RSS

Tag Archives: Kenny MacAskill

One Law for Lawyers: Under the guise of ‘Consumer Protection’ Law Society of Scotland propose new pro-lawyer legislation to maintain control over self regulation of solicitors

Law Society – new powers to look after lawyers. VESTED INTERESTS tend not to remain silent in an election year, and as the May 2016 Holyrood elections approach, the Law Society of Scotland has proposed the Scottish Parliament give the legal profession even more powers to enable lawyers to look after their own.

The Law Society pledges the new legislation – written by the Law Society, amended by the Law Society, and finally, approved for whatever scant debate at Holyrood the Law Society deigns necessary, will enable the Law Society to protect consumers and clients even more so than is currently humanly possible.

The Prospectus for Power – which the Law Society has submitted to Scottish Ministers, sets out the legal profession’s take on a “need for change” including proposals for;

* better regulation of legal firms (‘entity regulation’) in addition to the regulation of individual solicitors to protect consumers,

* new powers to suspend solicitors suspected of serious wrongdoing,

* opening the Law Society’s membership in order to improve standards amongst other legal professionals,

* the ability for the Society to regulate legal work beyond the domestic Scottish jurisdiction in order to provide simpler regulation for cross-border firms,

* more flexible business models which allow legal firms to adapt to market changes.

Better regulation of legal firms – to protect consumers.

This coming just a few short months after Law Society staff were hurriedly arranging press conferences to combat questions over their seedy role in holding down a Crown Office investigation of certain activities carried out by solicitors involved in the Michelle Thomson property scandal – reported in further detail here: CRIME SOCIETY: Law Society of Scotland ‘unfit for purpose’ as calls grow for Scots solicitors to be stripped of self regulation powers used by lawyers to investigate themselves

Little more has been said of the Crown Office inept handling of the information allegedly passed to it by the Law Society – however, the silence may not be a total surprise, given Scotland’s Crown Office was recently revealed to hold a criminal tendency all of it’s own: CROWN CROOKED: Crown Office crime files reveal Scotland’s Prosecutors & staff charged with Drugs crimes, Police assault, threats & perverting the course of justice

However, we must remember the demands proposals from the Law Society of Scotland should not be taken lightly.

As any experienced Parliament watcher will admit – the Law Society of Scotland have a history of getting what the profession wants at the Scottish Parliament.

Take for instance, the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, and the lengthy, at times bitter debate during 2006 – which saw John Swinney call out the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Policy Indemnity Insurance arrangements and the Society’s interference in client compensation claims as dishonest and then some.

The Law Society’s then Chief Executive Douglas Mill did not take kindly to the cross examination, and proposals before MSPs to create an independent regulator – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).

At one point, Mill went so far as to say Holyrood should take a hike – and threated the Parliament with legal action if lawyers were to be robbed of their self given Human Right to look after their own. In the end, it was Douglas Mill who took a hike.

However, in all things legal, nothing is as it seems.

The ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – created as a result of the 2007 LPLA Act, became little more than a front for the Law Society of Scotland.

The regulator ended up costing clients around £3million a year – paid over and over again out of hikes to legal fees.

As independent regulators go, the SLCC is staffed by former Law Society employees, lawyers, lawyers families, friends, business associates, reported here: ‘Independent’ Scots legal watchdog consists of solicitors’ husbands, wives, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, & employers.

To crown it all, the Law Society took charge of the ‘independent’ SLCC by appointing one of their own former Directors – Neil Stevenson as the latest Chief Executive of the SLCC.

A truly malevolent definition of ‘independence’ – if ever there was one.

Since the LPLA Act took effect, countless law changes have taken place to allegedly improve the SLCC’s procedures on how it can better regulate the legal profession.

One such change landed Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to provide Scots legal regulators with similar ‘new powers’ to protect consumers.

Read more on the 2014 legislative effort to create enhanced powers for legal regulators, here: TOXIC LAW: MacAskill gives lawyers ‘right to complain about complaints’

Guess what.The new rules changed nothing. The SLCC is as inept at regulating lawyers in 2016, as it was in 2014 counting backwards to 2008 when the ‘independent’ regulator came into being.

Previous media investigations, reports and coverage of issues relating to the SLCC can be found here: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – A history of pro-lawyer regulation.

Prospectus for Power – Law Society of Scotland.

