Law Society of Scotland investigation found McFarlane covered up £24,000 client theft by her own husband. In yet another case which demonstrates the lack of effective regulation of Scotland’s legal services market and poor consumer protection, solicitor CATRIONA MACFARLANE, 49, of Hasties Solicitors, Glasgow, has been found guilty by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal of professional misconduct but allowed to continue working as a solicitor.

The findings reported by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT), said that Catriona Macfarlane’s actions had left her client in a vulnerable position and left them exposed to an unacceptable risk after it had been revealed she covered up her own husband’s theft of £24,150 from a client who had approached Mrs Macfarlane to act for him in a house purchase deal.

SSDT heard lawyer covered up husband’s massive theft from client after cash was handed over for mortgage. In August 2006, Mr. A approached a mortgage broker, identified as Ideal Mortgages, to arrange a mortgage, giving Mr Nigel Macfarlane £24,150 to be used as a deposit on a property, and approached Catriona Macfarlane of Glasgow Law Firm Messrs Hasties to act for him in the purchase. The client, Mr A, was not aware at this time, that Catriona Macfarlane was married to his mortgage broker, Mr Nigel Macfarlane, nor did Macfarlane disclose this relationship to her client. Problems with the mortgage caused the house purchase to be delayed, which prompted the client to call his solicitor, Mrs Macfarlane, informing her he had handed £24,150 to the mortgage broker, who Mrs Macfarlane had still not disclosed was her husband. The SSDT judgement reported that Mrs Macfarlane’s only reply to her client’s telephone call was “She said only that she would call him back”.

The Tribunal decision further reported : “She (Mrs Macfarlane) called back a short time later. She said that, having spoken to the broker, she was able to confirm that Mr A’s money was safe and could be returned to him at any time. By this stage, she was aware that her husband had misappropriated Mr A’s money. On 19 February, Mr Macfarlane came to Mr A’s house and confessed … that he had spent his money. He promised to ’sort things out’.”

“Mr. A and his wife were by this time suspicious. Although Mr. MacFarlane and the Respondent referred to each other respectively as “the broker” and “the solicitor” they shared the same surname. Mr. A and his wife confronted the Respondent on 19 February 2007. She confirmed that she and Mr. Macfarlane were married. She said that she “would sort things out”.

“On 26th February 2007 the Respondent advised Mr. A that she could no longer act for him and that he should seek separate representation. Mr. A was thereafter represented by new Solicitors. The transaction was completed in April 2007. All additional costs including penalty interest due to the sellers of the property were recovered from Nigel Macfarlane. The sums misappropriated by him were repaid in full.”

The SSDT’s verdict : availabe for download in pdf, here: Law Society v Catriona Margaret Macfarlane

Solicitor Catriona Macfarlane, of Loganswell, Newton Mearns, Glasgow, and employed by Glasgow Law Firm Messrs Hasties Solicitors of Lynedoch Crescent, Glasgow, who was enrolled as a solicitor on 4 October 1982 was found guilty by the SSDT of Professional Misconduct in respect of her failure to disclose to her client the extent of her knowledge of her husband’s actings and her failure to timeously advise her client to seek separate independent advice and her failure to withdraw from acting for her client, all in breach of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors 2002.

The Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal issued punishment, censuring Mrs MacFarlane, and issued a fine of £2500 to be forfeit to Her Majesty and Direct in terms of Section 53 (5) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

Further, Mrs Macfarlane was informed that for a period of 3 years, her practising certificate shall be subject to such restriction as will limit her to acting as a qualified assistant to and to being supervised by such employer as may be approved by the Council or the Practising Certificate Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. Mrs Macfarlane was also found liable in the expenses of the Complainers and of the Tribunal.

A representative of one of Scotland’s consumer organisations condemned the decision to allow Mrs Macfarlane to continue as a solicitor, also branding the fine & practising certificate reduction as “weak”.

She said : “This case shows us nothing has changed. Weak punishments like this are no deterrent for rogue solicitors who have the ability to rip off their clients without fear of losing their jobs & livelihood. Cases like this show that the Law Society of Scotland and SSDT are not serious about consumer protection from rogue solicitors.”

“How can the public have any confidence in the legal profession if all solicitors get is a slap on the wrist and fine when they are caught in major wrongdoing such as this case where, according to the SSDT findings, the solicitor covered up for her own husband’s theft of clients money.”

