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

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.

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.”

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.

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.

However, it can also be revealed today Ms Agnew in her capacity as SLCC Chief Executive has been rebuked by the current Information Commissioner, Mr Dunion on at least FIVE OCCASIONS for failures in handling FOI disclosures, one of which included the withholding of sensitive compensation payments data during the period Ms Agnew was actually being interviewed for the post of FOI Commissioner by Scottish Parliament officials.

The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB) which itself has been responsible for many controversial decisions including the runaway construction budget of the Scottish Parliament itself, topping half a billion pounds of taxpayers money, is rumoured to be at the point of recommending Ms Agnew’s appointment to the post of FOI Commissioner to msps in the next few days. Yet so far, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and even Ms Agnew herself have all refused detailed comment on the seemingly controversial appointment, which was revealed today in the Daily Record newspaper.

Asked about the rumoured controversial recommendation of Ms Agnew to fill the FOI Commissioner role, a Scottish Parliament spokesman simply said : “We expect to be in a position to confirm the nominee to Parliament early in the new year, ahead of Kevin Dunion’s departure in February.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission were contacted for comment and asked : “Does the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission have any comment on reports its Chief Executive Rosemary Agnew is to be recommended to msps to replace the current Scottish Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion upon his demit of office in February of this year, and what Ms Agnew’s appointment to the post (if confirmed by msps) will mean for freedom of information requests to the SLCC.”

A further question was put to the SLCC : “Does the SLCC have any comment on how the SLCC will cope with having to recruit a third Chief Executive in four years to the SLCC and the impact on the Commission’s role of having three Chief Executives since 2008 ?“

The SLCC issued a blunt “no comment” to both questions.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice this morning, a legal insider said he was horrified someone with a record of refusing FOI requests could be appointed to the role of Scotland’s FOI Commissioner.

He said : “Unless Ms Agnew has significantly changed her attitudes towards FOI, I doubt a candidate with at least five rebukes for handling FOI requests who is coming from an organisation which has a history of waging a war of attrition against Freedom of Information laws, can fulfil the requirement for maintaining & strengthening Freedom of Information legislation in Scotland.”

A leading political observer, commenting on the SPCB’s appointment agreed it looked like the Scottish Parliament were about to choose someone who might not continue Mr Dunion’s work of expanding & upholding Freedom of Information compliance in Scotland.

Ms Agnew’s suitability for the role of FOI Commissioner has also been questioned today after it was claimed decisions taken by her in her role as Chief Executive of the Scottish legal Complaints Commission to refuse to monitor consumers individual claims made against the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy which have left some clients penniless, in a state of financial ruin and facing years of hardship, ill health and hounding by firms of crooked lawyers. The claims were made by clients who have approached the SLCC to request the law complaints quango monitor individual claims made against the Master Policy after being financially ruined by “crooked lawyers” & corrupt Scottish law firms who took their clients for a ride through the courts system.

The SLCC has powers to monitor the Master Policy under Section 39 of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 although its staff & board have sought on several occasions to loosely interpreted the terms of the law in an apparent attempt to avoid becoming involved in matters which have already led to confrontation between the SLCC, Law Society of Scotland & Marsh UK, the UK subsidiary of the convicted US Insurers Marsh McLennan Companies who are brokers of the Master Policy which is backed by insurers such as Royal Sun Alliance PLC.

Letter reveals SLCC’s latest Chief Executive told client they will not monitor claims made against crooked lawyers. In a letter released to Diary of Injustice, the SLCC’s Chief Executive, Rosemary Agnew refused to become involved in monitoring claims to the Master Policy. Ms Agnew wrote : “..it is not within the SLCC’s remit to monitor individual claims made under the Master Policy. Under the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (Section 39), the SLCC may monitor the overall effectiveness of guarantee funds, etc and professional indemnity arrangements put in place by the Law Society of Scotland for its members (ie the Master Policy). This power does not extend to our active involvement in the way in which individual indemnity claims are being dealt with by the insurers.”

