A solicitor from Kilmarnock who took over £1/2 million in legal aid is being investigated by the SLCC after clients made complaints. NIELS LOCKHART, a sole practising solicitor from Kilmarnock who was the subject of several reports in the Sunday Mail newspaper last year after a joint investigation with Diary of Injustice into legal aid fraud, is now confirmed by legal insiders to be under investigation by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), after some of Mr Lockhart’s clients filed complaints over his damaging conduct in their cases, conduct which the SLCC has been told, has left some former clients now financially ruined and with little hope of recovery. Mr Lockhart’s actions in one of the cases in particular, that of Esther Francis (70) have caused such hardship the pensioner was left homeless after losing everything from a failed claim Mr Lockhart was dealing with on Esther’s behalf. Esther was also threatened by Lockhart over the non payment of bills, leading to the pensioner having to starve herself to meet Lockhart’s demands for money.

However, despite the detailed complaints submitted to the SLCC about Mr Lockhart, and admissions from sources within the law complaints regulator they are well aware of media investigations exposing Lockhart, the SLCC sent several letters out to complainants asking if they wanted to enter into mediation over their complaints against the now infamous lawyer, rather than see justice done in a proper investigation which could eventually lead to Lockhart being struck off as a practising solicitor. In 2011, Diary of Injustice reported :

Calls to investigate Scottish Legal Aid Board & Law Society over ‘dodgy dealings’ in ‘voluntary removal’ of £600k lawyer from legal aid register THE SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD (SLAB) & the Law Society of Scotland are facing calls for an inquiry into the way they both deal with alleged cases of legal aid claims abuse after it was revealed in a national newspaper a solicitor who raked in over £600,000 in legal aid claims over two years was allowed to quietly remove himself from the legal aid register after a deal had been struck between his lawyer and the legal aid board to avoid any further proceedings, even though SLAB had made a detailed complaint to the Law Society of Scotland in 2006, a complaint which took the law complaints self regulator a whopping FOUR YEARS to investigate !

One law for lawyers : Secret Report reveals Legal Aid Board, Law Society & Legal Defence Union ‘cosy relationship’ in Lockhart case Legal Aid Chiefs accused lawyer Niels Lockhart of excessive claims yet no prosecution or repayment took place. A SECRET REPORT by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) into “excessive” claims for legal aid made by Kilmarnock based solicitor Niels S Lockhart who raked in over £600,000 in legal aid claims over two years can now be published, revealing the full extent of SLAB’s accusations against the sole practitioner, the FOUR YEAR WAIT for the Law Society of Scotland to rule on the case and the intervention of the Legal Defence Union who brokered a deal allowing Mr Lockhart to walk away from all accusations over his claims for legal aid.

Legal Aid officials hid details of dodgy claims scandal as ‘Pay-Up threats’ from £600K legal aid rogue lawyer leaves pensioner, 70, starving, homeless SLAB’s secret deal with Law Society of Scotland & LDU kept info on legal aid accusations against solicitor from clients. A VULNERABLE PENSIONER was left HOMELESS & HAD TO STARVE HERSELF to pay legal fees after being threatened by Kilmarnock solicitor Niels S Lockhart over a missed £100 payment of legal bills which were originally being paid by Legal Aid. Esther Francis, 70, had gone to Niels Lockhart for help in a dispute with her housing association and was originally put on legal aid by the lawyer who has already claimed around SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS of legal aid money in previous years for other clients, however she was not told by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) her solicitor, Mr Lockhart had ‘voluntarily’ withdrew himself from being able to provide legal aid, AFTER he was accused by SLAB of making excessive legal aid claims.

Diary of Injustice continued to report on allegations surrounding Mr Lockhart and the Law Society of Scotland’s efforts to avoid a prosecution. All previous reports can be viewed HERE.

The long story of Mr Lockhart’s legal aid claims began in the first half of the last decade, although it took the Scottish Legal Aid Board years to catch up with him, when on 5 June 2005 the Scottish Legal Aid Board sent a report to the Law Society of Scotland in terms of S32 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 against the sole practitioner firm of Niels S Lockhart, 71 King Street, Kilmarnock. The secret report, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, can be downloaded here : SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD S31 COMPLAINT REPORT TO THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND : NIELS S LOCKHART (pdf)

The Scottish Legal Aid Board’s report outlined a number of issues that had been identified during the review of case files & accounts which raised concern about Mr Lockhart’s conduct and which fell to be considered as a breach of either Regulation 31 (3) (a) & (b), relating to his conduct when acting or selected to act for persons to whom legal aid or advice and assistance is made available, and his professional conduct generally. These issues illustrated the repetitious nature of Mr Lockhart’s failure to charge fees “actually, necessarily and reasonable incurred, due regard being bad to economy”

The heads of complaint submitted by the Scottish Legal Aid Board to the Law Society of Scotland were :

(1) Excessive attendances, (2) Lack of Progress, (3) Splitting/Repeating Subject Matters, (4) Inappropriate Requests for Increases in Authorised Expenditure, (5) Matters resubmitted under a different guise, (6) Standard Attendance Times, (7) Attendances for Matters Not Related to the Subject Matter of the Case, (8) Unreasonable Charges, (9) Double Charging for Correspondence, (10) Account entries not supported by Client Files, (11) Attempt to Circumvent Statutory Payment Procedure for Property Recovered or Preserved, (12) Continued Failure to act with Due Regard to Economy.

