The sudden climb-down by the Scottish Government, who are now also expected to cave into more demands from the legal profession intent on watering down the Legal Services Bill proposals to retain their long held monopoly over the public’s access to justice in Scotland, come after an intense two weeks of campaigning by solicitors, law firms, and even the Law Society of Scotland, who, while officially supporting the Legal Services Bill, were privately threatening to kill off the bill’s chances of securing a successful passage in the Scottish Parliament, after it became known several MSPs had been contacted by Law Society officials & individual solicitors keen to see the bill would not accumulate enough support for its passage into law.

Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Government’s Minister for Communities & Safety was wheeled out at a Law Society ‘road show’ to announce to angry solicitors their beloved ‘Council of the Law Society of Scotland’ would remain a lawyer-only club, making the following announcement :“The power of Scottish Ministers to make regulations specifying the proportion of lay members and the criteria for selection was intended as a fall-back, only to be used in the unlikely event that there would be a need to resolve any disagreements regarding the proportion of lay members.”

Mr Ewing continued : “Following representations from the Law Society of Scotland, in which it re-affirmed its commitment to lay appointments, I no longer consider it necessary for Scottish Ministers to have this fall-back power. Therefore, I intend to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill to delete section 92(4), (5) and (6) of the Bill.”

Ian Smart, still pulling the strings against wider transparency at the Law Society. Ian Smart, President of the Law Society of Scotland welcomed the Scottish Government’s capitulation to lawyers vested interests, saying : “This is an important concession and very good news for the profession. The government promised to listen to the Society and the profession’s representations and they have done so. We, along with others, have pressed hard for changes to key aspects of the Bill and I am very pleased that the first of these have been taken on board and that amendments will be made.”

Mr Smart continued along the theme of putting a gun to the head of the Legal Services Bill & wider consumer rights of access to justice : “We’ve had a constructive working relationship with the government which we want to continue, and we will be seeking further amendments. Independence of the legal profession is essential and we have stressed throughout the ABS debate that, along with the profession’s core values and principles, it cannot be compromised. We have also maintained that consumers must be protected and that access to justice is a priority – legal services is not and cannot be seen as a purely commercial activity.”

Mr Smart seems to think the way in which Scottish solicitors fleece the public with expensive, poor quality legal services should not be treated as a purely commercial activity, rather he casts up these non-existent ‘core values & principles’, of what one may ask ? What values do solicitors have these days when consumers have a better chance of winning the Euromillions lottery than finding an honest law firm in Scotland who wont rip them off ?

Law Society wins the day again after the usual threats of a split & intimidation of Scottish Government. Section 92 of the Legal Services Bill had required the Law Society to appoint a number of non-solicitor members to its Council to represent the public interest – a joke, surely as the Law Society have never represented the public interest. The now withdrawn proposals would also have allowed Scottish Government Ministers after ‘consultation with the legal profession, to set limits or requirements on how many non-solicitors would sit on the Law Society’s Council.

The proposals drew bitter arguments from within the legal profession, which boiled over onto television with arguments between the Law Society’s current president, Ian Smart & Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre, who along with several other law firms aligned to the Glasgow Bar Association threatened to split from the Law Society over the issue of control of the Law Society’s Council and perceived Ministerial interference, which it was claimed, would lead to a fundamental loss of the legal profession’s independence.

I reported earlier on the arguments within the profession which led to today’s climb-down by the Scottish Government, here : Lawyers squabble over control of legal services monopoly & regulation as Scots consumers forced to wait for wider access to justice, accompanied by a video clip, worth watching again :

Law Society’s Ian Smart & Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly argue the toss on Legal Services reform :

Law Society wins the day again after the usual threats of a split & intimidation of Scottish Govt. While it may look to some the bitter arguments between lawyers & the Law Society threatened to disturb the ‘harmony’ of the legal profession, seasoned observers are well used to these kind of tactics, where part of the profession will break off in an outburst against Government proposed reforms, while the Law Society feigns support to a certain degree for the disputed Ministerial plans. A few days or weeks later, the plans are then quietly (or as in this case, spectacularly) dropped by Scottish Ministers, allowing the legal profession to regain its harmonious outlook of ripping off consumers and getting away with it.

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission : ‘A Government Agency’. Earlier this week, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was even dragged into the fight against the Legal Services Bill by lawyers desperate to retain their monopoly over regulation of complaints and the public’s access to justice, when the Law Society’s Chief Executive Lorna Jack launched attacks at the hapless law complaints quango, branding it a “Government Agency”.

Attempt to deflect attention from Law Society’s woes ? Lorna Jack attacked Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Lorna Jack said earlier this week in comments issued to magazines & newspapers : “We also need to be aware of the law of unintended consequences. The easiest way to split the functions would be pass regulation to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. That would remove a huge amount of control from the profession and hand it to a government agency – and that could be a serious own-goal.”

The usual turn of events then ensued after Ms Jack’s comments appeared in the media, with other ‘personalities’ emerging from the legal profession’s blood stained woodwork to issue veiled threats if the Scottish Government handed over all the Law Society of Scotland’s present regulatory functions to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, there would be more trouble in store for the Legal Services Bill and anyone supporting it …

Replying to Ms Jack’s outbursts against the SLCC and pleas for solicitors unity, Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre said the Law Society should combine with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission in a new, slimmed down regulator, with representation left to existing & new professional associations. Personally, I doubt that could work, as Mr Dailly is simply proposing a Law Society take-over of the SLCC, which already appears to have happened without anyone particularly noticing ….

Mr Dailly in his online blog at “The Firm” is also reported to have called for Ian Smart to step down as Law Society President, for, as Mr Dailly alleges, failing to promote the interests of solicitors – above everyone else by the sounds of it …

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is no fan of independently regulating fellow solicitors. Given the equally hapless Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has made it be known he has no intention of creating an independent regulator of legal services in Scotland – presumably because Mr MacAskill fears independent regulation as much as any of his more crooked colleagues in the profession itself, we can expect the Scottish Government to settle for ‘the quiet life’ and back down yet again, giving the Law Society total control over regulation once again, as if it already doesn’t control the SLCC as things currently stand …

Today, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refused to comment on Ms Jack’s ‘Government Agency’ jibe, preferring to point out in a statement “The SLCC does not intend to comment on the article that appeared in the Scotsman. The status of the SLCC is defined in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, Schedule 1 Sections 1 (1) and (2) and there is a link to the Act on the SLCC website.” – sounds as if they have a lot of confidence in themselves …

Given the developments of this past week .. it may well be that Scots are not going to receive much of a fairer deal for access to justice or access to legal services, certainly if the legal profession & the Law Society of Scotland have their wicked way once again …

The principles underpinning Consumer Focus Scotland’s approach to civil justice are that the system needs to be user-friendly, affordable and accessible to ensure that when required users are able to enforce their rights and settle their disputes.