A succession of additional letters from Ms Agnew to claimants have been released to Diary of Injustice, showing Ms Agnew refused requests by beleaguered clients to monitor their claims to the Master Policy.

Speaking at the time of Ms Agnew’s blunt refusals to monitor claims to the Master Policy, Consumer Focus Scotland sided with clients, and supported calls for consumers to be able to submit concerns about the Master Policy on their cases directly to the SLCC. A spokesperson for Consumer Focus Scotland said : “After concerns were raised with the SCC (Scottish Consumer Council) regarding the operation of the master policy, the SCC argued that the SLCC should be given power to monitor the effectiveness of the master policy in the Legal Services and Legal Profession (Scotland) Act 2007, and we were very pleased when this was included.”

The spokesperson continued : “It has always been our understanding that the intention behind section 39 of the Act was that the SLCC would monitor the overall effectiveness of the operation of the Master Policy, rather than monitoring individual claims. It does seem to us, however, that in order to monitor the overall effectiveness of the Master Policy, the SLCC must be able to consider evidence about the way in which individual claims to the Policy have been handled. It is therefore important that consumers are able to submit concerns about the way their claim has been handled to the SLCC, to assist the SLCC to undertake this function effectively.”

Ms Agnew’s refusal to involve the SLCC in actively monitoring individual claims to the Master Policy has come of something as a shock to many legal observers, who keenly anticipated the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission would end the world of corruption surrounding damages claims made against rogue solicitors & law firms by financially ruined clients, particularly after an independent report commissioned by the SLCC found the Law Society of Scotland & the Master Policy insurers had covered up the fact clients had committed suicide after being let down by law firms who were supposedly representing their claims against the Master Policy in the Court of Session, itself well known as a cosy lawyer only club unwilling to rule against the profession. Diary of Injustice reported on the report into the Master Policy here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society’s Master Policy which ‘allows solicitors to sleep at night’

A solicitor speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon said “The SLCC lacked any credibility on the news it was about to lose yet another Chief Executive.” He went onto claim the SLCC “has little consumer confidence, is not trusted by the legal profession, appears to hold no continuity and should be scrapped.”

BACKGROUND : ROSEMARY AGNEW, SLCC CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Rosemary Agnew is the SLCC’s second Chief Executive in three years. Ms Agnew took on the role after a short recruitment phase to replace the SLCC’s first Chief Executive 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.

Ironically, one of Rosemary Agnew’s key refusals to disclose information to the public was information and discussions surrounding the SECRET SUBSTANTIAL PAY-OFF negotiated by lawyers acting for former SLCC CEO Eileen Masterman and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The secret payoff was also backed by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and Scottish Ministers also refused to disclose the amount paid to Ms Masterman. Diary of Injustice reported on the secret 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

SLCC Chief Executive Eileen Masterman (foreground) received Scottish Government approved pay off after lawyers intervened says auditor report. RUMOURS that Eileen Masterman, the former Chief Executive of the much derided Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), received a SUBSTANTIAL PAY OFF after she resigned on grounds of “ill health”, after serving less than SEVEN MONTHS in the £80,000 a year, £1,350 plus, a week job have now been confirmed with the publication of a “Key Memorandum Issues” document prepared for the SLCC by the Edinburgh offices of auditors Grant Thornton. Grant Thornton were called in to replace the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) as the SLCC’s auditors, after SLAB were abruptly sacked from their auditing role by the SLCC’s board in 2009 after much bickering over the Legal Aid Board’s scrutiny of the failed law complaints quango.

Today’s Daily Record report :

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

Jan 9 2012 Exclusive by Chris Musson

THE public bodies who fought tooth-and-nail to keep secrets from you are today exposed by the Record. The Government, police forces, councils and taxpayer-funded quangos all flouted anti-secrecy laws by knocking back legitimate Freedom of Information requests. They were forced to back down by Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s first Information Commissioner, who ruled in favour of the public 359 times since the new rules came into force in January 2005.

