Scottish Legal Complaints Commission appoints latest Chief Executive. THE Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), the quango set up by Holyrood msps and the Law Society of Scotland to ‘independently’ regulate crooked Scottish lawyers yet who’s highly remunerated board members have openly branded members of the public “frequent flyers”, “chancers” and demanded consumer groups be excluded from studies into the effects on clients of rogue lawyers has announced the appointment of it’s latest and now FIFTH in FOUR YEARS Chief Executive, Matthew Vickers.
Mr Vickers a former British Consul in the Canary Islands & Madrid, takes up the post on 5 June 2012 replacing Rosemary Agnew who left the legal complaints quango to be Scotland’s new Information Commissioner in charge of Freedom of Information laws.
In an announcement on the SLCC’s website, Jane Irvine, Chair of the SLCC, who was recently revealed to have met lawyers accused of professional misconduct in meetings where it had been agreed no records would be kept of discussions, said: “The SLCC is delighted to appoint Matthew as our new Chief Executive Officer. Matthew will bring fresh thinking to the SLCC just as we really start to push our performance for the benefit of all our service users – legal practitioners and consumers. In our search, in keeping with our aspirations for the SLCC, we set our sights high and were delighted to be able to select Matthew from an exceptionally strong field of candidates.”
Matthew Vickers, who will join the SLCC as Chief Executive Officer on 5 June 2012, said: “Customer service and efficient and effective ways of working have been themes throughout my career, and I hope to help a talented and enthusiastic team build on what the SLCC has already achieved. As the gateway for legal complaints, the SLCC must inspire trust and confidence in the legal complaints system. It’s vital that consumers and legal practitioners recognise us as impartial, accessible and independent if we’re to continue to do so.”
A biography published by the SLCC of Mr Vickers states :
Matthew is forty years old and originally from Merseyside. Matthew studied Modern History at Merton College, Oxford before a Master’s in Industrial Relations at the LSE. Matthew later returned to Oxford for doctorate entitled “Civic Image and Civic Patriotism in Liverpool 1880-1914” and joined Safeway on graduate scheme in 1998 working at Ferry Road store in Edinburgh. Matthew moved to McCurrach UK in 2002, made Board Director in 2004 and later joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2009.
On completing doctoral research on the history of Victorian Liverpool, Matthew joined Safeway where he held head office and regional roles specialising in customer care and customer insight. He later joined McCurrach UK, serving on the Operating Board and taking overall responsibility for in-store execution for AG Barr Scottish and Newcastle.
In 2009, Matthew joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as British Consul in the Canary Islands, subsequently moving to take up the role of Consul in Madrid. Last year he was awarded the Foreign Secretary’s Award for Service Delivery recognising his significant contribution to improving the support which the FCO offers to Britons abroad.
The latest Chief Executive of the beleaguered SLCC, widely viewed as anti-consumer from it’s failure to prosecute or strike off even a single crooked lawyer since 2008 (an even worse record than the Law Society of Scotland) certainly has a task ahead of him to improve the SLCC’s image if Scots consumers are to be able to trust the SLCC to carry out effective regulation of complaints without the usual inherent bias for lawyers. One SLCC insider dubbed Mr Vickers “a visiting fireman” amid hopes by some in the organisation he can repair the law quango’s image & functionality.
The post of the SLCC’s Chief Executive has seen considerable controversy over the four year period of the hugely expensive yet under achieving law complaints quango which has burned up at least TWO MILLION POUNDS of taxpayers money and taken a further TWELVE MILLION POUNDS from the legal profession in the form of of complaints levies paid by solicitors, which in turn are recouped from hikes (or spurious additions) in legal fees demanded from clients.
Masterman meets MacAskill who backed secret payoff for ‘too ill to work’ former Chief Executive. A previous SLCC Chief Executive, Eileen Masterman, held the role for less than a year, negotiated a secret, substantial payoff backed personally by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and resigned her position at the SLCC on grounds of “ill health”. Mrs Masterman then returned to work for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) in a “complaints reviewer” role, and was recently accused of whitewashing the circumstances of the death of Baby MacKenzie, which Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper reported on here : Deputy First Minister to look into death of baby McKenzie Wallace after parents complain of ‘whitewash’ report by SPSO investigator Eileen Masterman
The SLCC’s first Chief Executive, Richard Smith, also resigned from the role after disagreements about the way the SLCC was heading as a regulator. Mr Smith was then replaced by another civil servant before Mrs Masterman got the role, then after a few months the job was handed over to Rosemary Agnew. all reported by Diary of Injustice here : The £80K job no-one wants : Lawyers lobby seek FIFTH time unlucky Chief Executive for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission role
MIND YOUR P’s, C’s & D’s – SLCC attempt & name & shame flounders in alphabet soup
As the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission announced it’s latest Chief Executive, a number of bizarre ‘investigation examples’ & ‘determination examples’ using letters of the alphabet to refer to [crooked’ lawyers and consumers who made complaints about their lawyers have been published on the law quango’s website, in an effort to show the public what to expect from the SLCC.
However the ‘examples’ published by the SLCC fail to identify a single solicitor or law firm, in stark contrast to the policy of the Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales to publicly name & shame law firms & lawyers who fail their clients in more fuller & detailed publications of complaints. Complainers are also not identified.