The report, which can be downloaded here : . Making Civil Justice Work for Consumers: The consumer perspective on making the civil justice along with a summary of the report here : Making Civil Justice Work for Consumers : A Summary, proposes a four-step approach to removing barriers to access to justice:

* A public legal education strategy
* Joined up and appropriate advice services
* An emphasis on informal means of resolving disputes
* More user-friendly formal dispute resolution processes

Head of Policy and Solicitor at Consumer Focus Scotland, Sarah O’Neill, said that the report’s approach is aimed at establishing a civil justice system that better meets the needs of consumers:

Sarah O’Neill : “The Gill Review has already outlined a vision for making Scotland’s civil courts fit for the twenty-first century. This report, informed by years of research and policy development, sets out a four-step approach to reforming the wider civil justice system to ensure that it better meets consumers’ needs and delivers access to justice.”

“Most of us will use the civil justice system at some point in our lives. For many their interaction with it will be difficult and unwelcome because of the stressful issues they are dealing with. Whether facing a divorce or a dispute over access or residence of children, debt recovery, a consumer dispute or a housing problem, the public’s experience of the civil justice system has too often been that it doesn’t properly support them to resolve their dispute in the most appropriate way, at the appropriate time.”

“The present system focuses too much on the needs of the professional users of the system, such as solicitors, advocates and judges, rather than those of the ultimate users, those who become involved in civil disputes. We believe that implementing the steps set out in this report would give Scotland the user-friendly, affordable and accessible civil justice system that consumers desperately need in the twenty-first century.”

Step One of Consumer Focus Scotland’s report, highlighting the need for a Public Legal Education Strategy for Scotland would seek to ‘educate’ consumers on their legal rights & entitlements in Civil law, allowing Scots to make informed choices about which legal services best meet their needs, enabling consumers to:

a) recognise they have a problem
b) recognise the problem has a potential legal remedy
c) identify a course of action to pursue that remedy, be it taking action themselves, or seeking help from an appropriate source

The report states : “Recent research commissioned by Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board pointed to an urgent need for better information for the public and wider access to support services in all courts. A consistent message emerging from this research was that few people knew what to expect and many were deeply concerned about understanding the language and procedures of the courts. Crucially, what no research can do, however, is indicate how many people are put off pursuing their case as a result of their preconceptions about what’s involved. We therefore believe a public legal education strategy is critical to improving access to justice for consumers in Scotland.”

Step Two of the report highlights the issue of “’Joined Up and Appropriate Advice Services’ where Consumer Focus believe “An important feature of a just and inclusive society is the ability of all of its members to enforce their rights, meet their responsibilities and resolve their disputes. Fundamental to this is the need for consumers to have access to high quality legal advice, at an affordable cost. Such advice should be provided on a client-led basis, and consumers should have access to the most appropriate services to deal with their problem, be that from a private, public or voluntary sector provider. We believe that this ‘complex mixed model’ of advice provision best serves consumers by providing a range of services to suit their particular personal and legal circumstances.”

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were praised in the report as a significant step forward. A surprise in the report is praise for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where the report comments (almost unbelievably) : “There have been a number of significant improvements in this area in recent years. The establishment of an independent Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has been a significant step forward, giving consumers greater confidence in the independence and impartiality of the complaints system.”

Compare that ill-deserved, bizarre, compliment, with the reality : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission reveals it passed most complaints about lawyers back to Law Society, has failed to act on Master Policy report

Consumers are more likely to lose out at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, after revelations board members & senior staff ‘hate’ complaining clients. Actually not one individual who has contacted myself or the general media about the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would back that statement up, and aside from any fiddled, seasonally adjusted, massaged or spun-out-statistics provided by the SLCC on their work to-date, the factual experiences of those dealing with the beleaguered quango support the notion the SLCC is more of a front for the Law Society than an organisation consumers should trust to regulate complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’.

Both consumers and solicitors in general believe the SLCC has been a giant step backwards, as all the evidence to-date seems to indicate beyond any reasonable doubt. The SLCC is mired in scandal, indecision and extrudes an anti-client venom bordering on the hatred of consumers, which would rival the world’s most deadly, if heavily intoxicated snake.

Step Three of the report, referring to an “Emphasis on Informal Means of Resolving Disputes”, puts forward ideas for alternative venues of dispute resolution outside that of the court, where consumers invariably end up in a tangled, complicated web of legal & court processes most view as being in place to defeat the individual’s access to justice.

The report in this regard states : “While most people agree that the courts are an important way for people to enforce their rights, on the whole, those involved in disputes are more interested in finding a resolution to their problem or obtaining compensation for harm or loss than necessarily enforcing their legal rights. We also know that people would generally prefer to avoid becoming involved in legal and court processes. Those who actually end up in a court or tribunal tend to express high levels of dissatisfaction with the process. The Paths to Justice Scotland research found that fewer than half of those whose dispute was resolved by a court or tribunal thought the decision was fair, as opposed to 80% of those who reached an agreement”

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review proposals welcomed by Consumer Focus Scotland. Finally, in the report’s ‘Step Four: More User-Friendly Formal Dispute Resolution Processes’, Consumer Focus Scotland states its welcome for Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review criticisms & proposals : “We have welcomed the recognition by the review that the current court system, in providing a system that is ‘slow, inefficient and expensive’ is failing to deliver justice. While there have been a number of developments aimed at improving the court system, many of which have had benefits for consumers, the civil courts review’s analysis was that this piecemeal reform has left a system which is not fit for purpose.”

Scots have already had to wait 27 years for Class Actions. Support for Class Action litigation gets a much needed mention in the report, which states : “Consumer Focus Scotland believes the initial focus for reforms must be to make those changes which will have the greatest impact for consumers. We hope that the recommendations within the civil courts review for such a procedure to be introduced will be taken forward in early course. This recommendation, together with other proposals for a proposed Consumer Advocate and for multi-party actions contained within the UK Government’s Financial Services Bill, has the potential to bring about real benefits for consumers. It will make a remedy a practical possibility for consumers, particularly where large numbers of people have each lost small amounts which it would not be economic to litigate about individually.”

McKenzie Friends, already kept out of Scotland for 40 years due to lawyers campaign against assistance for unrepresented party litigants in court. The use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s court system gets a mention : “There is also an urgent need to make the court system simpler and more accessible for individual court users. We believe there should be a comprehensive overhaul of all current court processes, to make them easier to use and simpler to understand. This not only includes simplifying the content and tone of court forms but also allowing the use of ‘McKenzie Friends’ to offer unrepresented litigants moral support and other assistance. These would be important steps to encourage more consumers to make use of the processes that exist to help them.”

Rights of Audience in Scotland have been held back for over 17 years due to legal profession’s campaign against consumers increased access to justice. The report also goes onto recommend reviews to rights of audience for non-lawyers in Scottish Courts, stating : “We also think there is merit in reviewing rights of audience for lay representatives with a view to making the rules as uniform and cohesive as possible. We believe this would add clarity for consumers, the courts and the advice sector and may encourage greater use of lay representatives where a consumer cannot afford, or otherwise access, a solicitor.”