The worst offenders were the Scottish Government, who wrongly refused to disclose ­information 78 times over the last seven years. However, they also received the highest number of requests of any public body. Second on the league of shame were Edinburgh City Council, with 22 decisions against them. Third were Glasgow City Council with 17 decisions fully in favour of applicants, and fourth were Scottish Water with 15.

Among legitimate requests knocked back were details on the numbers of sex offenders in various areas – with Strathclyde Police, Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary all falling foul. Surgical mortality rates were also wrongly withheld by the NHS, as were details of public payments to firms of private consultants.

Dunion and his office made 1336 decisions to December 14, 2011. As well as the 359 fully in favour of the person appealing a refusal, 450 were partly in their favour.

A person who gets knocked back for an FoI request must first appeal to the public body before going to the Information Commissioner. It is time-consuming, meaning many members of the public give up, even if they have a good case.

But public bodies often fight to the bitter end, despite decisions being overturned by the ­Information Commissioner. Public bodies’ disregard for the laws is still widespread seven years on – and even appears to be growing. Last year saw the highest total for successful appeals by the public – on 85 occasions.

Dunion, who grew up in Fife and Clackmannanshire and was the rector of St Andrews University until 2011, steps down next month from the post of ­Information Commissioner he has held since 2003. Tomorrow, he will present a special report to the Scottish ­Parliament on his time in the job, and will urge the Government to “safeguard and strengthen” openness from public bodies.

Yesterday, he told the Record he was confident Scotland had “made a success” of freedom of information since 2005. He added said: “Public awareness of Freedom of Information is at an all-time high. Public authorities are responding to requests and information is being disclosed which would otherwise have remained secret. “We know much more about contracts and expenses, deaths in hospitals and local crime rates because of FoI. “Of course, there are disputes and failings which is why the free right of appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner is so important.”

He said most appeals were from members of the public, adding: “In the majority of my decisions I have found, at least in part, that the appeal was justified.”

TIP FORCED TO DISCLOSE

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.

Diary of Injustice reported on the legal action taken by the Law Society of England & Wales against Mr Kordowski and his website:  ‘SolicitorsFromHELL.co.uk’ in November 2011, here : Solicitors From Hell removed from internet as UK High Court grants injunction to Law Society of England & Wales to censor client reviews of lawyers

The injunction, secured by Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori of Matrix Chambers as announced on Brett Wilson LLP’s blog, followed a successful application for judgment in default against Mr Rick Kordowski, the owner of the SfH website. The full judgement in the case can be read here : The Law Society, Hine Solicitors & Kevin McGrath v Rick Kordowski

Speaking late last week, Mr Kordowski said : “I was tempted to leave it and let it go down in  history as one of the most ‘archaic’ judgments of all time. However, now that the Law Society of England and Wales  have been served with the necessary paperwork, this judgment and order is in  the process of being formally appealed.”

Mr Kordowski said : “The individuals who accompanied the Law Society  on the claim against me failed to follow the Pre-Action protocol code. I am also perplexed to why these individuals had not (and still haven’t)  contact me to ask who the authors of the words complained about were.”

Mr Kordowski has also indicated he will take the case all the way to the European Court if he loses the latest appeal in the UK Courts. Mr Kordowski said that in the event of his appeal being  turned down by the higher appeal court here in the UK, with the help of legal advice provided by the mainstream media, he will take this  case to the European Court in Strasbourg where he feels he will receive a fairer hearing and a more ‘balanced’ approach to the matter.