In none of the examples published by the SLCC to-date, some of which are reproduced below, are there any references to any recommendation that a law firm or solicitor should be investigated for prosecution by the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.
All examples featured by the SLCC, appear to show a series of slaps on the wrist for lawyers & law firms who are not required to alert any of their other clients to complaints made against them and poor service they have given to previous clients forced by their predicament to complain to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
A legal insider who drew the SLCC’s case examples to the attention of Diary of Injustice claimed the public should in no way take these examples as being genuine …
Mr C complained about the service Mr P provided in relation to divorce matters, ailment and contact with his children. He alleged that Mr P failed to: represent and argue his case properly in court, act on his instructions regarding his ex-wife’s failure to comply with a court order for contact, arrange acceptable alternative representation in his absence. At a court hearing he arranged for his ex-wife’s (the defender’s) solicitor to represent both parties
The Determination Committee considered afresh a wide range of information which included the Firm’s file, Mr C’s comments, Mr P’s comments and the Service Standards.
The Determination Committee did not uphold any element of the complaint. Its view was that Mr P had exercised his professional judgement in relation to the representation and saw no evidence that this was improperly done. The Committee understood that it may have appeared odd to Mr C that his ex-wife’s solicitor was instructed to provide alternative representation but this was not inadequate professional service. It is standard and acceptable practice for one party’s agents to represent both parties where a case like this was calling in regard to a non-contentious matter, and it was appropriate in this case. There was no substance to the complaint about failure to follow instruction. Not only was Mr C was unable to clarify or provide any evidence of all of the instruction he claimed he gave to Mr P but where instruction was given, records demonstrated it was followed.
Mr C complained about the service Mr P and his Firm provided in relation to his separation. He complained about the way the Firm advised him on costs and subsequently charged him. He alleged they charged nearly double the verbal quote and that they did not tell him when the costs became higher than the limit he was able to pay, even though they had agreed to. The Firm did not respond to his requests for a breakdown of costs for over ten months, they did not take payments from his debit card even though he instructed them to do so and the amounts they charged him differed between invoices without any explanation as to why.
Mr C was also unhappy with the poor communication and delay in dealing with his case. It took five months to draft a document Mr P told him was straightforward, by which time it was out of date. The Firm did not keep him informed or updated as the terms of business letter said they would. Nor did they respond to his complaint about the delay and the fees. At the point Mr C complained to us, the Firm had started to chase him for payment of his fees and although he paid them in full, did not acknowledge receipt.
The SLCC investigated this complaint by examining the Firm’s files and all the information Mr C sent. We spoke directly with both parties and took into account all they had to say. We found that that Mr C’s case was not as straightforward as it appeared to be. There were unavoidable reasons for the delay and although the fees were higher than originally quoted, it was clear the work was both necessary and instructed by Mr C. The SLCC did not uphold the allegations about these aspects of the service.
However, it was apparent that neither Mr P nor his Firm kept Mr C informed. Their communication with him was sporadic, did not answer his questions and contained a lot of jargon that he may not have understood easily. There was no evidence they had answered his complaint. Had they communicated more regularly and effectively with Mr C to help him understand why there were delays and why the matter was more complex than originally thought, they may have avoided the complaint, and would not have caused Mr C the inconvenience of writing to them or of complaining.
We reported these findings to both parties and recommended a settlement that they both accepted. The Firm apologised. It also paid Mr C £550 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication. We did not recommend a rebate of fees because although they were higher that Mr C was expecting, the service and advice provided in relation to his separation were not found to be inadequate.
Mr and Mrs C complained about the way Ms P and her Firm dealt with their house purchase. They were unhappy with her alleged failure to settle on the date they were expecting, 21 October 2010 which they agreed the week before in a telephone call. They called the Firm on 20 October to confirm everything was in order and were told by Ms P that she was not expecting to settle until 22 October. She said that settlement could not take place unless a new disposition was issued and delivered to the purchaser’s solicitor for the next day. This was quite late in the working day. Mr and Mrs C decided they wanted settlement to take place on 21 October as planned. Ms P prepared a new disposition which was hand-delivered.
The settlement took place followed by settlement late afternoon on 21 October. This meant Mr and Mrs C could not complete their move and had to pay their removal company for an extra day.
When the SLCC examined the Firm’s file and the information that Mr and Mrs C provided, it emerged that the conveyancing was not straightforward. There were problems with the sale of Mr and Mrs C’s current property resulting from the completion of remedial works identified by their buyer’s survey. We could see that Ms P had raised doubts in her letters about being able to settle on 21 October and had kept Mr and Mrs C informed. Equally, it was evident that she was aware that 21 October was their desired date. The consequence of the uncertainty about the settlement date meant that Ms P was unprepared for settlement on 21 October and as a result settlement was not until late in the afternoon of 21 October.
Our view was that the service was adequate and did not breach any Service Standards. We appreciated it was a stressful time for Mr and Mrs C and that they had done everything they could.; We could also see that the Firm had made strenuous efforts on their behalf and had managed to settle on the day they wanted. We considered very carefully the matter of the extra costs for the removal company, but did not recommend these be compensated as they were not the consequence of inadequate professional service.
Although we did not uphold the complaint, our findings and recommendations were accepted by both parties and no further action was taken.