June 1998 … Prepare for a real view of the Law Society of Scotland’s own low down yellow bellied dirty tricks campaign against a complainant ….
OK, since the last article in the Scotsman, by Jenny Booth, titled “Jury Still Out On Law In The Dock” .. you may be thinking .. ah well, Peter Cherbi was going to take a Judicial Review against the Law Society of Scotland’s decision not to prosecute Mr Penman ….. and you would be correct … but …..
Roll out the dirty tricks department of the Law Society of Scotland, to make sure that my application doesn’t succeed .. and the best way to stop it was right at the start – by blocking my entitlement for Legal Aid – which as you will see from the following article which appeared in “The Scotsman” newspaper, written by Willian Chisholm, titled “Law Society Accused of Closing Ranks as Claim Fails”.
By this point in time, the Law Society top brass had become obsessed with ‘getting Peter Cherbi at any cost’ because of all the publicity I was attracting through the contuning revellations of corruption, secrecy, deceit, & dirty tricks in the Andrew Penman complaint, so Douglas Mill – the Secretary of the Law Society of Scotland, decided to interfere in my application for Legal Aid to bring a case against the Law Society to force it to prosecute Mr Penman .. and Mr Mill wrote a very deceitful letter to the Scottish Legal Aid Board – leaked to me by a member of SLAB, which you can see from it’s content .. is highly prejudiced, and full of rubbish.
The terms of the letter were described to me as a “bully letter” by my own lawyer at the time, Mr David Reid – who went on to say that there was no way SLAB would give me funding after interference by the boss of the Law Society himself .. as if they had let it go through, and my case would have gone forward, it would have caused MASSIVE problems for the Law Society, and paved a way for thousands of other dissatisfied complainants to do exactly the same, and make the Law Society prosecute bent lawyers rather than continue to regularly fit-up complaints ….
I would have to say, I found Mr Mill’s letter to be a tissue of lies, and full of deceit. He claimed the Law Society fully investigated the complaint – but he leaves out any admission about the fit-up which happened at the Complaints Committee where James Ness – one of the Law Society’s own top brass, protected Mr Penman with all sorts of lies and claims against me – and of course, the hallowed Mr Ness’s actions & remarks could never be allowed to be challenged in a court …
But, there were more dirty tricks to come … MUCH MUCH MORE ….
Not to be outdone by Douglas Mill, Mr Philip Yelland, who had received a letter informing him I would be calling him in my case against Mr Andrew Penman & the Law Society as a witness, sent a letter to my own solicitor, Mr David Reid.
This letter is also reprinted here, where you can see Mr Philip Yelland – the Director of Client Relations of the Law Society of Scotland ORDERS MY OWN LAWYER not to enter any evidence from the complaint I made against Andrew Penman in my case .. in a letter I was never supposed to see ….
… so, there we have it … try to sue the Law Society or a crooked lawyer – and the Law Society intervene to make sure you DONT ! …. I’d say that was pretty corrupt !!! ….
Mr Reid, my own lawyer, informed me this was a letter giving him orders not to follow my instructions in calling Law Society officials or entering any evidence from the complaint against Andrew Penman …. so the Law Society had interfered in my case, directly, countering my own instructions to my own lawyer – to make sure Andrew Penman could remain at large, despite ripping my family off wholesale .. as you can see from the items on this site ….
So, these are the kinds of dirty tricks that the lawyers play on people, when they are caught with their hands in the ’till, or caught on the fiddle – as this lot were – and for the Boss of the Law Society himself, along with his Client Relations Office Director, so obsessed with me & my case, to be making sure that I was hindered & obstructed at every turn … well .. if they do it to me, then they do it to plenty others ….
Another thing which struck me about this, was that while this was all going on – all the senior staffers at the Law Society playing as many dirty low down yellow bellied tricks against me as they could (and they did plenty) … I was writing to the Scottish Office (now the Scottish Executive), informing them all about it .. but they sat back & did nothing – because, they were really part of the whole thing .. to make sure my case never got off the starting block, and to also make sure that I was never going to be in a position to change the fiddled decision of the corrupted Complaints Committee hearing into Andrew Penman ..
… and so, the dirty tricks go on to this day from the Law Society – who’s officials must now be eaten away with hatred for me so much, they have done everything to me over the years, from anonymous bogus tips to the local cops, (who ended up having to apologise to me), to leaked briefings & meetings with Journalists (who told me back !), to having me investigated … they have tried everything …. and failed .. I am still here, to tell the story, and to campaign against their thoroughly corrupt practices & treatment of clients like myself – and .. YOU ! .. and that just eats away at them like worms on a rotten apple ….
fear not .. there is much more to come .. and even more horrific headlines & details on the boys at the Law Society of Scotland ..
anyway, without further ado …. here are the leaked letters I was never supposed to see, along with “The Scotsman” article ….