Lawyers & their grudges ? Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson Des Hudson the £400K-A-YEAR Chief Executive of the Law Society of England & Wales who pursued the SfH website through the courts at huge cost to members, commented in a Press Release at the time of the High Court’s decision : “This website has served simply as a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas against conscientious and reputable firms and legal professionals. Far from being of any help to consumers, it has been a danger. Some excellent firms have been listed on the website, and exclusion from the site has more often than not been a matter of whether a firm has been prepared to pay a fee to have the listing removed. I feared the website was directing people in real need of help away from professionals best placed to assist them.”

However, it has come to light Mr Hudson and the Law Society received little joy from their attempts to involve the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in their battle to remove the Solicitors from Hell website from the internet, raising further questions over the High Court’s decision to side with the vested interests of the legal profession out to block their own client’s right of free speech to rate and review the service provided by UK based lawyers & law firms.

Diary of Injustice has been passed a copy of a letter from the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham to Desmond Hudson, CEO of the Law Society. The Information Commissioner’s office confirmed the letter as genuine and said they had no objection to it being published in full. The letter can be downloaded HERE

Law Society is told to live with criticism and ‘censoring online comments against lawyers is not a job for the Information Commissioner’ In the letter, Christopher Graham, the  Information Commissioner said to the Law Society’s Chief Executive, Mr Hudson : “We have looked at the website and agree that some of the content that individuals have posted about solicitors is highly offensive, although some of it does strike me as representing, on the face of it, credible accounts of the experiences that some individuals may have had of their solicitors.The inclusion of the ‘domestic purposes exemption in the Data Protection Act (s.36) is intended to balance the individual’s right to respect for his/her private life with the right to freedom of expression. These rights are equally important and I am strongly of the view that this is not the purpose of the DPA to regulate an individual’s right to freedom of expression – even where the individual uses a third party website, rather than his own facilities, to exercise this.”

“The situation would clearly be impossible where the Information Commissioner to be expected to rule on what it is acceptable for one individual to say about another, be that a solicitor or another individual. This is not what my Office is established to do. This is particularly the case where other legal remedies are available – for example, the law of libel or incitement.”

“There is still a considerable lack of certainty concerning the extent to which website operators are legally responsible for the content they host, Although solicitorsfromhell/Mr Kordowski may well be a data controller, and is indeed registered as such, the instigators of the website;’s content are generally private individuals expressing their own views. Their activity attracts the s.36 exemption, which emanates ultimately from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

“In giving due weight to freedom of expression in cases like this we have to accept that enforcing the data protection principles in respect of the activities of the website owner is likely to entail a disproportionate level of interference with the rights of the contributors, however unpleasant their contributions may be.”

“We also have to accept that contributing to, and using, ratings and customer feedback sites – of variable quality – has become an established part of consumers’ online behaviour.”

Others also question the High Court’s decision to side with the Law Society and grant the removal of the Solicitors from Hell website from public view after it became known the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) is also to embark on a similar strategy of naming & shaming solicitors & law firms who fail their clients, a fact reported by Diary of Injustice in early November 2011, here : Scots to be ‘kept in dark’ on details of crooked lawyers while Legal Ombudsman’s ‘naming & shaming’ policy ‘will protect’ consumers in England & Wales.

So, the battle is on to restore Solicitors from Hell to the internet, and thus restore the right of consumers across the country to freely comment on and rate the services of their legal representatives, just like all other consumers purchasing products & services across the land.

In the meantime new websites have emerged to allow clients to post their opinions about lawyers :

COWBOYSOLICITORS.COM, a new website to allow consumers to rate their lawyer online. While the battle for Solicitors From Hell looks set to continue all the way to the European Courts, a host of new websites offering consumers the chance to air their views of how they were served by their legal representatives have emerged, the latest one being COWBOYSOLICITORS.COM. The new website, which is free to become a member of, states Solicitors have ruled the roost for far too long, the law society is completely bias against any complaints. The truth is that many UK legal practices are filth ridden and need exposing. Become a free member and start shaming your solicitor within minutes. Manage all listings from your personalized dashboard.