The report by the Scottish Legal Aid Board revealed that, of all firms in Scotland, the sole practitioner firm of NS Lockhart, 71 King Street, Kilmarnock, granted the highest number of advice and assistance applications for “interdict” (392) for the period January-October 2004.The next ranked firm granted 146, while the next ranked Kilmarnock firm granted only 30.

The report stated : “While conducting a selective analysis of Niels S Lockhart’s Advice and Assistance accounts, it was clear from the outset that much of his business comes from “repeat clients” and/or members of the same household/family, whom he has frequently admitted to Advice and Assistance. The analysis revealed persistent patterns of excessive client attendances, the vast majority of which are irrelevant, unnecessary and conducted without due regard to economy.”

“It was also clear that Niels S Lockhart makes grants for a number of interlinked matters, where there is clearly a “cross-over” of advice. Consecutive grants are also often made as a continuation of the same matter shortly after authorised expenditure has expired on the previous grant.”

“This appears to the Board to be a deliberate scheme by Niels S. Lockhart to make consecutive grants of Advice and Assistance on behalf of the same client for the same matter, for personal gain. By so doing, he has succeeded in obtaining additional funds by utilising new initial levels of authorised expenditure for matters where, had further requests for increases in authorised expenditure under the initial grant been made to the Board, they would with every likelihood have been refused by Board staff.”

“Closer scrutiny of Niels S Lockhart’s accounts and some client files has given rise to a number of other serious concerns, e.g. numerous meetings, standard of file notes, encouraging clients to advance matters while demonstrating a lack of progress.”

“After a meeting between SLAB officials & Mr Lockhart on 14 April 2005, Mr Lockhart was advised that SLAB’s Executive Team had approved of his firm’s accounts being removed from the guarantee of 30-day turnaround for payment of accounts, and that henceforth, to allow the Board the opportunity to satisfy itself that all fees and outlays had been properly incurred and charged by the firm, he would be required to submit additional supporting documentation and information with his accounts (including client files).”

The report continued : “Over the next few months, Mr Lockhart telephoned Accounts staff many times, often on a daily basis, repeatedly asking questions about the type of charge they considered acceptable or unacceptable in a variety of situations. Staff reported that, despite their having given Mr Lockhart the same answers time and again (both via correspondence and over the telephone),he continued to submit accounts with unacceptable charges. In a final effort to counter these continuing problems and to emphasis the Board’s stance in relation to the various issues of concern, our Accounts Department sent him a letter on 23 December 2005.”

“Mr Lockhart did not provide a written response to this correspondence. He did however contact Mr McCann of the Legal Defence Union, who wrote to the Board seeking a meeting with Board officials to try to resolve the payments issue. Our view however was that this would not advance matters as Mr Lockhart had been given a clear steer both after the April 2005 meeting and in the December when Accounts wrote to him on a number of matters.”

However, the secret report revealed SLAB officials had made a significant omission, amazingly, failing to interview any of Mr Lockhart’s clients despite the allegations of excessive legal aid claims.

The SLAB report revealed : “Board staff have not interviewed any of Mr Lockhart’s clients as we have no reason to believe that, for example, the multitude of meetings that he held with them—sometimes more than twice daily—did not take place; our concern is that they DID take place and he has sought to claim payment for these multitudinous meetings,very few of which could be described as necessary and reasonable. We believe that such work had no regard to the principle of economy: our contention is that it is highly unlikely that any private paying client would be willing to meet the cost of the service provided by Mr Lockhart. That aside, there are cases set out in the report where it is difficult to see what advice or assistance has actually been provided. Our Accounts staff are continuing to assess a number of his accounts and examining the corresponding client files which indicate repetition of the issues that gave rise to our initial concerns.”

The report’s findings concluded : “From April 2002—March 2005, Niels S Lockhart was paid £672,585 from the Legal Aid Fund. Of this, £596,734 (89%) was in relation to Advice and Assistance cases, with £570,528 (85%) solely in relation to Civil Advice and Assistance. In the Board’s view, the ranges of actions taken by Niels S. Lockhart towards achieving those payments are not those appropriate to a competent and reputable solicitor.”

“Based on the supporting evidence he arranges for, or permits, his clients to attend his office on numerous occasions for excessive, unnecessary and often irrelevant meetings. In the main, these do not appear to have advantages for their further welfare or advance their case, but merely act as a mechanism for the firm to exploit the Legal Aid Fund by charging for these unnecessary and unproductive meetings. The nature of subject matters is often repeated, resulting in numerous duplicate/multiple/consecutive grants submitted under various guises, thus avoiding the Board’s computerised checks on subject matter. This pattern of conduct is deliberate,recurring and persistent, serving—in the Board’s view—as a device to generate considerable additional income for the firm to the detriment of the Scottish Legal Aid Fund.”