Law Society & Faculty of Advocates have always resisted reforms to increase consumers access to justice. All in all, not a bad report, but is this just another report after another report and another report ? Will the reforms being endlessly talked about actually happen this time ? For one thing, you can be sure the legal establishment and the legal profession, will fight many of these reforms all the way, tooth & nail, because many of these reforms amount to a loss of income to solicitors & law firms. As we all know, the legal profession do not take kindly to losing out on ripping off consumers & clients as they have been used to doing in Scotland for .. well .. decades … and as just about every ‘reform’ for giving consumers a better deal against Scotland’s notoriously poor legal services market have been effectively butchered by whichever administration was in power at the time … well .. don’t expect improvements anytime soon.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill : THE greatest obstacle to reforming Scotland’s legal profession, regulation & consumer access to justice, even believes he owes his Government’s election success to the legal profession. You can also be sure the Scottish Government will drag its heals on these ‘consumer friendly’ reforms for as long as possible, due to there being far too many ‘lawyer lovers’ in the current administration, who even believe their elected office is due only to the work of the legal profession who .. rather than apparently how we, the electorate voted the last time around …

Which? research on legal services announced today. The results of the survey on legal services show that more than eight in ten (83%) people in Scotland agree that legal services should be easier to understand, and a similar number (79%) agree that they should be less formal and more user-friendly. More than eight in ten (83%) Scottish people think that a relatively informal method of dealing with small claims disputes about poor quality goods and services, with no wigs and gowns, and no need to hire a lawyer would be a suitable method.

Should they need to settle a legal dispute about poor quality goods or services themselves, around eight in ten (79%) Scottish people would like to have the option of accessing less formal ‘problem solving’ courts where people could get redress without having to use a lawyer.

Speaking on the results of the research, Which? principal public affairs officer, Julia Clarke, said: “The idea of having to go through a formal court process may put some people off pursuing legal disputes over faulty goods or services. That’s why it’s important that other, less formal, ways of settling disputes are made available to Scottish consumers.”

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review was highly critical of ‘Victorian’ Scots justice system. You can read more about Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review, which detailed significant proposals to reform Scotland’s Civil Justice system in one of my earlier reports, here : Scots Law ’shake up’ as Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review supports McKenzie Friends, Class Actions & wider access to justice for all. I would remind readers that while the Scottish Government and Holyrood are dragging their feet over Lord Gill’s highly critical review of Scotland’s civil justice system, some good has already come of it with the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts, a much needed reform to access to justice which Lord Gill himself supports.

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review itself can be viewed & downloaded at the following links

Civil Courts Review

The Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review was launched today Wednesday, 30 September 2009 and is available to download below :

• Volume 1 Chapter 1 – 9 (Covers McKenzie Friends, procedures, advice etc, 2.99Mb)
• Volume 2 Chapter 10 – 15 (Covers mainly the issue of Class (multi party) actions etc, 2.16Mb)
• Synopsis (215Kb)

My Previous coverage of the Legal Services Bill and its sometimes rocky progress through the Scottish Parliament can be viewed here : Legal Services Bill – The story so far

You can watch video coverage of evidence given to the Justice Committee by the Consumer lobby & OFT, HERE and view the legal profession’s point of view on Scotland’s legal services market, HERE.

Further video coverage of the Parliamentary debates on widening access to justice in Scotland can be found at InjusticeTV & LawyerTV

Holyrood’s Justice Committee were quick to listen to the legal profession, but excluded individual court users experiences on access to legal services. Sadly, the Justice Committee excluded members of the public from giving their own impressions & experiences of Scotland’s legal services market, which is a pity because if they had allowed ordinary members of the public in to testify, they would have gained first hand knowledge of how difficult & obstructive the Scottish justice system is to consumers & court users.

One could easily conclude however, the MSPs on the Justice Committee simply did not wish to hear such damning evidence from ordinary people who actually have experience of being denied access to justice by the Scots legal services market which the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill is in part at least, seeking to reform …

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations agreed with queries put to him over the lack of any input from members of the public in the Justice Committee’s evidence sessions.

He said : “Considering the importance of the Scottish Government’s proposals to reform legal services, I am somewhat surprised the Justice Committee chose not to invite one single solicitor’s client or court user to establish for themselves the opinions of consumers on the ground. Leaving out the very people the legislation is supposed to benefit raises serious questions on what the Justice Committee actually wanted to hear.”

I would urge all readers & consumers to support the passage of the Legal Services Bill, by contacting your particular MSP at the Scottish Parliament, asking them to support your choice of wider access to justice for yourself and all Scots.

Make a difference and be part of the debate. Make your opinion count, ensuring Scots consumer interests take precedence over those in the legal profession who have for far too long manipulated & controlled individual Scots access to justice for the profitable ends solely of the legal profession. Its your justice system, you pay for it, make it serve you !

In a report published today, the Justice Committee agrees to the general principles of the Bill, which aims to widen public access to justice in Scotland and allow new entrants into the lucrative legal services market such as banks, supermarkets & others who may well provide legal services to the public at a much reduced cost than currently offered by law firms & solicitors represented & regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.

Which? campaign led to access to justice reforms now before Holyrood. Speaking this afternoon, Julia Clarke, for the consumer organisation Which?, who started the process which has led to the proposals contained in the Legal Services Bill said : ‘Which? has always said we would prefer to see an independent regulator, which would have answered the concerns being expressed by the Committee. However we do believe that the Legal Services Bill will bring benefits for the public using legal services, bringing with it more competition, more choice and better value.”

Justice Committee Convener Bill Aitken MSP. Holyrood’s Justice Committee Convener Bill Aitken MSP, speaking on the Committee’s report out today said: “This Bill will enable, but not oblige, the Scottish legal profession to enter into new forms of business that could create more competition and potentially offer consumers more choice in legal services. The committee’s evidence from the consumer lobby was in the main supportive of this Bill. The evidence from the profession itself was less supportive and in some cases fundamentally opposed to the Bill’s direction of travel.

Mr Aitken continued : “The committee understands the principles behind the consumer lobby’s arguments but received little in the way of hard evidence. Without this hard evidence, it could be argued that increased competition could result in detriment to the consumer as a consequence of the loss of local and high street legal firms if banks or supermarkets enter the legal services market.”

Little in the way of hard evidence …. someone obviously hasn’t been paying attention to how the legal profession has been ruining clients and restricting Scots choice of legal representatives or access to justice for decades … which has already resulted in attempts through legislation such as the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to deal with some of that hard evidence some are now intent on ignoring.

Today’s committee report also highlights concerns about:

• The extent of powers given to Scottish Ministers as a consequence of not establishing a new regulatory body similar to the Legal Services Board for England and Wales.

• The potential lack of independence for Scotland’s legal profession when it is regulated by Scottish Ministers. The committee recommends giving the Lord President a greater role in the approval of regulators in order to address this concern.

Reservations were also expressed by the Justice Committee on whether the “fitness for involvement” test contained in Section 49 of the Legal Services Bill is robust enough to regulate any outside investors, such as banks or supermarkets, as desirable institutions (or individuals) having financial stakes in law firms & legal services providers.

Factors for determining the ‘fitness for involvement’ include the investor’s financial position and business record, probity and character (including any associations) – factors which, if enforced today over many law firms I have reported on in terms of client complaints & poor service, would probably closed own several of Scotland’s ‘leading law firms’, if the true characters of some of these ‘leading lights of the legal profession’ ever became public.

On the question of opening up access to advocates, the Committee agreed with the Scottish Government that “in a jurisdiction the size of Scotland and given the relatively small number of advocates, there is no need to impose alternative business structures on the Faculty of Advocates current business model” .. an issue at odds with the OFT’s findings and consumer experiences.