She continued : “I’m sure the public expected a lot more after the LPLA Act (2007) came into force but as we can see, the legal profession are still looking after their own, with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission making not one bit of difference to the rising levels of fraud against consumers by their legal representatives.”

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill accused of being a soft touch on poor regulation of crooked lawyers. A member of the public who is experiencing huge problems with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Law Society of Scotland over his complaint branded the whole system of regulation of lawyers in Scotland as ‘a con against the public, and also condemned the Scottish Government for being soft on crooked lawyers.

He said : “Where is the long arm of the Justice Secretary when all these crooked lawyers are stealing to order from their clients ? I cant get a fair hearing with this useless SLCC or the Law Society, and writing to the Scottish Government has also done no good. Any lawyer who covers up a theft or steals from theri clients should be jailed because if I had done it, I would go to jail. Why the special dispensation for lawyers to steal as they like ?”

Crown Office silent on criminal charges against lawyers. The Crown Office were asked today if Catriona Macfarlane and her husband, Nigel Macfarlane, would face criminal charges for the cover up and theft of their client’s funds, which albeit were repaid, still rank as theft (which in most people’s book is still a criminal offence). So far, no response from the Crown Office, who are well known to have a soft touch against criminals in the legal profession itself, often apparently refusing to prosecute solicitors of even very serious crimes.

You can read an earlier article I wrote on how the Crown Office mishandle prosecutions against solicitors, here : Justice Secretary ‘hush hush’ on criminal records of lawyers as Crown Office claims its too costly to keep details on legal profession’s crooks

A source at the Law Society of Scotland today alleged it had not passed on any details of any criminal activity detected during their investigation to the Crown Office, which is no big surprise, as the Law Society of Scotland usually cover up any details of criminal activity they discover during the course of their ‘investigations’ into crooked lawyers and I doubt the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, had they been involved, would have done any different (another non-surprise).

‘Anti-client’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would have done no differently, issuing just another slap on the wrist. Trust in the Scottish legal profession will never be established until fully independent regulation (not the half-baked, half-house Scottish Legal Complaints Commission slap handed version) is enacted to protect consumers from thousands of cases of serious fraud, negligence and the poor handling of clients legal affairs which occur each year in Scotland.

Please support the implementation of fully independent regulation for legal services in Scotland.

Scotland’s Lord President of the courts, Lord Hamilton. SCOTLAND’S CHIEF JUDGE LORD HAMILTON has been accused of “being deluded” over the use of McKenzie Friends in English Courts, and providing “a gravely mistaken account” to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee of the attitudes of Scotland’s Courts to unrepresented party litigants who have made requests for assistance in the form of a McKenzie Friend, only to be refused consistently by Sheriffs and even courtroom colleagues of the Lord President himself for a staggering FORTY YEARS while courts in England & Wales have without much trouble allowed McKenzie Friends to operate successfully & diligently over the same four decade period.

Lord Hamilton attacked the petitioner, also challenged the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland. In a bizarre outburst by the Lord President over the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales, Lord Hamilton alleged that McKenzie friends sat behind litigants in English courts (rather than in reality, beside them), and then proceeded to attack the member of the public who had raised the petition at the Scottish Parliament, a Mr Stewart MacKenzie, accusing him of failing to understand that Scottish courts had always allowed the use of McKenzie Friends. Amid all this, the Lord President failed to back up his claims with written evidence. Lord Hamilton’s letter to the Petitions Committee stated : “As you will be aware, this expression, which owes its origin to English procedure, can be used in two senses : in its original sense it referred to an individual assisting a party litigant by sitting he hind him or her in court and assisting that litigant by making notes, helping with case papers or quietly giving advice on the conduct of the case, as well as providing moral support in court (Civil Courts Review, Chapter 11, para 42).

The Lord President’s claim that a McKenzie Friend sat behind the individual they had been called to assist in English courts was quickly rubbished by several institutions in England & Wales.

A group which provides McKenzie Friends to unrepresented parents in need of legal assistance commented : “If Lord Hamilton thinks that a McKenzie Friend sits behind a party litigant he should make the journey south and attend cases where McKenzie Friends are being used successfully in England & Wales. He would plainly see the McKenzie Friend sits next to the litigant and assists them accordingly.”

“We have provided qualified individuals acting as McKenzie Friends in hundreds of cases and not once have any been asked to sit behind the person they were there to assist, nor would we add, have any of our McKenzie Friends ever been asked to leave a courtroom.”