Now, in 2016, the Law Society of Scotland claims another round of new legislation is needed to better protect consumers and allow the Scottish legal services market to thrive

Publishing a detailed prospectus which it has presented to the Scottish Government on the need for change, the professional body for Scottish solicitors said the current legislative framework was increasingly out of date and unfit for purpose – about as unfit for purpose as self regulation can ever be.

Discussions have already taken place between the Law Society and the Scottish Government on the legal profession’s legislation wish list for new powers.

Christine McLintock – President of the Law Society of Scotland admitted: “We have had a number of very useful discussions with the Scottish Government and we are grateful to Ministers and officials for being so open to listening to our ideas. We have also worked hard to engage other bodies in the legal sector as well as consumer groups to ensure we work in partnership to deliver real change.

Ms McLintock added: “We obviously need to see the outcome of the Holyrood elections in May and the shape of the new Scottish Government.  Whatever the outcome, we will be pushing hard for reform to be an early priority in the new parliament.”

The Law Society’s campaign to give the legal profession new powers includes what the profession claims should be ‘Priorities for the Scottish Parliament’.

This campaign includes a call for Scotland’s political parties to commit to a modern, fit-for-purpose framework for legal services in Scotland which;

* Maintains the advantages of the current system, including the independence of the legal profession, a robust system of co-regulation involving strong professional bodies and an independent complaints handling organisation and discipline tribunal

* Provides a more agile system of consumer protection and addresses the rise of the unregulated legal services market

* Allows flexible regulation that reflects the rise of alternative business models, cross-border firms and internationalisation of the sector

* Enables the Law Society to respond to the changing needs of its members and to open up associate forms of membership to other legal professionals, including paralegals and legal executives

President of the Law Society, Christine McLintock added: “The legal services market is a great Scottish success story.  We contribute over £1 billion to the economy each year; account for over 20,000 highly skilled jobs and support many of the other sectors on which Scotland’s economy depends.  We have phenomenal legal talent, thanks to our world class universities and a rigorous programme of training and development to deliver high standards.

“Yet the legal services market is going through a dramatic period of change.  New expectations from clients, new business models, the growth of cross border legal firms and increased technology are all serving to reshape the market.

“Most of the legislation covering the operation and regulation of the legal market is over 35 years old. It is increasingly outdated for modern legal practice.  Whilst some reforms were brought in 2007 and 2010, the whole framework can be confusing and, in some cases, contradictory.

“There are important elements and principles which should be preserved.  The independence of the legal profession.  A single professional body for solicitors.  Independent complaints handling and discipline bodies.  These are important and should be protected.  However, there is a case for new, flexible and enabling legislation which helps the legal services market in Scotland to thrive, which continues to ensure standards remain high and which better protects consumers when things do go wrong.”

The Law Society of Scotland says it now plans to engage with political parties, consumer groups and others in the legal sector to build a consensus in favour of change with an aim of getting a new Bill introduced early in the new term of the Scottish Parliament.

However, in England & Wales, the public mood is for fully independent regulation of the legal profession, as was recently reported here: A QUESTION OF TRUST: Should solicitors be independently regulated? UK public say “Yes” – according to research conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority

Remember to add your own voice when any such proposals eventually reach the Scottish Parliament.

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

DECLARE IT, M’LORD: MSPs seek further evidence on proposals to create register of judges’ interests, Lord President to be invited to face Holyrood Committee after May 2016 elections

Lord Carloway to face questions on judicial register. A THREE YEAR Holyrood probe on proposals to require judges to register their interests is to be continued into the next Parliamentary session – with a call to invite Scotland’s latest top judge – Lord Carloway – to give evidence on plans to bring the judiciary into line with transparency rules which apply to all other branches of Government.

The decision to call in the Lord President – who is on record opposing proposals to require judges to declare their interests – came last week after MSPs sitting on the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee heard further evidence and submissions on Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

Speaking in favour of continuing the petition, Petitions Committee Convener Michael McMahon MSP (Scottish Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill) said: “We have written to the new Lord President, whose position is no different from that of the outgoing Lord President. However, we invited the outgoing Lord President to come to the committee to discuss the petition; does the committee want to extend the same invitation to the new Lord President, so that we can explore the issue?”

Mr McMahon continued: “There is still a live debate on the matter, and I would certainly be reluctant to close the petition without having exhausted the discussion and examined the issue—almost to destruction, I think. There are serious questions to ask.”

Committee member Kenny MacAskill MSP (SNP, Edinburgh Eastern) asked for the petition to be placed in the Committee’s legacy paper for the next Petitions Committee – which will come into being after the elections to the Scottish Parliament  on 5 May 2016.