The Committee also said “it is not aware of there being any significant degree of dissatisfaction with how the regulatory arrangements for advocates presently operate but nevertheless would invite the Faculty to consider what steps it might take to modernise its regulatory regime” – complaints against advocates, who would contemplate such a thing !

Law Society of Scotland wants to be ‘approved regulator’ of legal services despite history of anti-consumer bias. On the thorny question of regulation of an expanded legal services market, where the Law Society of Scotland has already stated it will seek to be the approved regulator to regulate all who provide legal services in Scotland, the Justice Committee’s report said : “Given that Scotland is a small jurisdiction, the Committee is not persuaded that there will be any great benefit in having more than one or two Approved Regulators. The Committee is particularly concerned about the prospect of bodies, external to Scotland, becoming Approved Regulators and seeks assurances from the Scottish Government in this respect.”

The Committee’s report went onto state : “The Committee observes that any body seeking to combine regulation and representation is likely to face some difficulties as a result of the inherent tension between the two roles. The Committee recognises that there are indeed tensions with and conflicting viewpoints about the Law Society’s dual role but is of the view that these are for the Law Society and its members to consider and resolve.” – this point has already led to debate & arguments between factions of the legal profession, which I reported earlier in the week, here : Lawyers squabble over control of legal services monopoly & regulation as Scots consumers forced to wait for wider access to justice

On a more hopeful note, the Committee felt that some parts of the Bill, namely Section 36 would unduly restrict the way in which voluntary or not-for-profit organisations can provide legal services. The Committee asked the Scottish Government to consider this point further after concerns were raised on this issue by Citizens Advice Scotland.

Background : The Legal Services Bill has come about in Scotland after the consumer organisation Which? issued a “super complaint” to the Office of Fair Trading under section 11 of the Enterprise Act 2002, stating that the consumer interest was being harmed the restrictions on advocates’ business structures, solicitors and advocates providing services jointly, third party entry into the market, and direct consumer access to advocates.

The OFT’s response to the Which? super complaint can be viewed here : OFT response to super-complaint (pdf) along with their comments from July 2007, stating : “Which? argued that the current restrictions against such practices prevent legal services providers in Scotland from adapting their business to best fit the needs of Scottish consumers. The OFT concluded that the restrictions are unnecessary and believes that there would be benefits to consumers if they were lifted – such as efficiency gains and higher levels of innovation in the provision of legal services.”

The Scottish Consumer Council, now renamed Consumer Focus Scotland, issued its response to the OFT’s consideration of the Which? super complaint, broadly supporting the moves to open up Scotland’s legal services market. The SCC’s reply to the OFT can be viewed HERE (pdf)

Justice Secretary MacAskill – no friend of independent regulation argument, It should be noted England & Wales already have the Legal Services Act 2007 in place, leaving Scotland trailing behind once again, simply because the legal profession north of the border has far too much influence over the pace of access to justice reforms. Missing from Scotland’s version is of course, the issue of independent regulation, where the current Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, seems to believe lawyers can still be trusted to regulate themselves – an obvious mistake, as lawyers have never been trustworthy when it comes to investigating complaints against their colleagues.

Over the years, many previous Scottish administrations including the present Scottish Government have dithered & delayed on giving Scots wider access to justice, while the legal profession put the brake on calls for reforms, even preventing enacted legislation from coming into effect, such as in the case of Sections 25-29 of the Law Reform (Misc Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which allowed wider rights of audience in Scotland’s courts, but was held back by the legal profession’s seventeen year campaign to keep ‘outsiders’ out of courtrooms, while solicitors raked in exorbitant profits from clients who had no alternatives to turn to for legal representation.

The Legal Services (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 30 September 2009 and referred to the Justice Committee, who received written and oral evidence from a range of sources all of which can be found on the Justice Committee web page.

You can read my own coverage of the Legal Services Bill here : Legal Services Bill for Scotland – The story so far

A clip of the interview, from BBC Scotland’s The Politics Show, passed onto me makes for interesting viewing for all those concerned about how the legal profession wish to keep their business market stitched up as the long held monopoly which lawyers have been used to maintaining over the public’s access to justice.

Both Mr Smart & Mr Dailly appeared not so interested in the lot of the client, (who is after all paying for them to offer legal services as a business, rather than some noble cause which serves the community) more the representatives of the legal profession, minus anyone from the consumer lobby, appeared to focus on the internal squabble for control of the Law Society itself, and its current dual roles of representing solicitors as well as regulating them, and of course its alleged claims to represent the clients best interests, claims which we all know to be .. well … a deceit.

Law Society President Ian Smart & Govan Law Centre’s Mike Dailly on Legal Services Reform.

From the debate I note Mr Dailly brings up the well known issue of supermarkets & banks price fixing their services & products. Well of course we all know the legal profession does exactly the same, and gets away with it time & again as there is no recourse to question solicitors bills (false, padded, or genuine) other than submitting the account to an almost bogus audit to the auditor of the court, who also usually happens to be a solicitor.

I think we need less of those one sheet A4 letters with four lines of text on it, charged at £160+VAT each which solicitors are so famous for charging clients for (usually around 10 or more at a time over at least a year and nothing achieved in the client’s case) and more competition where consumers will be able to shop around for legal services rather than be ripped off by the current crop of … well .. for the want of a better term, qualified robbers ?

Fortunately for Scots, there are more sensible forces in the debate on legal services reform such as Which?, who have done a lot of work to bring the Legal Services Bill to the Scottish Parliament, after the whole process was kicked off by the Which? “super-complaint” to the Office of Fair Trading, which you can read about in a previous report, here :Consumers call for OFT Inquiry to investigate restriction of legal services in Scotland

Which? recently did a survey of consumers, supporting the notion that most Scots wish to see a more open legal services market, and be given freedom of choice on who represents their legal interests, rather than being forced to use a solicitor who can basically charge what they want (that old price fixing model solicitors have been used to all these years).

Which? research concluded most Scots want more open legal services market & independent regulation (click on images to view larger versions)

For consumers to be able to trust & depend on legal services, independent regulation is a must, considering the disgraceful history of the Law Society of Scotland and now the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on the subject of regulating complaints against solicitors.

Sadly the Scottish Governments Legal Services Bill currently lacks any significant proposals for independent regulation of legal services in Scotland, as the Law Society seems to have easily arm twisted the likes of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill into backing away from that idea for now … but the campaign goes on to bring fully independent regulation to Scotland’s currently ill served legal services market.

The Legal Services Bill, which you can read more about in my previous reports HERE, if passed by the Scottish Parliament, will effectively allow much wider competition in Scotland’s currently ‘solicitor only’ dominated legal services market, freeing consumers from being forced to use a member solicitor or law firm of the Law Society of Scotland to gain access to justice or legal services.

In a reformed legal services market, banks, supermarkets and others will be able to provide Scots consumers with legal services at costs much less than those currently charged by law firms controlled by the Law Society of Scotland, who are now more widely known for their failures to represent clients best interests while charging huge fees for little work, than achieving actual successes for clients who often end up worse off than before they walked in the lawyers front door.