An English barrister asked for reaction on Lord Hamilton’s claims, branded the Lord President’s letter fantastic & ludicrous. He said : “The Lord President should stick to writing about things he knows about as he plainly does not know about the workings of the English courts system. Lord Hamilton is deluded if he thinks McKenzie Friends sit behind the very litigants they are there to assist.”

He continued : “If you think about it for one minute, what judge would allow a litigant to constantly turn around and ask questions, take advice, or be passed notes & papers throughout a hearing ? Having a McKenzie Friend sit anywhere other than next to the person they are there to assist is quite frankly, barmy.”

Lord Hamilton then went onto personally attack the petitioner, Mr Stewart Mackenzie’s understanding of how Scottish courts deal with McKenzie Friends requests, claiming there was “never any difficulty with such assistance being provided”. Lord Hamilton’s letter went onto state : “Contrary to the apparent understanding of the petitioner in this petition, the Scottish Courts – certainly the Court of Session, and, I understand, also the Sheriff Courts – have never had any difficulty with such assistance being provided; it is the existing practice of the Court to permit it; there is no need for its “introduction”. It is, of course subject to the control of the presiding judge, who, if the facility were being abused, would be entitled to stop it.”

However, Lord Hamilton’s criticisms of the petitioner, and claims that Scottish Courts allowed the use of McKenzie Friends, were not backed up by a single shred of evidence provided by the Lord President in his letter to the Petitions Committee, and his assertions that courts had no difficulty with the use of McKenzie Friends were even rebuffed by insiders at the Scottish Courts Service, who admitted McKenzie Friends requests made by unrepresented litigants in Scottish courts WERE ROUTINELY REFUSED over the 40 years to the present day.

Lord Hamilton’s colleague Lord Woolman refused McKenzie Friend days after Lord Gill’s recommendation to allow. To make matters worse for the Lord President’s claims to Parliament, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts Service admitted when questioned that a second request by an unrepresented party litigant for a McKenzie Friend in a long running damages action being heard in the Court of Session itself, was refused by Lord Hamilton’s colleague, Lord Woolman, the day after the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill announced his Civil Courts Review, stating that McKenzie Friends should be introduced to Scottish Courts.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts Service confirmed that : “The request for a McKenzie friend formed one part of a six part motion and was refused. There was no judgment issued nor reason recorded, only the decision.”

You can read my earlier report on Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review, which recommended the implementation of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, here : Scots Law ’shake up’ as Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review supports McKenzie Friends, Class Actions & wider access to justice for all

A senior solicitor from a Glasgow law firm confirmed today that McMenzie Friend requests were usually refused in Scotland, and that life was made as difficult as possible for those making the request.

He said : “It doesn’t take much to realise Scottish Courts do not want McKenzie Friends showing up to assist party litigants. Lord Hamilton’s claims to the contrary are with respect, aloof from the reality those of us who work at the sharp end in the legal system know to be the case.”

He continued : “Anyway, if the Lord President is so convinced Scotland’s courts are happy to allow the use of McKenzie Friends, why didn’t he provide any details of such instances to the Parliament in his letter ? I think that omission speaks for itself because there are no such examples to give.”

Lord Hamilton ‘fears’ English style reforms to Scotland’s Courts. Lord Hamilton continued in his letter to the Petitions Committee, claiming that if similar legislation which has successfully served the rest of the UK for nearly two decades, were introduced in Scotland, it would allow individuals to address the court on behalf of litigants, rather than simply be their McKenzie Friend. Lord Hamilton continued : “In England and Wales matters have, as the Civil Courts Review notices, op cit. been taken further. Section 27(2)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 envisages that a court in England or Wales may – perhaps in furtherance of a pre-existing common law facility – grant a right of audience in relation to particular proceedings . This may be done on a discretionary basis (see izzo v Philip Ross & Co (a firm), [2002] BPIR 310, where it was described by Neiberger J as “an indulgence”). That, if authorised in Scotland, would allow an individual granted such rights to address the court on behalf of the lay litigant. (There are conflicting views in the Outer House as to whether the court has already at common law such a power – see Civil Courts Review, Chapter 11, para 43. There is no Inner House authority in favour of the court having such a power). The Judges of the Court of Session would have no objection in principle to such a discretionary power being available – though the discretion would require to be carefully exercised to avoid disruption to court business and injustice to other parties.”