Solicitors from Hell 2 has returned to replace the original Solicitors from Hell website. The new Solicitors from Hell 2 website which is registered in the USA, and is thus outwith the reach of UK Libel laws, replaces the now censored Solicitors from Hell. As before, clients can rate their solicitors and document their experiences whether good or bad although this time, it may be more difficult for the Law Society to act. The new website states : Solicitors From Hell 2 will allow people to upload articles about Solicitors from within the UK or anywhere else in the world this will be done automatically & free of charge. Should a complaint arise we will require evidence to substantiate your complaint. or the removal of the offending post or words will take place. This will be at the sole discretion of Solicitors From Hell 2 editors. Further should anyone claim that any item is defamatory and can prove the information wrong then the post will be removed free of charge.

So those of you looking for an opportunity to name & shame your poorly performing or even crooked lawyer, there is now even more choice to do so, courtesy of the Law Society’s attack on UK consumers right of free speech.

Sneaky exchanges between civil servants, politicians & those in public bodies via private or secret email accounts can be revealed through FOI.

However, as the Guardian newspaper reports, the ICO’s move which brings Ministers private emails and text messages within the scope of FOI has angered politicians at Westminster who are now fearful Freedom of Information laws appear (to them) to be allowing too much openness following the latest ruling. The Guardian goes onto report “The chairman of the public administration committee, Bernard Jenkin, is understood to be considering a select committee inquiry next year in the wake of the recent ruling by Christopher Graham, the information commissioner.”

Currently there is no clarification from the Scottish Information Commissioner on how the ICO’s ruling on private emails affects FOI in Scotland, however, as they say, there’s no time like the present to test it out, particularly as it appears the practice of using private, secret, & throw-away email accounts by civil servants & certain ‘advisers’ to the Scottish Government appears widespread…

Commenting on the ICO ruling, Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said: “It should not come as a surprise to public authorities to have the clarification that information held in private email accounts can be subject to Freedom of Information law if it relates to official business. This has always been the case – the Act covers all recorded information in any form.

Mr Graham continued : “It came to light in September that this is a somewhat misunderstood aspect of the law and that further clarification was needed. That’s why we’ve issued new guidance today with two key aims – first, to give public authorities an authoritative steer on the factors that should be considered before deciding whether a search of private email accounts is necessary when responding to a request under the Act. Second, to set out the procedures that should generally be in place to respond to requests. Clearly, the need to search private email accounts should be a rare occurrence; therefore, we do not expect this advice to increase the burden on public authorities.”

Key points set out in the guidance include:

Where a public authority has decided that a relevant individual’s email account may include official information which falls within the scope of the request and is not held elsewhere, it will need to ask that individual to search their account.

Where people are asked to check private email accounts, there should be a record of the action taken. The public authority needs to be able to demonstrate, if required, that appropriate searches have taken place.

Although the main emphasis of the guidance is on official information held in private email accounts, public authorities should be aware that the law covers information recorded in any form

Public authorities should remind staff that deleting or concealing information with the intention of preventing its disclosure following receipt of a request is a criminal offence under section 77 of the Act.

It is accepted that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary to use private email for public authority business. There should be a policy which clearly states that in these cases an authority email address should be copied in to ensure the completeness of the authority’s records.

Mr Graham continued: “As part of our work on understanding more generally how FOI handling works across government, we conducted a good practice visit at the Department for Education. We’ve today published the findings of that visit and are now keen to carry out similar visits to other Whitehall departments. Work on specific complaints made to the Commissioner about the Department of Education’s handling of individual FOI requests is still ongoing. We hope to issue our decisions on these cases early in the New Year.”

So, next time readers & FOI’ers do requests to the Scottish Government, local authorities, public bodies and so on, you may want to ask for any information contained in private email facilities used by those in the relevant organisations which relate to the business or subject access of your FOI request…

Happy New Year 2012 to readers & campaigners fighting injustice in Scotland & around the world.