Those leading the call to split from the Law Society are the Glasgow Bar Association, the Govan Law Centre, along with two Glasgow law firms, MacRoberts & Thomsons , all warning that introducing Legal Services Reform to Scotland (the same reforms introduced in England & Wales during 2007 with much less fuss) will undermine centuries of independent legal representation in Scotland. While client & consumer protection appear very low down on the list of priorities in this argument which is essentially between law firms & the Law Society vying for control over the consumers right to choose their legal representative, the Glasgow Bar Association have now called for a referendum for all solicitors to decide whether the Law Society of Scotland should represent their interests.

Now that certain sections of Scotland’s antiquated, monopolistic legal services market realise their income & influence via the current business model is under threat, a drive is underway by solicitors to influence members of the Scottish Parliament to vote against the Legal Services Bill, citing among the arguments, that Government Ministers will be able to interfere in the selection of members of the Council of the Law Society, where up to 20% of the 60 will be made up of members of the public Government stooges, who could be picked according to criteria set by ministers – just like we saw at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, where the Law Society managed to stuff the SLCC with its own people as I reported earlier here : Call for MacAskill appointments ’sleaze investigation’ as revelations show Legal Complaints Commission member was subject of Police inquiry

The problem with that argument about Ministerial interference however, is as you can see that despite Ministers apparently having the power to make independent selections, they always appear to select more stooges from the profession itself, so in reality nothing much will change, other than perhaps certain sections of the legal profession not being able to stuff the Council of the Law Society as they have always been used to doing …

Clearly solicitors don’t want anyone other than solicitors on the Law Society’s ‘Council’, although that would be fine with me if the Law Society were to be stripped of its regulatory & disciplinary role, and left to be nothing more than a representative union for solicitors, rather than the all controlling, all powerful, all crooked regulator it has always been.

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations branded the current debate ‘a diversion’ and accused certain sections of the legal profession from trying to obstruct reforms which would lead to greater consumer choice and protection from Scotland’s notoriously poor legal services market.

He said : “Clearly certain sections of the legal profession seem intent on staging a coup for control of the Law Society in an attempt to thwart much needed reforms to Scotland’s legal services market. This is purely a selfish move designed to promote the interests of solicitors over consumer choice.”

He continued : “The only way to resolve the fears of solicitors in this debate would be to strip the Law Society of its regulation role and that of representing clients best interests, steps we would wholeheartedly welcome.”

Law Society President Ian Smart – independence is essential. The response from the Law Society of Scotland was to claim it had always promoted independence of the legal profession as being fundamental to its support of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. Mr Smart said : “In its response to the Bill and during parliamentary evidence sessions, the Society insisted that independence is essential and that the role of the Lord President should be strengthened to ensure that this remains the case. The Society will continue to lobby changes to section 92, which has been raised as a concern by both the Society and its members.

Mr Smart continued : “The Bill as it currently stands provides ministers with powers to make regulations which could specify the criteria they considered appropriate for appoint ability and the number of lay members on Council and can prescribe a minimum number or proportion if they believe such a prescription is necessary. Before these regulations are made, Scottish ministers would have to consult with Council, the Lord President, OFT and other consumer bodies. That would only be the case if the Society failed to implement section 92 properly. Only the Society can appoint any lay members to the Council, not Scottish ministers. It should be remembered that most other professional bodies have for many years appointed lay members because of the qualities, expertise and talent they bring, including the GMA (General Medical Council, GDA (General Dentists ‘ Council), ICAS (accountants), RICS (surveyors) and the BMA (British Medical Council), which although is a representative body also has large patient representative committees.”

“It may be difficult to accept any input by politicians into how the Society functions, despite it being a body set up by statute, but the 20% lay membership on Council, which will become part of the Society’s obligations, was decided by Council members and has been agreed as appropriate by ministers. This is despite continued pressure from the consumer lobby for somewhere between 50% to 75% of lay membership on the Society’s council. Lay members have also been on the Society’s regulatory committees for around 20 years and all now have 50% lay membership. Non-regulatory committees are predominantly made up of practicing solicitors.”

“None of this represents a handing over of independence of Scotland’s largest legal profession and taking an antagonistic stance does not help negotiate any long term benefits for the profession.”

If solicitors are going to have a say in who represents them, without giving any regard as to who will represent the very clients who fund their ill deserved lavish offices & law firms, perhaps clients and consumers should also be able to have a referendum on who they want to regulate legal services and handle complaints against the legal profession.

Which? revealed recently most want independent regulation of legal services. We already know from research which has already taken place on this issue, some of it dating back over a decade from the Scottish Consumer Council, to current research undertaken by UK consumer organisation Which?, consumers have always wanted a fully independent regulator of legal services in Scotland, rather than the half way, hapless, ‘just as crooked’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which now ranks among most clients as Law Society MkII when it comes to dealing with complaints against solicitors.

Only fully independent regulation of Scotland’s legal services market will resolve these and many other problems faced by consumers and solicitors alike but as we have seen from the dithering Justice Secretary, fully independent regulation of solicitors is apparently a step too far for Mr MacAskill who according to his own civil servants, is too busy purging the Justice Department than addressing issues affecting Scots access to justice …

For more on this story, read THIS REPORT in the Herald

While initially welcoming Lord Hamilton’s proposal, to bring forward an Act of Sederunt to amend the Rules of the Court and thus finally allow McKenzie Friends to be used in Scottish courts, Legal chiefs at Which? expressed serious concerns over Lord Hamilton’s now widely criticised plan to require a McKenzie Friend have “relevant experience”, which has for now gone undefined but raises fears from many it means a legal background. I reported on Lord Hamilton’s plans for McKenzie Friends in Scotland, last week here : Exclusive : McKenzie Friends for Scotland ‘are go’ as Lord President yields to Holyrood access to justice petition for Scots court users

Deborah Prince, Head of Legal Services for Which? said in a letter to the Scottish Parliament : “We do however wish to note several concerns about the proposed implementation of McKenzie Friends and would ask that the Petitions Committee consider these in their deliberations. Namely, we are concerned that Lord Hamilton proposes a McKenzie Friend should be required to have ‘relevant experience’ and not be related to the litigant. We see absolutely no reason why this information should be requested or relevant in granting permission for a McKenzie Friend. We do not believe, for instance, that a husband or wife should be prevented from acting in this capacity, where the litigant feels this would be helpful. Therefore the proposal that the MF should have no interest in the case is extremely unhelpful.”

Ms Prince continued : “We also wish to take issue with the Lord President’s phrase, ‘quietly advising the party litigant on (i) points of law and procedure’, as we feel this needs to be qualified, perhaps ‘quietly advising the party litigant on points of law and procedure if/where this is appropriate’.”

The Head of Legal Services for Which? went onto query why the Lord President appeared to be intentionally refraining from even using the phrase “McKenzie Friend” within his plans, an omission which many inside & outside the legal establishment see as bringing in an unnecessary complication to the debate.

Ms Prince commented : “We note that Lord Hamilton does not use the term ‘McKenzie Friend’, preferring to refer to ‘lay assistant’. We believe the term McKenzie Friend describes a specific function which is well understood in several countries, including England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and think it would be clearer and make more sense if the term was also adopted in Scotland.”