SLAB’s report was heavy on accusations yet achieved little, as did their complaint to the Law Society. The Scottish Legal Aid Board presented its report & complaint to the Law Society of Scotland on the 5th June 2006 but had to wait until a stunning FOUR YEARS until August 2010 before the Law Society even got round to sending SLAB a copy of the Law Society investigator’s report, which recommended that 11 out of 12 of SLAB’s complaints were “made out” and also recommended that the Law Society exercise its powers to exclude Niels Lockhart from giving advice & assistance to or from acting for a person to whom legal aid is made available.

However, two months later in October 2010, Mr Lockhart’s legal representative James McCann of the Legal Defence Union approached SLAB with a prospective offer that Mr Lockhart would withdraw fully from providing legal aid if SLAB’s S31 complaint was withdrawn. A Minute of Agreement was drafter and agreed with Niels Lockhart & the Legal Defence Union outlining the voluntary and irrevocable withdrawal by Mr Lockhart and the firm from the provision of all firms of legal assistance (funded by legal aid). The Minute of Agreement also outlined the Board’s intention to make a press release detailing that following SLAB’s investigation into the firm and their subsequent complaint to the Law Society of Scotland, SLAB had accepted this permanent withdrawal by Mr Lockhart and the firm from providing all forms of legal assistance.

Legal Aid Board asked Law Society to withdraw complaint after secret deal was reached with Legal Defence Union. “In November 2010 SLAB advised the Law Society of Scotland that they had negotiated with Mr Lockhart his voluntary removal from the provision of legal assistance with effect from 1 November 2010 and acknowledged that the Society had separately received information from Mr Lockhart signalling his intention to withdraw from provision of all types of legal assistance. In the light of this, we sought to know from them whether they accepted SLAB’s withdrawal of the S31 complaint against Mr Lockhart.”

“In December 2010 the Law Society wrote to SLAB advising that they had accepted SLAB’s withdrawal of the complaint and that they were closing their file and taking no further action.”

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine had secret no-notes meetings with devisive Legal Defence Union in swanky Balmoral Hotel. Now, in 2012, rumours of further involvement by the legal profession on behalf of Mr Lockhart are again circulating, alleging the Legal Defence Union have again been asked to involve themselves with the SLCC over the investigations being carried out into Lockhart. If true, the rumours may damage the credibility of the SLCC even further, after an investigation by Diary of Injustice into the dark world of the Legal Defence Union revealed last year that senior members of the Legal Defence Union have enjoyed cosy get-togethers with Jane Irvine, the Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission at the expensive Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh, meetings in which all note taking & record keeping were barred.

In July of 2011, Diary of Injustice followed up the investigation into the LDU-SLCC relationship with the following report :

Investigation reveals Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s links, secret ‘off the record’ dealings with lawyers lobby group Legal Defence Union REVEALED : Law regulator’s dealings with organisation linked to client suicides & blocked prosecutions of legal aid fraudsters. AN INVESTIGATION by Diary of Injustice into dealings between the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the ‘independent’ quango which regulates complaints against Scottish lawyers and the Legal Defence Union, an organisation which represents the best interests of lawyers,recently linked to blocked criminal prosecutions of legal aid fraudster lawyers & also the suicide of a married Oban family man in the SLCC’s 2009 report into the Master Policy, has revealed a series of cosy meetings between the regulator & pro-lawyer lobby group at expensive Edinburgh hotels which the heads of both organisations agreed to keep off the record and away from public gaze.

According to claims from SLCC insiders who were fed up with the non-achieving law complaints regulator, the scandal hit Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Legal Defence Union have now become so close, SLCC staff privately joke it is now “routine” for the Legal Defence Union to intervene in complaints investigations on behalf of solicitors interests while consumers who make complaints about their solicitors to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are not represented in any way and have no organisation to turn to for help with their complaints.

SLCC Chair Jane Irvine agreed no records of discussion between regulator & lawyer’s lobby group at Balmoral Hotel. A limited amount of papers reluctantly disclosed by the SLCC under Freedom of Information legislation show a series of discussions between the two pro-lawyer bodies bosses, Jane Irvine for the SLCC and LDU Solicitor Director William Macreath, also a partner at law firm Levy McRae, who, according to the text of one of the letters disclosed to Diary of Injustice under FOI laws, both agreed “there would be no formal records of any element of the discussion.”. The letter from Jane Irvine to the LDU Director which disclosed the secret no-records-of-meetings policy went on to detail several technical issues about complaints regulation and how the SLCC should deal with solicitors & consumers, the former apparently having much greater priority over the latter. The limited Freedom of Information disclosure of documents disclosed by the SLCC documenting only a fraction of its dealings with the Legal Defence Union can be viewed online or downloaded here : FOI Disclosure : Involvement & meetings between Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Legal Defence Union

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is yet to announce what, if any measures it is taking with regards to complaints made against Mr Lockhart.

Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew is ‘front runner’ for Scottish Information Commissioner role. DOCUMENTS published in response to FOI requests after an investigation by Diary of Injustice today reveal ROSEMARY AGNEW, the Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) who is tipped to be the Scottish Parliament’s choice as the new Scottish Information Commissioner, replacing the highly successful Kevin Dunion, has been forced to declare multiple receipts of hospitality from law firms, the Law Society of Scotland, and from politicians such as the Scottish Parliament’s very own Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick MSP, who also chaired the selection panel of seven msps who interviewed Ms Agnew as a candidate to serve as Scotland’s Information Commissioner for the next EIGHT YEARS.