A retired Sheriff today expressed his dissatisfaction with the tone of Lord Hamilton’s statements on the McKenzie Friends issue, particularly the idea that a McKenzie Friend might, in the words of Lord Hamilton, be asked to sit behind a party litigant in a courtroom.

He said : “While I do not personally recall having any such request made to me for a McKenzie Friend during my time on the bench, I would have found it contrary to the good running of the court and the interests of justice if a party litigant were to be forced to keep turning around to seek consultation with their McKenzie Friend assistant.”

He continued : “I fear that fighting the introduction of something which the Courts in England & Wales appear to have lived with for so long is not in the public interest and I would hope the Parliament and Lord Hamilton can accept the recent recommendations of the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, to introduce the McKenzie Friend to Scotland as expediently as possible.”

Finally, Lord Hamilton in his letter challenging the “introduction” of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, referred to the recent limited expansion of rights of audience in Scotland, where Section 25 of the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Act 1990, which only came into force in 2007, after 17 years of campaigning for its introduction amid bitter delaying tactics from Scotland’s legal establishment, fearing competition from non-lawyers and non Law Society members. Lord Hamilton again failed to mention in his letter to the Scottish Parliament that such ‘fresh’ rights of audience as he referred to, were conferred in a very limited and restricted manner on the Association of Commercial Attorneys, who were forced to agree a practicing certificate limiting the ACA solely to Construction Law cases …

Lord Hamilton concluded : “Fresh rights of audience in Scotland have previously been conferred by primary legislation (see Law Reform Miscellaneous Provision) (Scotland) Act 1990 section 24 (“solicitor advocates”) and section 25 )members of professional and other bodies. The judges are of the view that, if an equivalent to section 27(2)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (or its common law source) is to be recognised in Scotland, this should be done by primary legislation. If that were done, it may be that the exercise of the discretion could be regulated by the rules of court.”

If there’s one thing for sure in all of this, it is that “discretion of court” certainly on the issue of McKenzie Friends, cannot be allowed to continue to strangle the rights of unrepresented party litigants of access to justice in Scotland’s courts.

The facility of McKenzie Friends has operated successfully in England & Wales for 40 years, and in many countries around the world, who all mostly treat the request for use of a McKenzie Friend as a Human Rights issue. What we have seen is that in the 40 years since McKenzie Friends have existed in England & Wales, the Scottish Courts have consistently refused to allow litigants to use a McKenzie Friend, demonstrating well enough that Scotland’s courts cannot be trusted on applying discretion in use of McKenzie Friends.

Given 40 long years have rolled by without almost a single McKenzie Friend in Scotland, it now falls to the Scottish Parliament to speak for the people of Scotland, and ensure that unrepresented individuals who cannot access justice simply because they cannot obtain the services of a solicitor, can, within a certain legislative framework which must be respected by the judiciary, apply for the use of a McKenzie Friend to assist their access to justice in Scotland’s courts, when so needed.

You can read my previous articles on the battle to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland and please support the Scottish Parliament petition to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts, which you can view here : Petition 1247 : McKenzie Friends for Scotland

If you made your lawyer an executor in your will, think again. Anyone who has written a will, making their lawyer an executor, either in a sole or joint position with another, are being urged to take immediate action to change their choice of executors after leaked complaints details revealed a huge rise in serious fraud committed by solicitors and other professionals against dead clients affairs they are charged with managing.

Law Society of Scotland ‘regularly whitewashed complaints against solicitors acting as executors’. Figures revealed on fraud against wills reveal the Law Society of Scotland, the governing body of all Scottish solicitors, has blocked or dismissed up to 80% of complaints made against lawyers who have seriously mishandled the estates of their dead clients, and in many cases committed serious fraud with large sums of money simply going unaccounted for and families losing out on rightful inheritances from their loved ones.

The remaining 20% of complaints made against ‘crooked lawyers’ who have plundered the affairs of their one trusting, now deceased clients, usually end up in ’slap on the wrist’ punishments with small fines or a weak reprimand, with the offending solicitor allowed to continue working, and only in the highest profile cases, do solicitors find themselves facing criminal charges, due to a policy of reluctance by the Crown Office to pursue members of the legal profession who actively, and it seems routinely commit crime.

A spokeswoman for one of Scotland’s consumer organisations today recommended that if a member of the public has written a will and appointed their solicitor or accountant as their executor, they should immediately reconsider their choice, preferably appointing someone closer to them by way of a relative, setting out clearly a set of instructions and a timeline by which an executor should handle the duties set out in writing in the will.