Clearly, Lord Hamilton, and also the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill are reluctant to use the phrase “McKenzie Friend” for some reason … could it be because the legal profession in the form of the Faculty of Advocates & Law Society of Scotland don’t actually want McKenzie Friends to operate in Scotland ?

Since the publication last week of Lord Hamilton’s plans for the introduction of McKenzie Friends, many experienced McKenzie Friends, consumer groups and even solicitors have expressed reservations over what appear to be restrictive conditions being placed on McKenzie Friends in Scottish courts, while McKenzie Friends in England & Wales, as well as other international jurisdictions operate without the overly harsh conditions Lord Hamilton is seeking to impose on the Scottish version of a McKenzie Friend.

One solicitor studying the Lord President’s proposals said he felt the conditions proposed by Lord Hamilton made the McKenzie Friend system “unworkable in Scotland”.

He said : “I think we all appreciate there have to be rules by which a McKenzie Friend operates, however I feel Lord Hamilton is trying to kill any chance of people developing experience as McKenzie Friends, while also severely limiting who could act in the McKenzie Friend role.”

He continued : “It almost appears from Lord Hamilton’s proposals as if he wants to curtail anyone other than someone with a legal background from acting as a McKenzie Friend. While I’m sure the court may welcome such an idea, it may well be the party litigant wishes their spouse, partner or a professional from a field relevant to their case to be their McKenzie Friend. I therefore fear Lord Hamilton’s intentions as per his letter to the Scottish Parliament appear to be an unjust restriction on who can appear as a McKenzie Friend, noting there are less restrictive practices in English courts.”

The thorny issue of remuneration for a McKenzie Friend which Lord Hamilton appears determined to prevent, also takes a battering as case law in England has already established McKenzie Friends can charge for their services, an issue taken up HERE

Forty years to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland indicative of law reform delays. I would remind readers, when it comes to legal reforms in Scotland, the legal establishment have a habit of putting the brakes on reforms to benefit the consumer, of which the McKenzie Friends issue is but one casualty of many inequalities between Scots Law & the rest of the UK, highlighted in an article I published last year showing delays of 19 years for reforms to small claims law in Scotland, a 17 year delay to rights of audience reforms, a 27 year delay to introducing class actions to Scots Law (still being discussed !), a 17 year delay to regulatory reform of complaints against solicitors with the introduction of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (now a failure), and the staggering 40 year delay in introducing McKenzie Friends to Scotland.

I think its fair to say that anyone could conclude from the incessant delays in reforming anything legal in Scotland, there is wilful obstruction on the part of the legal establishment to give Scots a fairer deal when it comes to access to justice, and to back that up, just read Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review, which depicts Scotland’s Civil justice system as being stuck in the dark ages. Lord Gill also supports the introduction of McKenzie Friends as I reported last year, here : Scots Law ’shake up’ as Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review supports McKenzie Friends, Class Actions & wider access to justice for all

Which? ended their letter to the Scottish Parliament proposing the wider publication of the McKenzie Friend facility by the Scottish Courts Service, a most welcome proposal, as many people still report courts across Scotland are out of step after Lord Woolman’s November 2009 ruling granting the first use of a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish Civil Court action.

Which” said : “We are also keen to see the right to a McKenzie Friend well publicised, for instance on the Scottish Courts website, and litigants advised in advance that they will now have this right. Staff should also be fully informed of this change, so that they can advise litigants accordingly.“

The Lord President & Justice Secretary have so far refused to make any further comment on the issue, however some MSPs have backed calls to question Lord Hamilton’s stated plans for McKenzie Friends, when the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee next hears Petition 1247

Lord Hamilton tells Holyrood : McKenzie Friends in Scotland by June. Lord Hamilton was visibly cautious against using the term “McKenzie Friend” in his letter to the Scottish Parliament, preferring instead to refer to the role of a McKenzie Friend as that of “lay assistance”. Lord Hamilton said : “Following my letter to you of 2 November, I asked two of my colleagues (being the judges responsible for administrative management in the Court of Session) to consider the matter of McKenzie Friends and to report back to me.In view of their report, I intend to bring forward for consideration at the next meeting of the Court of Session Rules Council (on 10 May) a draft of an Act of Sederunt amending the Rules of Court to give effect to the following policy:”

1. To acknowledge the possibility of lay assistance to the extent of (a) providing moral support; (b) helping to manage court documents and other papers; (c) taking notes of proceedings; and (d) quietly advising the party litigant on (i) points of law and procedure; (ii) issues which the party litigant might wish to raise with the court; (iii) questions which the party litigant might wish to ask witnesses. The lay assistant would be able to sit beside or behind the party litigant in court, as he or she wished, and accompany the party litigant at a hearing in chambers. The party litigant would be responsible for any expenses incurred by the lay assistant.”

Lord President to enact McKenzie Friends Page 2. 2. The lay assistant would not be able to act as the party litigant’s agent. He or she would have no authority to sign court documents. The lay assistant would have no right to address the court or examine witnesses.

3. There is a procedure whereby the party litigant informs the court of the intention that there should be such assistance and obtains the approval of the court of the person in question taking on the role. This is done by motion in the process which is intimated to the other party and which would normally be granted without a hearing if unopposed.

4. The party litigant would be entitled to communicate to the lay assistant information, including the court papers lodged in process, which otherwise he or she would not be entitled to see. Such papers may well be of a private and sensitive nature. There would therefore be a mechanism by which the lay assistant would acknowledge a duty of confidentiality and give an undertaking to use the information obtained from other persons in the process (whether parties or third party havers) solely for the purpose of the litigation. To enable the court to police the behaviour of a lay assistant and, in an extreme case, to exercise a sanction against him or her, the party litigant and the intended lay assistant should complete and sign a certificate to be lodged in process with the motion.

5. The certificate should (i) state the name and address of the intended lay assistant; (ii) give a brief summary of the lay assistant’s relevant experience and state whether he or she is related to the party litigant; (iii) confirm that the lay assistant has no interest in the case and is to receive no remuneration for his or her services in any form; and (iv) state the lay assistant’s understanding of the duty of confidentiality and his or her undertaking not to use any documents recovered in the process for any purpose other than the litigation. There would be an appropriate form containing the undertaking with boxes to be completed.

6. There would be a “presumption” in favour of allowing a party litigant to have a lay assistant. This would be achieved by providing that the court should grant the motion unless it is satisfied that it would be contrary to the efficient administration of justice to do so. The court would have the power to revoke the permission if the lay assistant were to behave irresponsibly or were otherwise to impede the efficient administration of justice.

Lord President to enact McKenzie Friends Page 3. That should assist to clarify the position in the Court of Session. Subject to the Council’s views, I would intend that the Court makes the Act of Sederunt in May and that it is brought into force in June.

It remains my view that going any further and allowing a lay representative rights of audience in the Court of Session is a matter for primary legislation. I do not therefore propose to take any further action in relation to this, save to say that this is of course a matter about which the Civil Courts Review has made a recommendation and that the Scottish Government will no doubt adopt a position on that recommendation in due course.