The SLCC was forced to publish its “Gifts & Hospitality Register” in response to Freedom of Information requests from Diary of Injustice after this journalist began investigating rumours of multiple gifts, hospitality & undeclared contact with law firms, staff & key figures from the Law Society of Scotland including former Law Society Presidents, clandestine no-notes-taken meetings in posh Edinburgh hotels between SLCC Chiefs & shady organisations such as the Legal Defence Union, insurers such as Royal Sun Alliance PLC & Marsh UK, and MSPs & their staff.

Some of the entries in the SLCC’s Gifts & Hospitality Register, which does not appear to have been kept up to date with current events, show a range of Hospitality gifts by way of dinners & occasions attended by Ms Agnew which raise questions over the closeness of contact between key staff at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the legal profession, which the SLCC are supposed to be regulating.

Hospitality rules ? 26/8/10  Rosemary Agnew John Schmidt, Regulation and Markets  Shepherd & Wedderburn  Festival Show (2) and Dinner, Chair also invited and attended.

30/09/10  Rosemary Agnew Patricia Goldie  Scott Moncrieff – Internal Auditors Business Lunch

6/12/10  Rosemary Agnew Law Society of Scotland  Law Society of Scotland  Invitation to Christmas drinks party at their offices.  Accepted

13/01/11  Rosemary Agnew Law Society of Scotland  Law Society of Scotland   Invitation to LSS Dinner with charity raffle 11th March 2011.  Accepted

21/02/11  Rosemary Agnew Scott-Moncrieff  SLCC’s Internal Auditors  Informal Business Lunch at offices – accepted.

24/02/11  Rosemary Agnew Ayr Faculty  Law  Book token for delivering presentation, donated to the Office Charity

25/05/11  Rosemary Agnew Jamie Millar, President  Law Society of Scotland  Reception for the CEO of the Law Society of Malawi. Accepted

26.7.11  Rosemary Agnew National Museum of Scotland  Museum  Accepted.  Invitation to reopening of the Museum.

Hospitality offered by Presiding Officer & Chair of selection panel during meetings to decide new Info Commissioner 12.07.11  Rosemary Agnew Tricia Marwick MSP  MSP  Declined.  Invitation to launch reception of 2011 Festival of Politics and the World Press Photo Exhibition in Parliament’s main hall. In one entry, dated July of 2011, the SLCC’s Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew also received an invitation from the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick, to attend a reception at the Scottish Parliament. While the hospitality from Ms Marwick was declined, it appears to have come at the same time Ms Agnew was considering her position in relation to applications & interviews held at the Scottish Parliament for the role of Freedom of Information Tsar after the current Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, finished his second & final term as Scotland’s Freedom of Information guardian. of Information Commissioner in which msps were speaking to candidates who were interested in taking on the

However it now transpires from an investigation, the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick who offered hospitality to Ms Agnew also sat on the all women msp selection panel which conducted the highly secret interviews of the five candidates seeking the post of Information Commissioner. The panel is rumoured in the media and by insiders to have made Ms Agnew their choice to replace Mr Dunion.

A Scottish Parliament official confirmed the identities of the cross party panel, which was made up of the following Members : Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick MSP – Chair, Margaret Burgess MSP, Helen Eadie MSP,  Christine Grahame MSP, Alison McInnes MSP, Mary Scanlon MSP, Maureen Watt MSP.

While Mr Dunion is set to leave office in a matter of days, there is still no official announcement from the Scottish Parliament on who is to succeed him as the new Information Commissioner. On being quizzed about an announcement regarding the identity of who is to be Scotland’s new Information Commissioner a Scottish Parliament spokesman said: “A seven member, cross-party selection panel followed an open recruitment process with candidates assessed against a number of criteria.  We expect to be in a position to confirm the nominee to Parliament, ahead of Kevin Dunion’s departure in February.”

However, amid claims msps have been looking for “a less enthusiastic candidate for the key FOI role” than Mr Dunion, who is generally regarded as being pro information disclosure, the Scottish Parliament have REFUSED to release any details about who was interviewed for the post and what information particularly concerning the candidate’s backgrounds was considered.

A solicitor from a well known law firm who have used FOI on a number of occasions spoke to to Diary of Injustice today on the subject, saying : “Given the position of Information Commissioner is of significant public interest I would have thought we are entitled to open hearings at the Scottish Parliament with the candidates appearing in front of Committees to be questioned about their attitude towards Freedom of Information rather than this secret interview process which appears to have descended into a version of the old pals act.”

He went onto say : “It seems rather suspicious to me that our msps are waiting until the last few days to announce Mr Dunion’s replacement when the position is of such importance to the public. What does the Scottish Parliament have to hide about who is taking up the role ?”

Earlier this week, in the wake of reports in the media regarding Ms Agnew’s apparent position as ‘front runner’ to replace Kevin Dunion, a key player in the recruitment process has approached Diary of Injustice for more information on Ms Agnew’s position at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and her history of dealing with Freedom of Information disclosures after it was reported Ms Agnew has been slapped down at least FIVE times by the current Information Commissioner over significant failures in releasing information to the public & media.

