer is."

Spokeswomen for both the MoD and the Scottish Parliament said they were aware of the issue and were looking into the origin of the offending edits. A BA spokesman said it was also looking into the issue.

And South Lanarkshire Council pledged "appropriate action".

However, a spokeswoman for Aberdeenshire Council suggested that most of the edits would have come from youngsters using school computers and members of the public using library machines.

A spokeswoman for the Law Society of Scotland said it had removed inaccurate and outdated criticism and that since the number beside the edit could be identified as belonging to the Law Society it could not be construed as anonymous.

Cut and run

January 31, 2006, 6.58pm

A user going by the name of Sjharte, who identifies himself as being an Edinburgh-based lawyer, added the following paragraph to the Wikipedia page on the Law Society of Scotland.

"There has been criticism of the Law Society of Scotland from some sections of the Scottish public citing the level of complaints by members of the public against Scottish solicitors. The Scottish Executive has instituted studies into regulation of the Scottish legal profession."

February 8, 7.11pm

An anonymous writer deletes the paragraph. The edit can be traced to a computer on the Law Society of Scotland network.

7.46pm

Another Wikipedia editor, under the name of ALoan, restores the critical paragraph.

February 17, 1.22pm

Again an anonymous writer deletes the paragraph of criticism. Again from a computer on the Law Society of Scotland network.

February 19, 10.17pm

"Sjharte" edits the page to bring back the paragraph.

February 23, 5.27pm

Again an edit is made from a Law Society computer.

8.27pm

"Sjharte" puts the critical paragraph back in.

March 24, 3.18pm

Anonymous but traceable. The Law Society computer is used to wipe out the paragraph again.

9.29pm

Sjharte has another go, adding the critical paragraph and branding the anonymous edits as "vandalism".

April 13 ,2006, 10.56am

Resistance is useless. Again the criticism is blanked out. Again the edit is anonymous. Again it can be traced to a Law Society of Scotland computer.

WHAT IS WIKISCANNER?

Wikiscanner allows users to hunt for anonymous edits which came from computers at the networks of various organisations.

This is the basic Wikiscanner link, enjoy: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

This is the link which takes the user to all the anonymous edits originating with computers on Ministry of Defence networks:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip2=82.110.109.192-255&nolimit=1

This is the link which takes the user to all the anonymous edits originating with computers on British Airways networks:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=163.166.150.0-255&ip2=163.166.137.0-255&ip3=163.166.0.0-136.255

This is for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=82.70.48.72-79