The attacks keep coming on the more honest concept of independent regulation of Scottish lawyers & advocates, compared to the present system of prejudicial self-regulation where lawyer investigates lawyer, widely viewed as being corrupt and being consistently biased in favour of a crooked lawyer.
The latest attempt in the Law Society of Scotland’s highly organised and long planned public and media campaign to wreck the contents of the “Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill”, hits the media in the form of yet another report from an Acedemic signed up by the Law Society of Scotland to do a report in their favour, where this time, Professor David McCrone, the co-director of Edinburgh University’s Institute of Governance claims, in a report commissioned by the Law Society of Scotland (and probably paid for by them of course), the “Scotsman” reports that he states the Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill is based on a “quick and dirty” consultation exercise’.
Personally, of course, I take great offence to Mr McCrone’s assertions, since several crooked Scottish lawyers ripped off me & my family, and they were supported by that pack of hyenas at the Law Society of Scotland, who ripped through the files sanitising as much information as possible (even planting some against me to try and make me look bad), conducted a highly personal & vindictive campaign against self & my family, and did everything they could to finish me off and stop my complaints succeeding against the likes of Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso (the one who ripped off my dead dad’s will) .. details of which you have read on this site …
I’m sure David McCrone doesn’t give a damn that people like myself have been ripped off and put through a torture by his pals in the legal profession for 12 years, or much more for others …. probably, it is a humour, almost, a laughing point, or after-dinner joke, to the acedemics and the cream of the Scottish legal profession, that the likes of us, the ordinary people of Scotland have been targeted and mostly wiped out by his paying pals at the Law Society of Scotland.
The likes of McCrone will never feel sympathy for the likes of us, or myself, so it’s not much loss … I don’t have millions of pounds to throw at Universities or pay academics to produce favourable reports for my own use … that’s the realm of the legal profession – and my, how they are spending the money and using the media influence with stories like this just now to attack the Scottish Executive Consultation and clients of crooked lawyers like myself, ahead of the Justice 2 Committee hearings on this subject, which being today.
Tell me, Mr McCrone – what is ‘quick and dirty’ about a 12 year hell brought on by the likes of Andrew Penman, Douglas Mill, Philip Yelland, James Ness, and the rest of the dirty tricks brigade of the Law Society of Scotland ? … what is “quick and dirty” about 8 legal firms continually letting down a single client and conspiring to fiddle & fake files, disrupt cases, interfere with witnesses & instructions to other solicitors, use the likes of the Police & other agencies against clients to wipe them out … harrass people at will, even killing off some … what is “quick and dirty” about that then, Mr McCrone ?
I played a part in the Scottish Executive Consultation – as did plenty of other people who have been ripped off and ruined by the Law Society of Scotland and it’s crooked solicitor membership … some people having problems with lawyers for nearly 20 years and the issues going unresolved to this day … so, what exactly, Mr McCrone, is “quick and dirty” about that ?
Mr McCrone – would you like to do a report on my case for me ? perhaps write about how my family have been ripped off for 12 years by crooked lawyers and their legal firms – and how the complaints have been fiddled at the Law Society of Scotland, with even it’s Chief Executive, Douglas Mill, caught fiddling my case and legal aid funding ? … how about it ? maybe you could then go back before the Justice 2 Committee and tell them all about it, … but, of course, how could I be sure you would write an impartial report ? I can’t pay you .. and you already seem to be of the opinion that campaigners and clients who have been totally ruined by the legal profession fall into the “quick & dirty” category … unlike yourself of course …. well studied, and never ripped off by lawyers I would guess.
As far as my opinion goes on this – I’d make sure the legal profession foot the entire bill for the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – part of their punishment for being so dirty and crooked towards clients in the past, in the present, and no doubt – also in the future.
Read on for the news report on this from “The Scotsman” at :
Warning on ‘costly’ legal complaints body
A LEADING political expert has warned ministers that creating an independent body to handle complaints against solicitors could prove a costly “hammer to crack a nut”.
A report written by Professor David McCrone, the co-director of Edinburgh University’s Institute of Governance, also claims that the Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill is based on a “quick and dirty” consultation exercise.
The society is calling on the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee to correct flaws in the bill, which includes proposals to set up the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), when it begins taking oral evidence today.
Prof McCrone’s report, which was commissioned by the society, says: “The political system should be very careful of landing the profession and their clients with an over-elaborate and costly system, something of a ‘hammer to crack a nut’.”
He concludes: “There seems to be a serious lack of articulation between the system of regulating the legal profession in Scotland and how it is paid for.”
The society has already argued that the bill lacks detail on how the SLCC, which the Executive estimates will have annual running costs of £2.4 million, will be funded and what levies will be imposed on solicitors.
It also has doubts over the estimates given for recruitment and training, property, IT, publicity, National Insurance and pension contributions.
Prof McCrone also claims the Executive’s consultation contained “elementary howlers”.
He says the figure claiming that 81 per cent of people who support ministers’ favoured option for reform was only based on those who answered that specific question and could also have been described as only 25 per cent of all respondents.
The society has already warned that the costs of the new body – and compensation penalties of up to £20,000 facing lawyers found guilty of poor service – could create a “legal desert” in towns across the country, with small firms being forced out of business.
Douglas Mill, the society’s chief executive, said: “The costs lack specification and foundation and they are likely to impact markedly on the high street of Scotland – the very area of ‘people law’ which is under most financial pressure.”
A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said the new body’s budget would be discussed with the legal profession each year, and she added that cost estimates had been “carefully prepared”.