During last year, 2011, I received many contacts from people who were depressed, at their wits end, some at the end of their life and all because of the trust they had placed in politicians, public servants, banks, doctors, self-branded ‘financial experts’, debt advisers, and of course, members of the legal profession who were brought in to resolve legal problems yet ended up taking more from their clients than they put in.

Some people spoke of committing suicide because of what had been done to them, yet no help was on offer and everyone in authority turned a blind eye to their predicament. Some were at the end of their tether over the lack of help they were receiving from people elected to office who are supposed to be ‘public servants’ and a growing number of people felt there was no hope left to them, that life was not worth living after solicitors and the legal profession had ripped through their lives leaving a path of destruction it is simply not possible to recover from.

For those of you in Scotland and around the world whose lives are held hostage to injustice, whether the injustice is at the hands and actions of prejudicial self-serving & self-motivated politicians, an unjust, corrupt justice system and those within it, or at the brutal hands of a profession or vested interests, make 2012 a turning point by doing something about it. Take back your lives and make a start by publishing your story of injustice, naming & shaming those who commit these crimes and injustice against you. Protest if you like, as it is your right to do, tell your fellow man and do whatever you can, all within the law. Do something, don’t do nothing.

Wherever you are, make 2012 your spring by breaking out of the perpetual winter handed to you by those who clothe their naked villainy with old odd ends, stolen forth from you by unjust writ, and seem a saint when most they play the devil.

The departure of former Lothian & Borders Chief Supt Douglas Watson, Dr Linda Pollock BSc, RGN, RMN, Dist Nursing, Diploma (Clinical Nursing), PhD, MBA, ex Deputy Chief Constable Tayside Police Ian Gordon OBE, QPM, LL.B (Hons), Law Professor Alan Paterson OBE, FRSE, David Smith (retired lawyer & husband of Court of Session judge Lady Smith), divorce lawyer Margaret Scanlan OBE & retired lawyer David Chaplin leaves a bitter legacy of feuds with the media, cover-ups against Freedom of Information laws, arguments over the SLCC’s mishandling of complaints against the Scottish legal profession and little evidence of any success against crooked lawyers in the past three years, all in stark comparison to the progress of the Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales (LeO) which has seemingly powered ahead on complaints cases, even laying plans to name & shame solicitors & law firms who abuse their clients. No such moves have been made by the SLCC who bitterly refuse to name & shame rogue Scottish lawyers.

During the term of the now departing board members, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has since 2007, raked in an average of £2.5 million a year from the legal profession in complaints levies (funded by hikes in solicitors fees taken from clients), and a whopping £2 million of taxpayers money from the Scottish Government.

However, the dreadful reality of the worst piece of theatre in Scots regulation is that despite the huge intake of money & effort, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has in the past three years, fully upheld only a handful of complaints against solicitors & law firms and has paid out staggeringly small amounts of compensation to victims of ‘crooked lawyers’ compared with how much consumers have lost to their legal representatives. In one case, a client of a rogue lawyer received a meagre £10 compensation award after falling victim to shoddy legal work. The SLCC also blew more than 1/4 million on legal fees to law firms, some of which are linked to its own board members, as reported by Diary of Injustice here : £10 compensation for victims of crooked lawyers while Scottish Legal Complaints Commission spend more than £1/4 MILLION on law firms & ‘legal advice’

To add to the regulation nightmare facing consumers of legal services in Scotland,, not one crooked lawyer has yet been prosecuted on the basis of any work carried out by the SLCC in the entire three years, a fact which even drew criticism from the Chairman of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal as reported HERE.