The burden of the matter in relation to the Sheriff Court lies with the Sheriff Court Rules Council. Different considerations may apply there, given that in certain circumstances it is already possible (by virtue of legislative intervention) for lay representatives to address the court. Nevertheless, I have made the Sheriff Court Rules Council aware of the action I am taking in relation to the Court of Session and I understand that the matter has been referred to one of their working groups for consideration in early course.”

Margo MacDonald MSP, ‘gem’ of the Scottish Parliament – It should be a right to have a McKenzie Friend. Crucially Lord Hamilton has now also conceded there should be a presumption in favour of allowing a party litigant to have a McKenzie Friend accompany them in court. This ‘right’ has existed in courts in England & Wales for a number of years and is included in the guidance on the use of McKenzie Friends in England & Wales. Prior to the Lord President’s letter to Parliament today, there had been considerable resistance by the Scottish Government and judiciary to bring the ‘presumption in favour of having a McKenzie Friend’ to Scotland’s courts, a right which has been considerably referred to by independent MSP Margo MacDonald, during hearings at the Scottish Parliament on the McKenzie Friends Petition 1247.

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review recommended McKenzie Friends should have a right to address the court. However, Lord Hamilton confirmed that for now, McKenzie Friends, or ‘lay assistants’, will have no right of audience, and will therefore not be able to address the court, examine witnesses or sign court documents, although recent recommendations by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill in the Civil Courts Review, did actually recommend McKenzie Friends should (when introduced to Scottish Courts) be given the right to address the court in certain circumstances.

Lord Hamilton went on in his letter to the Parliament, appearing to suggest in his letter to the Parliament that ‘relevant experience’ may play a part in deciding whether someone can or cannot be a McKenzie Friend, although some tonight queried that suggestion, as often the term “lay” refers to someone outside the legal profession and unconnected with it, whereas figures from the judiciary would like to see only legally qualified individuals as McKenzie Friends.

A senior solicitor said this evening : “I would be cautious about the qualifications the Lord President is apparently intending to impose on would-be McKenzie Friends, prior to the courts acceptance of their role. This does not, to my knowledge, occur in England & Wales.”

He continued : “I do feel that, while obviously someone intending to fulfil the role as a McKenzie Friend in a Scottish court should have to show they are at least capable of that role, I feel this “relevant experience” issue may prove an unnecessary barrier, and may even be used to bar people from the role of a McKenzie Friend who otherwise may perform very well.”

A senior official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations welcomed tonight’s developments, saying : “We welcome the Lord President’s moves to ensure that consumers of legal services in Scotland will be able to avail themselves of the well proven and invaluable facility of having a McKenzie Friend by their side in a Scottish court.”

She went on : “However there are some potential stumbling blocks in the Lord President’s plans, which we feel are unnecessary and are very far from how McKenzie Friends operate in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless this is a first step and we look forward to see further developments and an implementation of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review recommendations as soon as practicably possible.”

A legal insider studying the Lord President’s latest intentions on McKenzie Friends said tonight : “Apart from the fact that the Lord President has had to perform an abrupt about turn on his previously stated position I think it is a storm in a teacup. Worse, he adds certain additional provisos which only serve to muddy the water and all that is being offered is that already established by precedent. Nor does he offer any credible or detailed explanation of ignoring why Lord Gill’s recommendation that McKenzie Friends should be allowed to address the Court. The Lord President’s credibility rating was already zero, this does nothing to alter my opinion.”

Justice Secretary MacAskill & Lord Hamilton wrongly claimed McKenzie Friends had always existed. Clearly there are some problems still to overcome and many questions yet to be answered – not least the fact that on several occasions, both the Lord President and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill have claimed Scotland always had ‘supportive friends’ in courts, when in fact, no such ‘supportive friend’ ever existed. Enquiries to the Scottish Courts Service direct confirmed no such role, also confirming that McKenzie Friends had not existed in Scotland’s civil courts, despite further protestations from the Scottish Government to the contrary.

Also the quite considerable question of exactly why McKenzie Friends have been excluded from Scotland’s courts for some forty years, while many other international jurisdictions took on the McKenzie Friend facility after it first came into existence upon the result of McKenzie v McKenzie, 1971, remains to be answered, not least because the four decades long exclusion has led to a significant prejudice against Scots access to justice being regularly denied, particularly when law firms & solicitors refused, or were instructed by their governing body to refuse to represent individual litigants or groups in litigation which the legal profession itself did not wish to pursue for policy, political, or other reasons.

Court of Session judge Lord Woolman granted Scots their first use of a McKenzie Friend, while Parliament discussed petition. As we all know now, Scotland’s first Civil Court use of a McKenzie Friend, occurred during November 2009 in the long running damages action of party litigant Martin Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & others. I reported on that first use of a McKenzie Friend, here : First use of McKenzie Friend in Scotland as Court of Session sweeps aside 40 years of lawyers monopoly over public access to justice

Well, at least McKenzie Friends are on the way for Scotland, officially .. and with some guidance, a presumption of a right, but of course, work still to be done by the looks of it. You can read my earlier coverage of the campaign to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, here : McKenzie Friends for Scotland : The story so far

All written submissions for the McKenzie Friend petition at the Scottish Parliament can be read here : Written submissions for Petition 1247, McKenzie Friends for Scotland

This has been a long campaign, thorny at times, and obviously there is still a long way to go to ensure Scots have the same rights & entitlements of access to justice as everyone else in the UK. Keep supporting McKenzie Friends for Scotland !

Finally, you may ask, what does it all mean to the layman ? Well, now, you don’t need a lawyer to get into court .. just find a McKenzie Friend, if you cant obtain the rather expensive, and many times, fairly poor services of a solicitor who many not be acting in your best interests anyway …

Sounds like a good deal ? £807 a week plus perks, plus a pension to fiddle complaints against crooked lawyers and make sure consumers have no protection against the worst legal services in existence, plus the chance to meet with the flotsam from the Law Society ? Well if that is your game, I’d say go for it.

This new need for additional staff in the quango (which recently advertised it holds a massive £1.5million in surplus funds, while refusing to pay back its public funding of nearly £2 million), is not due to the SLCC’s heavy workload of investigating complaints against crooked lawyers, because there is apparently no heavy workload at the SLCC as I revealed last week here most complaints have been passed back to the Law Society of Scotland, the well known, infamous self regulator which usually lets ‘crooked lawyers’ off the hook.

One legal insider said this afternoon : “Working at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission is a bit like being in the trenches. Neither staff teams from the former Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman’s office or the Law Society trust each other. At times the air can be cut with a knife.”

SLCC Board members racked up a staggering £135K a year in expenses claims yet quango hardly does any work. In spite of the SLCC’s roll of infamy to-date, mired in scandals involving everything from huge expenses payouts to its board members, a systematic failure to deal with complaints on any level, consistent failures to address its duties emanating from the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, media exposes on its members drunken hate filled, booze fuelled rants against consumers, reformers, critics and even victims of crooked lawyers, there are a few positions now available at Scotland’s least worked quango, which appears to be following very much in the vein of the Law Society of Scotland, as each day passes.