She said : “Given we are seeing an ever rising tide of fraud committed by professionals such as solicitors & accountants who are openly abusing their position as trusted executors of dead client’s estates, I would recommend that people take immediate steps to re-write their will, naming others more trustworthy as their executors.”

She continued : “Instead of appointing a lawyer you think you can trust as your executor, appoint someone closer to you such as a wife or another relative, ensuring there are clear written instructions on what they should do, how it should be done, exactly how much they can be paid for what they do if you feel they should be paid, and exactly how long it should take to wind up your affairs after death, passing on whatever it is you wish your family, friends, a charity etc to inherit, within a given length of time and with the minimum of fuss.”

A legal insider today backed up the timely advice on wills, saying : “I am a solicitor, and I have clients who have written their wills with my firm. However I have refused all requests to be executor on an estate, and I can tell you from my own experience dealing with other legal firms in the cases of a deceased estate, there is no way I would ever appoint another solicitor to be my executor. It is a stupid move in today’s society.”

He continued : “Yes, it may be inevitable that a solicitor is needed to work on some aspects of a deceased’s estate, but for goodness sake, don’t put a lawyer in the driving seat of executor because that will almost always put a will in the slow lane for years to come, and cause problems far beyond any imagination.”

“To prevent problems, people should take the simple step of making someone they really trust as their executor, and giving them strict instructions and time limits on how their affairs should be handled. This is very easy to achieve, if people would only use a little common sense in making sure whoever they choose to appoint as executor is locked into a certain agreement on what they can and cannot do.”

Scotsman reported on Law Society’s protection of Andrew Penman who ruined estate. For years its been well known in the legal profession that handling a will is almost like having a license to steal because at the end of the day you know the Law Society will back solicitors up 100% against any complaints over what went wrong. Readers will be familiar with my own past on this issue, where a crooked lawyer by the name of Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darlng Solicitors, Kelso teamed up with an accountant (and executor), Norman Howitt now of Borders accountants JRW Group, to ruin my late father’s estate, details of which can be read HERE here and HERE.

Many people, especially the elderly, can be lulled into a false sense of security by an oh-so-smart solicitor, making them believe believing their lawyer is always there to help them and will of course, act honestly after the client has died and do exactly what has been asked of them as an executor. Today however, some shocking examples of fraud committed by solicitors against their deceased client’s wishes can be exposed :

Example 1

Solicitor ripped off dead client & family, paid huge interest to his own Bank. An elderly man recently deceased had left his home, possessions & sizeable investments to his wife & family in what he obviously thought was a simple straight forward will, making the mistake of appointing his solicitor as his executor. The first thing the solicitor did was open up three overdraft accounts with a local High Street bank which coincidentally, the solicitor also deals with on a business & personal basis. Over the three years the solicitor took to process his deceased client’s estate, the High Street Bank received a staggering £27,000 in interest alone on the overdraft accounts, despite there being no debts on the deceased’s estate. Documents also now reveal the solicitor negotiated some cheap personal finance from the same High Street bank to purchase a second home.

The widow of the deceased, upon being told the investments in the will had been cut in value by three quarters, made a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland after discovering through careful investigation her late husband’s investments had been changed around by the solicitor at his own discretion rather than being realised and handed over to the family as per the instructions contained in the will. Now the Law Society have backed the solicitor against the family, despite a £250,000 loss being incurred in the late husband’s investments, together with the loss of title deeds to the home in which the widow still lives, while it seems the solicitor has experienced a remarkable increase in his own personal wealth, along with 3 recent top of the range cars.

Example 2

Solicitor & accountant ripped off client’s charitable donations via her will. The result of the charitable intentions of a deceased elderly nurse who bequeathed her substantial entire savings including her house, in total valued at over £2 million to charitable causes, has so far resulted in not one of her wishes being respected by the solicitor and a long time friend, an accountant, she made executors of her will.

Charities who were named in the initial will have, after two years, yet to receive a penny, while again, a local High Street Bank has received over £18,000 in interest on several overdraft accounts opened by the solicitor allegedly to pay debts on the estate which never existed. Meanwhile the solicitor has also bought himself a second house, as has the deceased’s’ long time friend’ the accountant, and the charities who were due to receive sums of money are now questioning whether they will receive anything, given a recent letter to one charity from the solicitor suggesting “there was little left in the estate to cover the charitable bequests” – this despite the fact the nurse had no debts whatsoever, and owned her own home.