Diary of Injustice asked the Information Commissioner’s office if it have been informed of who is to replace Mr Dunion in the role of Information Commissioner. A spokesperson said : “I can confirm that we have not received any notification or confirmation from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body regarding who Kevin Dunion’s successor might be.  As such it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the speculation that has surfaced in the press.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and Ms Agnew have not made any comment on the situation, and so far, the SLCC have not made any public moves to advertise Ms Agnew’s job as Chief Executive, which she has held for a little over a year after replacing the controversial former SLCC CEO Eileen Masterman, who resigned after a bitter exchange with Cabinet Secretary for Finance John Swinney over issues involving meetings the SLCC held in connection with the Master Policy and claims of “ill health” which led to a secret & substantial pay-off, personally signed off by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Diary of Injustice reported on the secret Masterman pay-off scandal in an earlier article here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

If Ms Agnew is appointed to replace Kevin Dunion as Scotland’s Information Commissioner, the SLCC will be forced to recruit its third Chief Executive in three years, leading to concerns from consumer groups, clients, and even the legal profession that there is little continuity at the anti-client law complaints quango which has achieved little since being created in 2008 by the Scottish Government as an ‘independent’ regulator to deal with complaints against Scottish lawyers

Ms Agnew’s position as front runner to be the new Scottish Information Commissioner was reported in an earlier article, here : SHHH Happens : SLCC Legal Complaints CEO Rosemary Agnew tipped for FOI Commissioner role after 5 FOI ‘rebukes’ & refusals to monitor Master Policy

The Daily Record newspaper featured further comment :

STOP SECRET : Revealed: Government, police & local councils all among public bodies who flouted anti-secrecy laws

TIP FORCED TO DISCLOSE Jan 9 2012 Exclusive by Chris Musson

A WOMAN tipped to be Scotland’s new anti-secrecy tsar has had a string of rulings made against her by the man she could replace.

Rosemary Agnew, who heads the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, is one of six people interviewed to be the next Information Commissioner. But Kevin Dunion has slapped down the SLCC eight times – five since Agnew took over as Chief Executive in October 2010.

Legal Reform campaigner Peter Cherbi, who had several requests knocked back by the SLCC, cast doubt over her suitability. He said : “How someone like that could be put in charge of openness is beyond me, unless they want to shut down openness and accountability.”

Agnew did not respond to requests for a comment.

HOSPITALITY FREE FOR ALL AT THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

The Hospitality Club : More gifts than complaints findings at Scotland’s law complaints quango. The SLCC’s registers of gifts & hospitality contains items such as invitations to dinners, drinks parties, lectures events and other gifts offered by several personalities from Scotland’s legal world including past Law Society Presidents Ian Smart & Jamie Millar, law firms such as Pagan Osborne, Shepherd & Wedderburn, Anderson Strathern, Beveridge & Kellas SSC, auditors KPMG & Deloitte, consumer organisations Consumer Focus Scotland & Which?, the Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, the Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland, the Medical Protection Society, the Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council Scottish Committee (AJTC), Scottish Government & others. While some members of staff are identified, others apparently are not, leaving a degree of suspicion over who attended some of the events such as law lectures at the Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh.

A two percent rise in court user satisfaction masks deep concerns over poor state of Scotland’s Courts, run by body chaired by Lord President Lord Hamilton. SCOTLAND’S COURTS and the Scots justice system have been called everything from “Victorian”, “Institutionally racist”, “Institutionally sectarian”, “Institutionally corrupt”, & “Institutionally prejudiced” to name but a few of the accusations coming from all sectors of society, from court users, consumer groups and even from the most senior members of the judiciary itself. Put simply, when the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, calls the Scottish civil justice system “Victorian” and “unfit for purpose”, there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with our courts and how they handle access to justice, a seemingly ever dwindling right of Scots.

Curiously however, this is not the picture painted in the now nearly annual survey of court users carried out by the Scottish Court Service (SCS), in which their latest 2011 study released today claims a high level of “satisfaction” among court users, resting on the back of a small two per cent rise in “satisfaction” with some aspects of the Scottish Court Service. The SCS is the ‘independent’ body which runs Scotland’s courts, established by the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, governed by a Corporate Board and chaired by the Lord President, the most senior judge in Scotland.

The survey, carried out by MVA Consultancy on behalf of the Scottish Court Service shows that 83% of respondents were satisfied overall, the highest ever recorded level, and up from 81% in 2009. Levels were similar for professional and non-professional users, with 85% of professional respondents, and 82% of non-professionals, stating that they were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied overall. The full survey report can be viewed online HERE with a summary HERE or downloaded from the Scottish Court website HERE

Among other findings, almost a third (31%) of respondents stated that they had travelled to court on the day of the survey as a car driver, with a further 15% stating that they were a car passenger. Over three quarters of respondents (78%) had travelled for up to 30 minutes to attend court. The majority of respondents had spoken with court staff on the day that they were surveyed, and most stated that they had found court staff to be either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ helpful (95%) and either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ polite (96%).