The SLCC experienced a few of its own nightmares, as covered by Diary of Injustice over the past three years, where in particular, the former Chief Executive Eileen Masterman resigned on grounds of ill health, but not before negotiating via lawyers a payoff, reported here : HUSH & MONEY : Former SLCC law complaints Chief Executive Eileen Masterman received secret Scottish Government approved payoff in deal with lawyers

Secretive & anti-client SLCC became famous for censorship & battles over Freedom of Information requests.The failures of the SLCC over the past three years leaves an inescapable conclusion that over TWELVE MILLION POUNDS of public funds & fees gathered from clients of solicitors have gone down the drain on what is now obviously little more than a joint venture between the Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Government to shore up the Law Society’s influence & exclusive control over self-regulation of the legal profession in Scotland, leading to the SLCC’s continuing stitch-up of consumer complaints against rogue solicitors. In short, consumers have not benefited from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. The Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland & the legal establishment have seen to that.

Diary of Injustice featured in an earlier article what it took to be a member of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s board : More ‘jobs for the boys’ than action on ‘crooked lawyers’ : What it takes to be a Board Member at the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. As far as new appointments to the board of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are concerned, reported by Diary of Injustice HERE, HERE & HERE no improvement in the hapless anti-client law complaints quango should be expected.

Read all about it : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – The story so far

AND ITS GOODBYE FROM THEM (for now) :

Douglas Watson

• Former lay member of a Law Society of Scotland Committee dealing with Access to Legal Information. The role was unpaid.
• A cousin, Bruce Minto, is a partner in Dickson Minto, Solicitors.
• Formerly a Chief Superintendent with Lothian and Borders Police.

Dr Linda Pollock

• Executive Nursing Director (1989 -2006).
• Interim Board Nurse Director (2002-2003).
• Chief Nursing Officer’s Professional Advisor on nurse prescribing (2005-6).
• Past External Examiner with Robert Gordon’s University and Queen Margaret University.
• Research Honorary Fellow in the Social Science Faculty of Edinburgh University.
• Formerly, a part time nurse member of the Mental Welfare Commission (1997- 2005).
• Currently, working as a Primary Care Consultant, undertaking research work commissioned by the Queen’s Nursing Institute in Scotland.
• Registrant member of the Nursing and Midwifery Council Appointments Board.
• Member of the Royal College of Nursing.
• Dr Pollock has a track record of authorship and chapter contributions in professional books, and continues to write articles in nursing journals.
• Board Member of the Accounts Commission (from 1st October for three years).
• Chair to a UK-wide Advisory Board with Pain Concern (from Jan 2010).

Ian Gordon OBE, QPM, LL.B (Hons)

• Convener of the Standards Commission for Scotland (from 1 February 2010 for four years).

• Member of the Registration and Conduct Sub Committees of the Scottish Social Services Council. Appointed by the Council on 29 April 2010 for 3 years.
Payment from Scottish Social Services Council.
• Associate Professor in Policing for Charles Sturt University (Australia)
• Director (Trustee) of Blairgowrie and Rattray Regeneration Company (BARRC) Registered Charity – Not remunerated.
• Member of Rotary International
• Retired Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside Police.
• Formerly Chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS)
Professional Standards Business Area.
• Formerly Vice-Chair of ACPOS General Policing Business Area.

Margaret Scanlan

• Consultant, Russells Gibson McCaffrey, Solicitors.

• Member of the Law Society of Scotland and holder of current practising certificate.
• Husband is a senior partner Russells Gibson McCaffrey.
• Husband is a member of the Law Society of Scotland and holder of current practising certificate.
• Past Chair of the Family Law Association.
• Former member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

David Smith

• Member of the Law Society of Scotland.

• Former member/partner of Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP, Solicitors. Retired on 30/04/08.
• Non-Executive Director, Value and Income Trust Plc.
• Wife is a Senator of the College of Justice and a non practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.

David Chaplin

• Former member of Anderson Fyfe LLP, Solicitors. Retired on 30/04/08.

• Member of the Law Society of Scotland.
• Director and shareholder in Baliol Properties Limited.

Alan Paterson

• Research adviser to the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
• Member of the Law Society of Scotland.
• Professional contact with Guild & Guild, Solicitors and McCash & Hunter, LLP.