Fancy being called to the bars with SLCC Board members ? It could be you ! Consumer protection, we never got, and never can expect from this tragic gathering of people who have no intention of helping victims of the legal profession, but we can certainly expect ever rising expenses claims from its board members, many of whom appear to have several other highly paid jobs & quango positions, while the SLCC’s task of investigating complaints, is mostly left to rot. You can read my previous coverage of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and how it really has done nothing for regulation, or consumer confidence in the legal profession HERE.

Below, is the latest job offerings from the SLCC, where anti-client, anti-consumer lawyer friendly individuals who know how to whitewash a complaint, should definitely apply – sounds like just the job for any ex-Law Society staff.

Jobs at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Case Investigation Manager & Gateway Team Manager

CASE INVESTIGATIONS MANAGER (refIM1)

GATEWAY TEAM MANAGER (ref GW1)

Salary for both posts in the region of £41,944. Group Self Invested Personal Pension + Benefits

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) is a corporate body operating independently of the legal profession and the government. It was set up by Statute to modernise the legal complaints handling system, to ensure complaints are resolved quickly and effectively. We are looking for people with the vision, determination and drive to form a key part of our management team and lead our people, achieve objectives and play a central role in making a real impact for the people of Scotland.

You will provide leadership and team management to your team, organising staff and other resources to deal with complaints in accordance with the SLCC’s Complaint Handling Procedures and quality standards. You will support and develop your team and as a member of the management team you will assist in the review and further develop our policies and procedures to provide a high quality, efficient complaints handling service.

To be successful in this role you will be educated to degree level or equivalent and ideally will have a legal or comparable qualification and a supervisory management qualification.

You will have demonstrable experience in writing and providing procedural advice and guidance, including drafting reports and be able to demonstrate leadership and management skills. You will have a track record of significant achievement with a minimum of 3 years people and performance management experience. A working knowledge of Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook is essential. You will be an effective communicator who is well organised and delivers work on time and to the agreed level of quality. Ideally you will be able to influence at local, national and strategic levels, with the personal and professional manner to command confidence of stakeholders.

• Application Pack Summary (PDF 38KB)
  Application Form (PDF 56KB)
  Diversity Monitoring Form (PDF 42KB)
  Terms and Conditions (PDF 24KB)
  Case Investigations Manager Person Specification (PDF 33KB)
• Case Investigations Manager Job Description (PDF 53KB)
  Gateway Team Manager Person Specification (PDF 33KB)
  Gateway Team Manager Job Description (PDF 54KB)

To Apply:

Please contact Rick Mattison on 0131 243 2981 or rickmattison@uk.michaelpage.com, quoting reference MPTJ13091641. Please return your completed application and diversity monitoring form to Rick Mattison at Michael Page. Closing date for applications is Friday 5 March 2009. SLCC short listing will take place on Monday 22 March and interviews will be held on Monday 29, Tuesday 30, Wednesday 31 March 2010.

If anyone came along & knocked on your door, telling you they were going to demolish your house to build a new road, you might say, oh, I’m going to fight this, take legal action, and either win, preventing your home being demolished, or walk away with a suitable compensation figure after a lot of haggling and letters.

If however, someone came along, knocked on your door and said, we are going to demolish your house to build a new road, and oh, by the way you cant take legal action, you have to appeal to this new quango we’ve created which is run by the company who are building the road, you might be forgiven for thinking you are being led up a one way garden path by the road builders. So alas, are we all being led up the same one way garden path with the plans exposed by the BBC on the Scottish Government’s planned referendum on independence, to be announced later this week.

Electoral Commission to be kept out of Scottish independence referendum on. Normally, the Electoral Commission, oversee elections in the UK. This has worked fairly well as we all know for many years. Yes, a few nags and niggles, but as always, we get who we vote for, regrets or not. However, the Scottish Government do not want to use the Electoral Commission for their independence referendum plan, which is certainly no surprise to me, because this time the SNP wont be able to get away with stuffing the ballot with a title “Alex Salmond for First Minister” as they did in the last Holyrood elections. That was certainly unfair on all concerned, and everyone being wise to that, I’m sure it will never be allowed to happen again, hence, no Electoral Commission please, we know your tricks .. you will spot any fiddles in the questions tout de suite so cant allow that.

So, as appears to be tradition, when an organisation might not give Ministers the result they want, they call in, or better still create a new body to give them the result they want .. and hence here we are now reading about a new Scottish Referendum Commission, which will be doubtless stuffed with quango style appointed people who have one track minds to hand over the one result the current Scottish Government want – a “Yes” for independence, at any cost, and as garbled a set of questions to the electorate that no one will be able to fathom out.

I’d say that is a fit up, but don’t take my word for it, look through the Freedom of Information disclosures obtained by the BBC and released yesterday.

Personally, I am left wondering what they are going to call this referendum quango .. how about the Scottish Legal Independence Referendum Commission ?

Surely it could be modelled on the entirely dishonest failure & quango fat cat ridden expenses lined Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. who are serving the legal profession unbelievably well, considering it was actually set up to give the public a chance against, well … the same rogue lawyers Mr MacAskill professed his Scottish Government owed a big debt for their election ‘success …

At a time of huge public service cuts, rising unemployment, our banks still on the rocks, and the national debt (mainly thanks to those on-the-rocks banks which had to be saved) sky high .. I could think of a lot more better use for public funds, and legislative time at Holyrood. Anyway, arent we all supposed to stick together in times of crisis ?

Read the full exchanges obtained by the BBC under FOI [2.91MB] (pdf)

A selection of those FOI disclosures obtained by the BBC, well worth reading (click on images for larger size) :

BBC News reports :

Plans for special body to run independence referendum

The Scottish government plans to set up a special body to run a future referendum on independence.

Ministers do not want to use the Electoral Commission which overseas Westminster elections.

The plan was revealed in minutes of meetings which were obtained by the BBC under Freedom of Information.

The draft bill on the independence referendum – which could take place as soon as 30 November – is expected to be published on Friday.

Email from the Scottish government, 13 march, 2009 – “We are now looking at what the question in an independence referendum might be and at some point will need to show we have properly assessed it for intelligibility, neutrality, etc.”

Electoral Commission minute, 22 September, 2009 – “Scottish government officials confirmed… that there was currently no provision to consult any organisation as to the intelligibility of the referendum question.”

Electoral Commission minutes, 6 November, 2009 – “There seems little regard to the remit and role of what the Scottish Referendum Commission would actually do.”

The Electoral Commission has a statutory role to run referenda called by Westminster, but has no formal role in those called by the Scottish Parliament.

In the minutes obtained by BBC One’s Politics Show, civil servants told the commission they planned to set up a new body – the Scottish Referendum Commission – to run the election.

The paperwork also revealed the concerns of the Westminster commission over the wording of the questions and that the timescale towards the poll was too short.

A minute from September last year said: “Scottish Government officials … confirmed that there was currently no provision to consult any organisation as to the intelligibility of the referendum question”.

No Scottish minister would comment on the FOI minutes, however, a spokesperson said that Scottish voters already had quite recent experience of a multi-option constitutional referendum.

The Electoral Commission said that when the government sets out the referendum on full independence, it would “consider it and submit a response” using experience of planning for referendums in the UK.

It added: “We are not able to comment until this public consultation is opened.”

and the latest today on this can be read here : Referendum ballot ‘rigging’ claim