The paralegal who brought this case to the attention of Law Society of Scotland has been sacked from solicitor’s law firm, and since there is no one to independently monitor how the solicitor and accountant, both acting as executor, have so fraudulently mishandled the estate of their client (and victim) nothing will probably be done against those who have so obviously plundered the estate of their dead client. Even the charities themselves are apparently reluctant to make a complaint to the Law Society of Scotland, possibly because a fleet of solicitors wives and family relatives sit on one of the charities concerned.

Example 3

Solicitor stole 400k from will, no action by Law Society. A solicitor named as executor in an estate of an elderly unmarried man who had no surviving family, dying three years ago, tore up the original will of his client, and replaced it with one he had created to cover up the fact that a whopping £400,000 has disappeared from his deceased client’s bank accounts.

The will, which left a substantial bequest to a care home managed by the deceased’s local authority, has also seen the usual huge payments of interest fees to a local High Street Bank, in one case alone of £14,000 of pure interest, the same bank handling the solicitor’s law firm accounts.

The local authority had questioned when the bequest was to be made over to them, after being told by the solicitor there was little left to pay out his client’s wishes. The Law Society are supposedly still looking into the case, with as yet no action against the solicitor concerned.

Example 4

Solicitor acting as executor stole over £30,000 from children’s trust. A deceased soldier who appointed his lawyer as executor, leaving everything to his wife & children, has unwittingly placed his family in the position of having to endure sickening refusals by the legal profession to do anything to recover over £30,000 of investments which were placed in a trust by the deceased client, for his children. The solicitor, acting as executor, cashed in the trust and used it to pay off gambling debts which everyone including the Law Society is now trying cover up.

Even serving one’s country it seems, is no guarantee to not being ripped off after death by crooked lawyers out to line their own pockets, with the likes of the good old Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission sitting back and doing absolutely nothing.

Sadly, these are but a handful of cases brought to my attention recently where lawyers & accountants, mistakenly appointed as executors in wills by ever trusting clients, have ended up fleecing the funds entrusted to them, for their own personal gain. My own advice to anyone writing a will, or anyone who has written a will, is, if you have appointed a lawyer as your executor, go back and re-write your will immediately naming someone you really can trust to handle your affairs after death.

Please, also take the advice of consumer organisations to stipulate exactly how and who should respect your wishes after you die, ensuring you also place limits on, or forbid the use of overdraft accounts by solicitors which are ostensibly used by the legal profession to waste your money with High Street banks in bargaining to secure cheap personal finance for lawyers. Taking these steps and taking the time to carefully think through your final wishes will save your remaining family a lot of heartache and ensure what you want actually occurs, rather than allowing the legal profession and others to march off with what you may have wished to go to your loved ones.

Edinburgh’s Royal Mile will again host this year’s Silent Walk for Justice. The Silent Walk for Justice, which first took place last year along Edinburgh’s Royal Mile, is to be held again this year in four weeks time on December 4, beginning at 3.00 p.m. at Johnston Terrace, with a walk down the Royal Mile, ending at the Scottish Parliament.

One of the focal points of this year’s Silent Walk for Justice, will be to press for changes on the widespread denial of information to relatives of deceased persons by the authorities, where even access to documentation and evidence under Freedom of Information legislation has routinely been obstructed by the likes of Scotland’s Crown Office, ever unwilling it seems to release information which may compromise its notoriously flawed decision making process on issues such as Fatal Accident Inquiries.

Lord Cullen completed his review on FAI legislation. On the subject of Fatal Accident Inquiries, Lord Cullen as readers will already have noted in the general media, has completed his review of the FAI legislation, and come up with recommendations for change, to something the Crown Office always considered perfect prior to Lord Cullen’s comments. You can read the Scottish Government’s Press Release on Lord Cullen’s review, here Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation and download a copy of the review’s final report, here : Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation: The Report..

Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini – should FAI power be ‘discretionary’ or enshrined in legislation ? One of the recommendations of Lord Cullen’s review on current FAI procedures is that if the circumstances justified it, such an inquiry should take place at the Lord Advocate’s discretion. However, many families who have experienced the widespread inadequacies of the current FAI system would probably say there must be clear legislation and procedures on this to follow, because as we have always seen in Scots Law, ‘discretion’ seems to leave the scene of death very quickly if it transpires the authorities have made ‘blunders’ during the investigation stage that some in the legal establishment feel would be better kept under wraps, rather than coming out in a Fatal Accident Inquiry.