Law Society accused of closing ranks as claim fails
William Chisholm The Scotsman 5 June Friday 1998
An unprecedented attempt to force the Law Society of Scotland to prosecute a solicitor for professional misconduct will continue, even though an application for legal aid has been rejected.
Peter Cherbi from Jedburgh, claims that his late father’s ￡300,000 estate has been ruined and rendered worthless because of the way a Borders lawyer, Andrew Penman, handled the affairs of Gino Cherbi who died in 1990.
A Law Society investigation found that the solicitor, a partner in the law form P & J Stormonth Darling, should be prosecuted before a disciplinary tribunal because of the serious nature of the case.
But the decision was later overturned in favour of a reprimand after representations were made on Mr Penman’s behalf.
Mr Cherbi, who is calling for ” more than a slap on the wrist” then took the case to Garry Watson, the legal services ombudsman.
He critisised the society’s handling of the complaint and said it was unclear why its committee had changed its vew about prosecution. Mr Watson asked for the case to be re-opened so that the question of loss to Mr Cherbi could be fully addressed.
But the society decided that course of action was not competent in terms of the law, which emant the ombudsman’s recommendation could not be acted upon.
Instead, Mr Cherbi received a cheque for ￡250 to compensate him for delays in processing the inquiry.
Mr Cherbi revealed yesterday that Henry Mcleish, the Scottish Home Affairs Minsiter, had twice advised him to seek independent legal advice about any further action he might wish to take.
“The advice I received was to apply for a judicial review, challenging the Law Society’s refusal to prosecute Mr Penman”, said Mr Cherbi” “Its been impossoble to get justice via the society which simply closed ranks to defend its own. Now the Scottish Legal Aid Board seems to be holding justice to ransom, by refusing my legitimate application for legal aid”
The board told Mr Cherbi that his request had been turned down becuase it was not satisfied the application showed he had a probably cause of action.
He believes the board’s decision may have been influenced by a letter from Douglas Mill, the secretary of the society. Although no formal objection to Mr Cherbi’s application was taken, Mr Mill felt it proper to draw certain issues to the attention of SLAB.
Mr Mill wrote “Mr Cherbi is clearly a person with an interest to complain and was entitled to make his complaint. It is for the Law Society in terms of the relevant legislation, to determine firstly whether the complaint can be upheld and then determine the appropriate penalty. The complainer does not have a part to play in determining penalty”
Mr Cherbi claims the society is keen to head off any judicial interference in its procedures. If his case were to succeed, it would set a precedent in Scots law. He would also be seeking costs.
In a statement to the legal aid board, Mr Cherbi said the interference of Mr Penman’s representative at a complaints committee hearing was unfair.
He had not been given access to the evidence and was not allowed to appeal before the committee “commuted the solicitors sentence”
Mr Cherbi’s action has the backing of Injured By The law, an organisation which seeks to help individuals who believe they have been denied legal justice. Ray Keddie, it’s director said “I am extremely concerned by the actions and conduct of the Scottish Legal Aid Board in denying civil legal aid to Peter Cherbi”
He also critisised the Scottish Office for its “ambiguous advice” inrecommending action that required people to apply for legal aid. He claimed it was then rejected on concocted grounds to maintain the status quo of the society and protect positions within the profession.
Injured By The Law was also calling into question the conduct and motives of mr Mill in his letter to the legal aid board and SLAB’s acceptance of the contents. Mr Keddie said ;” The contents are highly unusual and irregular to procedure”
But Fiona Shaw, SLAB’s spokeswoman said it was the statutory right of any opponent in a civil case to object to an application for legal aid. She added “We have treated the society’s letter in the same way as any other correspondence we receive.”
She confirmed that Mr Cherbi’s solicitor had asked the board to review the application for legal aid,, and that review was now under way.
In a statement, the society said Mr Mill’s letter to SLAB was not irregular in its terms, nor was it an attempt to stall the course of justice.
“Mr Cherbi is entitled to seek judicial review if he wishes to do so. If he does, the society will defend it” . There was no question of the process of judicial review being a dangerous precedent. It was an ordinary legal process and the society had been involved in judicial review proceedings before.
“Any suggestion that in some way the society is interfering with the process of justice is wholly unfounded”, the statement concluded.