Less than half (46%) of all respondents stated that court staff had kept them informed about what was happening during the time they were in the court building. However, the majority of respondents (96%) who were given update information said that this information was either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ helpful. Just over half of all respondents (55%) said that they had had to wait to take part in court proceedings. Waiting times varied considerably by area.

Over half of the respondents said that they were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied (52%) with their wait to take part in court proceedings. A further 19% said they were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ dissatisfied. There was a high level of satisfaction with regard to perceived safety and security, ranging from 80% for the cells to 96% for the jury room.

The main factors that appear to be driving users’ overall experience are satisfaction with court staffs’ attempts to keep respondents informed about how much longer they were likely to have to wait and satisfaction with helpfulness of the information provided by the court staff. The results from the survey compare favourably with previous years, with definite improvements in overall satisfaction over time in Lothian and Borders and the High Court and Court of Session.

Since the last survey in 2009, those questioned were more satisfied with the quality of refreshments available and the comfort and cleanliness of both court rooms and waiting areas. A high 96% found Scottish Court Service (SCS) staff polite, while 95% found SCS staff helpful. For the first time security was covered showing that most users felt safe inside Scottish court buildings, ranging from 80% of those who had been in the cells to 96% of jury room users.

Scottish Court Service Chief Executive Eleanor Emberson welcomed the results, saying, ”Achieving an 83% level of satisfaction among users is a credit to all our hard working and dedicated staff. The organisation is fully committed to a Customer Service Excellence programme as a way to develop our services to meets the needs of court users. We will use the constructive comments provided in the survey to continue this improvement.“

The Scottish Court Service has conducted satisfaction surveys with public and professional court users since 2005 although finding anyone who has participated in them has proved to be more difficult than the needle in the haystack scenario. The Scottish Court Service definition of “Court users” include all who enter or transact business within the court building and this includes for example solicitors, advocates, staff, social workers, police, jurors, witnesses, accused and members of the public including those involved in or interested in civil and criminal cases. The survey was conducted across all jurisdictions (Court of Session, High Court, Sheriff Courts and Justice of the Peace Courts).

However, satisfaction levels from growing numbers of party litigants who cannot afford or cannot obtain legal representation for a variety of reasons, do not appear to fit in with the SCS survey findings which do not give one single mention of party litigants or those who appear to be involved in some of the most complicated sectors of litigation such as negligence cases against the professions & public services. There is also no mention of McKenzie Friends, otherwise known as Lay Assistants in Scottish Courts.

In one case of a party litigant currently under investigation by Diary of Injustice, a case liable to show a distinct lack of satisfaction with the Court Service, audio recordings of conversations between court staff & the party litigant appear to show the party litigant being told not to turn up at court hearings involving a highly suspicious ‘fees recovery’ action pursued by a law firm against a former client who the law firm dropped at the last minute during a damages claim against his former employer. Yet while court staff told the now seriously ill party litigant not to show up at court, the law firm at the centre of the wrangle somehow managed to persuade a Sheriff Principal to grant their demands without any regard to a fair hearing for their former client who is now so ill he is excused by doctors from the court hearings.

Further enquiries into seven other long running cases involving party litigants in Scotland’s Court of Session & Sheriff Courts have revealed not one of the party litigants who have been involved in long and difficult legal actions in the courts were consulted by or ever encountered any survey teams acting for the Scottish Court Service.

One solicitor speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon said “..the survey was unlikely to restore any confidence in the Scottish courts system” which has, even in the eyes of at least some members of the judiciary, been long overdue for a complete overhaul to put the public first, instead of the professions & vested interests.

Admittedly, there are steady signs of improvement in the SCS in some quarters, where, slowly but surely, parts of the courts system is beginning to open up to reforms, some of which appear to be brought about by increased media & public scrutiny of a domain still regarded by many in the legal profession as its closed shop business window. It is a fact Diary of Injustice has over the years, seen a marked increase in the willingness of the Scottish Court Service to engage the media and public in matters where previously a wall of silence was usually practised.

However, speaking as a journalist who has covered the legal system for many years now, I think we all know Scots satisfaction with the courts system overall, has a long way to go before justice in Scotland can be deemed to be reliable, trustworthy, modern or even honest and whoever is the next Lord President must be a force for change, instead of more stagnation in Scots access to justice.

SCOTS JUDGE DISATTISFIED WITH VICTORIAN JUSTICE & COURTS SYSTEM

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, author of the Civil Courts Review. The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, in his speech to the Law Society of Scotland’s 60 year anniversary conference in 2009, reproduced in full here said : “The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that had survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in substance its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and it is failing society. It is essential that we should have a system that has disputes resolved at a judicial level that is appropriate to their degree of importance and that disputes should be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently and without unnecessary or unreasonable cost. That means that the judicial structure should be based on a proper hierarchy of courts and that the procedures should be appropriate to the nature and the importance of the case, in terms of time and cost. Scottish civil justice fails on all of these counts. Its delays are notorious. It costs deter litigants whose claims may be well-founded. Its procedures cause frustration and obstruct rather than facilitate the achievement of justice.”