The Herald newspaper ran a report on the Cullen FAI Review, which you can read here : Review calls for hearings when Scots die abroad and one of the cases mentioned in the Herald report, the death of Colin Love, has a website and ongoing petition at the Scottish Parliament calling for amendments to FAI legislation.

THE SILENT WALK FOR JUSTICE
4 Dec 2009
Edinburgh, Friday 3.00pm – 6.00pm

Innocent people are imprisoned whilst criminals walk free. Families fight in vain to have crimes committed against their loved ones investigated. Dear children have organs removed illegally. Women and children face increased violence and sexual abuse. Councils rob the public of the use of common-good lands. Victims of crime are not being compensated whilst other fail to receive the care they require and deserve. Lawyers cheat their clients whilst public authorities withhold information and cover up for others…

The Silent Walk For Justice is held annually to honour those various people searching for justice, exposing the need for improvements within the Scottish Justice system.

The Freedom of Information Act was conceived as a means to give the public access to information, however, this is being often denied with the response that “it is not in the public interest”

“We the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children and friends concerned by such unfairness within the Scottish justice system, have the right to obtain documentation concerning our cases and our loved ones. We are families and friends together and with documentation is in OURS and – THE PUBLIC INTEREST. We therefore request that the Freedom of Information Act is amended to fulfil our needs. Together we can make a change. Please join The Silent Walk For Justice!”

To honour our loved ones and in order to achieve better consideration under the Act, we will all meet at 3.00 p.m. at Johnston Terrace. We will then walk together in peace and in silence along the Royal Mile and stop in front of the Scottish Parliament. At the Parliament we will put down our pictures of our loved ones and our placards publicising the cause that we are individually fighting for and light our candles.

After a speech from one of the organisers of The Silent Walk For Justice, a representative from the Scottish Justice Department is invited to greet the people and reply to our demands for the reformation of the Freedom of Information Act. We will also give thanks to the Lord Advocate, Mrs Elish Angiolini, for introducing a new unit to investigate unsolved crimes.

You can find out more about the Silent Walk for Justice 2009 by contacting the organisers at : truthandjustice4all@live.se

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuses to disclose members expenses claims. POTENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY PROBLEMS of four lawyers and four ‘lay people’ (two of whom are ex-senior ranked Policemen, one of whom actually served on a Law Society of Scotland Committee) have been raised by the beleaguered, scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission as excuses for refusing to disclose board members expenses, this coming after the SLCC has today been stung by claims from solicitors clients, consumer groups, & even politicians that the Commission operates an anti-consumer complaints system which has after one year, yet to have a single success for a client.

SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine – our members ‘mental health’ is on the line. Jane Irvine’s written refusal of full disclosure over members expenses details stated : “I have studied each and every record we hold and am perfectly satisfied that the SLCC is entitled to extract the information from records held, namely what was claimed and paid. Further that the actual claim forms etc which you now state you require are both confidential under s.36(2) and personal data under s.38(1)(b) thus we may withhold the records as exempt.”

Ms Irvine staggeringly went on to claim the full release of expenses claims details may harm the safety or mental health of SLCC board members. Jane Irvine : “In addition, I consider we can withhold them under s.39 in that release might endanger the physical or mental health or safety of an individual.”

SLCC Chairman Jane Irvine’s extraordinary about-turn on Freedom of Information compliance policy by the joint public-legal profession funded Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, comes after the SLCC, which has so far received a staggering two million pounds of public money from the Scottish Government, received an FOI request for the expenses claims made by its members, which can be revealed today at a staggering £128,624.00 on fees alone in an eleven month period.

The SLCC’s new anti-FOI stance also contradicts Ms Irvine’s earlier supported for making the Law Society of Scotland FOI compliant, which I reported on several months ago, here : Legal Complaints Chief supports ‘consumer advantages’ of removing Law Society’s Freedom of Info immunity

Jane Irvine claimed SLCC members with huge expenses claims might ‘face mental health problems’ if details of their salaries were disclosed. A legal insider today attacked the SLCC’s decision to resort to secrecy over members expenses and said today : “This is deplorable. It seems when the going gets tough, the SLCC stoops to secrecy in order to protect itself from accountability on issues like members expenses. There must be a lot of duck houses to hide if this hugely expensive & unnecessary law complaints quango feels it cannot publish its members expenses claims in the same way politicians at Holyrood, and even Westminster Parliament have been forced to reveal. The Chair’s reasons for secrecy are astounding. It is very bottom of the barrel stuff for Jane Irvine to claim these extravagantly paid board members mental health or safety could be affected by exposing their expenses claims to public scrutiny.”

A client who is having considerable difficulty with the SLCC over a serious complaint made against a leading law firm involving fraud also commented, saying : “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I have spent months writing back & forth to this high salaried mob at the SLCC about my complaint and am no further forward. In my opinion they don’t deserve the flood of money they have received.”

He continued : “From the way they are treating the public, Jane Irvine should be more worried about the mental health & safety of clients who I also read have been driven to suicide over trying to complain against a crooked lawyer. Maybe the SLCC board members and their fat expense accounts should come down off their perch and treat us a bit better instead of worrying so much about what people will think over their expenses claims.”

SLCC provided misleading information only admitting to £6k expenses on earlier FOI request. It can also be revealed today that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission apparently intentionally provided deceptive information to an earlier FOI request from the media over members expenses, where the SLCC claimed the total sums claimed and paid to Members between 1 October and 31 August 2009 at £6408.96. However, when quizzed further on the figures, the SLCC Chair, Jane Irvine issued a new statement contradicting the earlier FOI response on members expenses, and admitted that between 1 October 2008 and 31 August 2009 members received total further payments of a staggering £128,624.00 by way of fees, giving the following ‘varying interpretation’ reason for the staggering £122,216.00 error in the Commission’s expenses accounting figures.

SLCC Chief Jane Irvine threatens media ‘no more FOIs’ after asking for board members expenses details. After having to admit the huge discrepancies in the FOI release of expenses claims, the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine, threatened to brand journalists Freedom of Information enquires as “vexatious” as she was forced to admit the huge ‘accounting error’, saying : “Having stated all this I have very carefully considered the exact wording of your request as you have directed me to. This might be read two ways. Either as a request for records of all claims for expenses and money paid as expenses – which we have answered, or a request for records plus a request for records of all money paid. I have not sought to clarify this with you. Rather I have interpreted it expansively and in this context advise that between 1 October 2008 and 31 August 2009 Members received total further payments of £128,624.00 by way of fees.”

FOI disclosure exposed SLCC Board member Margaret Scanlan who wanted consumer groups excluded from SLCC business. As the SLCC’s new anti-FOI stance gathers pace, Commission insiders have also claimed that in order to stem the rising numbers of FOI requests from the media, necessitated by the Commission’s secrecy policy on just about everything, and the SLCC’s consistently late publishing of monthly minutes (up to six months late in some cases, alongside significant use of black ink) the Commission has also decided to charge for any & all FOI requests, in the hopes of putting off enquiries which may lead to further embarrassing & compromising revelations such as some of those already reported in the media where ‘on the razzle’ board members and senior SLCC officials embarked on bitter hate-fuelled email rants against consumer groups, members of the public, solicitors clients and even media journalists who all came in for heavy criticism and insults after publication of problems at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

You can read an earlier account of scandals at the SLCC revealed by FOI requests here : MacAskill must clean up law complaints body as members ‘booze culture conduct’ reflects lack of discipline & will to investigate crooked lawyers & here : Censorship & ‘frequent flyers’ at Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveal attempt to write off consumers evidence in Master Policy report

A Scottish Parliamentary insider today said : “The way the SLCC is operating is clearly not what was intended in the LPLA Act and clearly the commission has a poor attitude towards the public and a poor view of how it should manage its own affairs and finances. The commission has, as I understand it, received a great deal of public money and millions of pounds from the legal profession itself. I am sorry to say I do not see value for money in what I read of the SLCC’s performance in the media of late.”

He continued : “I feel it may now be time for parliamentary scrutiny of the commission’s performance to-date and I would encourage anyone who has encountered difficulties with the SLCC to contact their own MSP and make a request the commission be brought before the parliament when its annual report is published, I believe sometime in December 2009.”

An MSP, speaking this afternoon after reading the SLCC’s refusal over members expenses details said : “If the SLCC are playing fast & loose with FOI requests, I would be willing to put in a few requests myself to assist the outflow of information into the public domain.”

The SLCC’s refusal to disclose full details of its members expenses has now been passed to Scotland’s Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, for a full investigation.