Solicitors from Hell owner is seeking to take on the Law Society of England & Wales in a class action. IF YOU have experienced a rejected complaint at the hands of the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) or Solicitors Regulator Authority (SRA), or even worse, if you have been awarded a fraction of the losses incurred by your legal representatives, you may well wish to join a REPRESENTATIVE CLASS ACTION against the Law Society of England & Wales which is being pursued by Rick Kordowski, the owner of the well known SOLICITORS FROM HELL (SfH) website, itself removed from the internet after the Law Society of England & Wales secured an interdict in the High Court on behalf of itself & other vested interests after concerns clients of ‘rogue lawyers’ had posted too much information about their experiences at the hands of their legal representatives, experiences so horrific they were liable to heavily impact on law firms business.

The website created by Mr Kordowski for the class action requests signatures of those who have not had a fair hearing with regard to their complaints against solicitors. Details follow :

Has the Legal Ombudsman or the SRA rejected or ignored your complaint? Have you been awarded a fraction of the losses you incurred?

JOIN ME in a collective ‘representative action’ against the Law Society of England and Wales on behalf of ALL who have suffered a loss as a result of a solicitor’s actions or negligence.

I believe the Law Society’s complaint handlers have failed in their ‘duty of care’ by rejecting valid complaints. Or upholding complaints – but only awarding a fraction of the loses incurred by the legal consumer.

In UK tort law, a ‘duty of care’ is a legal obligation imposed on anyone who has failed to adhere to a standard of reasonable care. I believe the Law Society’s complaint handlers have failed to adhere to this standard in hundreds of cases throughout the UK.

This action is for anyone who has genuinely suffered as a result of a solicitor’s action or negligence and is not, for example, if your solicitor has simply lost your claim or case.

Q. What is a ‘representative action’ or ‘class action’?
A. In law, a ‘representative action’ or a ‘class action’ is a type of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court against a single defendant.

Q. Are you sure? The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 19.6) only allow persons to be represented in civil proceedings by an other if they all have ‘the same interest’.
A. I intend to use a recent judgment as a precedent. A claim by the Law Society where it was clear that the individual interests of the represented was ‘not the same’.

Q. How are you going to finance this action?
A. I will put this claim out to tender to various Barristers Chambers on a conditional fee arrangement (No win – no fee).

Q. Why are you doing this?
A. I was let down by my solicitor. The Law Society ruled in my favour and fined the solicitor £500 (payable to me). But this was a fraction of the losses I incurred as a result of the solicitor’s actions. The only option then is to take direct legal action, which, for most people, the costs of individual litigation of this type is prohibited. Sound familiar? Opt in by using the form on the right.

Q. As all solicitors are insured for negligence, can they not simply make a claim to cover my losses?
A. The cost of indemnity insurance for solicitors is one of the highest, second only to plastic surgeons. A solicitor will fight tooth and nail not to make a claim and face a rise in the annual premium.

Q. If I use the ‘opt in’ form will my details be kept safe?
A. Yes, all collected information will be kept in the strictest confidence and will not be circulated, sold or published anywhere at all.

Q. My solicitor let me down by not winning my case. Can I opt in?
A. No. This is a class action claim for all who have suffered loss and want compensation for the anxiety and distress due to the negligence or the actions of a solicitor. Following which, the Law Society’s complaints handlers failed to adhere to a standard of reasonable care.

By submitting your information you understand that there is no guarantee in this action. Full details of the claim will be given to those who have opted in.

If your genuine complaint against a solicitor has been rejected or ignored by the Legal Ombudsman (or the SRA) or if you feel the compensation you were awarded was not sufficient to cover your losses please complete the form on the right. You will be added to the claim and our mailing list with regular updates.

Rick Kordowski

Naming & shaming a crooked lawyer is one of the best ways to warn consumers of the perils of using lawyers who fail to disclose their history to clients. IN response to last year’s court sponsored takedowns of websites such as Solicitors from Hell & others across the UK & Ireland where clients of “crooked lawyers” had used the online ratings sites to publish and even debate their usually bad experiences with their solicitors, it is very clear that in 2012, consumers who are ripped off by their legal representatives or those who know of a story involving a crooked lawyer ripping off members of the public should follow the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) naming & shaming policy, by using this year to OUT those lawyers who fail their clients, whether by negligence, corruption or multiple mistakes in an effort to ensure all consumers are protected from the rogue elements of the legal profession, whether in Scotland, England Wales, or Ireland.

Naming & shaming is terribly easy to do. Make the choice to protect yourself & others, by doing it.

If you have experience of a crooked lawyer, or if you know of anyone who has experience of a crooked lawyer, wherever you are, you can help protect yourself, or help others by ensuring the details of the story are fully published in the media while also making a complaint to bodies such as the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) and the Law Society of Scotland.

Law complaints regulators like the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Law Society of Scotland turn out to be client-haters rather than consumer protectors. Consumers, clients & readers may get a lot further in their complaints and get a lot more satisfaction from a media investigation of their crooked lawyers long before the Law Society or blundering SLCC get round to putting pen to paper (usually more so in an effort to protect the lawyer before protecting the client). Put simply, its more difficult for so-called regulators like the Law Society of Scotland or SLCC to let a crooked lawyer off the hook if they have already been in the newspapers a few times. Its also more difficult to let a crooked lawyer off the hook if, as usually turns out to be the case, the media reveal they have been ripping off many of their clients, not just you, or someone you know.

If you have a story about a crooked lawyer, contact Diary of Injustice via scottishlawreporters@gmail.com with full details of what happened, how you were treated and what you have done about it so far.

Publishing your experiences at the hands of crooks in the legal world will protect you, and protect others, and will also help shame some of those 70K a year plus expenses politicians in the Scottish Parliament who continue to allow lawyers to regulate themselves and cover up for their colleagues, either at the point of complaint or in the courts. Its time you, the public are heard. Its time consumers and clients who fund the legal profession come first and make sure YOU, the fee paying client have the final say in what happens to YOUR crooked lawyer.

As the Sunday Mail reveals, clients & consumers are usually not aware their own crooked lawyer is ripping off a host of others, and getting away with it, until the media comes along and reports it to the wider world :

REVEALED: TOP LAWYER AT THE CENTRE OF 12 NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS

EXCLUSIVE Brief who’s making a career out of failure

By Russell Findlay April 23 2006 Sunday Mail

THIS is the high-flying solicitor at the centre of a remarkable 12 negligence claims.

John O’Donnell, 54, makes a comfortable living from conducting complicated property transactions.

But we can reveal insurers Royal & Sun Alliance have already been forced to pay out £350,000 on seven negligence claims against him. And at least five more worth £200,000 are still being contested. His firm, John G O’Donnell & Co, is based in Cathcart, Glasgow. The Law Society for Scotland, who govern the conduct of lawyers, keep his record of complaints a secret.

O’Donnell has also been accused of misconduct but the Law Society, â„¢ has not brought any cases to the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal. The claims centre on complicated transactions involving property and mortgages. 9 One case settled with an £81,000 payout involved Glasgow boxing promoter Alex Morrison, 67, for whom O’Donnell acted in the 2002 sale of his Sydney Street gym to Scottish Enterprise for £130,000. The sale money should have gone to Morrison’s offshore firm, Decafarm Ltd, but was instead issued to O’Donnell’s.

Decafarm complained to Strathclyde Police fraud squad but the procurator fiscal decided not to prosecute. 9 In other cases, his clients took out two mortgages on property and sold the property, paying off one mortgage. The others lender then had to pursue the solicitor for negligence to get their money back – and his insurance paid out.

Last night, ex-SNP leader and legal reform campaigner John Swinney said: “This appears a clear example of why a robust and independent complaints handling system is required. I hope forthcoming legislation to be considered by Parliament will address these issues.”

Peter Cherbi, of Injustice Scotland, said: “If you buy a tin of beans, you can see the ingredients on the label. If you’re paying a solicitor, you should be aware of what he or she has been up to. I’m also asking Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson to revoke the exemption of the Law Society of Scotland from the Freedom of Information Act.”

Last month, it emerged that complaints against lawyers had risen 30 per cent in a year to almost 5000. But a Law Society of Scotland spokesman said: “The consumer protections for clients of Scottish solicitors are second to none.”

Last night, a legal firm issued a statement on his behalf. It read: During 2000-2002, John O’Donnell received treatment for a mental illness. He was diagnosed with clinical depression. During those dark days, Mr O’Donnell accepts his own high standards slipped. Indeed, when making a determination, the Law Society of Scotland makes reference to his illness, citing this as ‘extenuating circumstances’. “In 2003, Mr O’Donnell started a new legal practice and has many loyal and satisfied clients.”

Two years ago, the Sunday Mail revealed that O’Donnell’s office was searched by police as part of a money-laundering probe into McGovern crime family lieutenant, Russell Stirton, 46.

Remember Remember – Where there’s a will there’s a crook. Suspension from legal practice is, however, no deterrence for crooks to come back and rip off people and their wills, as a recent Sunday Mail article exposed the case of the former jailed lawyer Valerie Macadam, now Valerie Penny returned from legal oblivion & started her own will writing business without telling her new clients she was jailed for embezzlement. Quoting from the Sunday Mail article :  “A CROOKED lawyer jailed for stealing money from dead clients is back in business, we can reveal. Valerie Penny, 54, runs a slick website to lure customers into handing over £80 for wills. She is selling the same legal services she used to steal £130,000 from clients and their estates – a catalogue of dishonesty that landed her in prison. The struck-off solicitor, who was called Macadam before her marriage, boasts of her “successful career”. But she makes no mention of her jail time for robbing clients’ cash or her shocking record of professional misconduct.”

Misplaced trust with complaints : Philip Yelland, the Law Society of Scotland’s Director of Regulation for over 20 years yet Scotland has more crooked lawyers than ever. Philip Yelland, the Law Society of Scotland’s director of standards, previously director of regulation and before that head of the Law Society’s horrifically named “Client Relations Office” has been in charge of regulating crooked lawyers in Scotland for over TWENTY YEARS yet from Penman to the present and beyond, most crooked Scottish lawyers have either received a slap on the wrist or no punishment at all while the client ends up financially ruined and excluded from the courts to make sure justice can never be done. Would you trust anyone like this with your complaint ? Make sure you use the media first before trusting the Law Society or SLCC with your lawyer problems.