The former Justice Secretary – who is set to publish a book revealing more on his decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988 – also hoped the next Petitions Committee would consider the process of selecting a new judge for the US Supreme Court to fill the vacancy after the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Mr MacAskill said “It would also be up to the future committee to consider what will be on-going in the United States of America, where judicial declarations go to an extreme that we might not wish to emulate—I am thinking of the replacement of Justice Scalia.”

John Wilson MSP (Independent, Coatbridge North and Glenboig) agreed with moves to keep the petition open, and backed calls to contact the Lord President, and a University of Strathclyde Law Professor who has researched judicial interests.

Mr Wilson said: “The petitioner has suggested that the committee write to Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde, who has apparently done some independent academic research on the subject. It might be as well writing to the Lord President and asking him to consider whether he would appear before the committee. That might also be something for the legacy paper. We should also suggest that the committee invites Professor Alan Paterson to give some independent academic scrutiny of what has been requested in the petition.”

Mr Wilson also revealed former Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) – Moi Ali, had recently written to The Scotsman newspaper, urging the establishment of a register.

During an evidence session held at Holyrood in September 2013 – Ms Ali backed the creation of a register of judicial interests – providing MSPs with a powerful first hand, honest and highly detailed account of the workings of Scotland’s judiciary and lack of judicial transparency & accountability.

Current Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson also backed plans to require judges to declare their interests, during an evidence  session of the Public Petitions Committee held in June 2015.

The cross party supported proposals – debated at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

Video footage & transcript of Public Petitions Committee debate:

Petition PE1458 Register of judicial interests Scottish Parliament 23rd February 2016

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458) 23 February 2016

The Convener: PE1458, which was brought by Peter Cherbi, is on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

We have written to the new Lord President, whose position is no different from that of the outgoing Lord President. However, we invited the outgoing Lord President to come to the committee to discuss the petition; does the committee want to extend the same invitation to the new Lord President, so that we can explore the issue? There is still a live debate on the matter, and I would certainly be reluctant to close the petition without having exhausted the discussion and examined the issue—almost to destruction, I think. There are serious questions to ask.

Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP): There is clearly still debate about the matter. It was the Judicial Complaints Reviewer who initially indicated a change in tack, which was upheld.

Where we can take the matter and whether it should be this committee that pursues it, I am not sure. Lord Carloway, the new Lord President, has made his position quite clear. It seems to me that the question is whether anyone else wants to pick the issue up. We could ask the new Lord President the same questions that we asked of the former Lord President, but given that we have his response in writing, I do not know where that would take us.

The question is whether the Justice Committee or the Scottish Government wants to pursue the issue. My recollection is that it is about six months since we heard from the minister but there was no indication of any change in perspective.

The Convener: There are still issues to be debated and it would be useful to get the new Lord President’s views on the record. The question is whether we, as an out-going committee, extend that invitation or put it in our legacy paper so that the new committee can pick it up and run with it.

Kenny MacAskill: I would be inclined to leave it in the legacy paper on the basis that we have had a reasonably full letter from Lord Carloway. If we were to squeeze him in within the next fortnight, I am sceptical as to what we could get from him that we have not already had in writing.

John Wilson: The petitioner has suggested that the committee write to Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde, who has apparently done some independent academic research on the subject. It might be as well writing to the Lord President and asking him to consider whether he would appear before the committee. That might also be something for the legacy paper. We should also suggest that the committee invites Professor Alan Paterson to give some independent academic scrutiny of what has been requested in the petition.

I spent half an hour this morning trying to get the updated register of interests of judicial members of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. I am assured that it is on the site somewhere, but although I tried for half an hour this morning, it was impossible to find. The latest register of interests that I have comes from last year and so is not up-to-date enough to include Lord Carloway. I know that he registered no interests when he was Lord Justice Clerk.

We have been told that there are safeguards in place, but it would be useful to know how the general public get the information that they are looking for. If it is difficult to get the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service judicial service register, it raises other questions about where we are going and whether we are making it more difficult for people to find out judicial interests.

The former Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali, has recently written to The Scotsman, urging the establishment of a register—just as she did when she gave evidence. The current Judicial Complaints Reviewer has also said that it would be helpful to have a register of judicial interests.

I would like to think that the future Public Petitions Committee could take the issue forward and invite Lord Carloway and others to come and give evidence, perhaps answering some of the questions that arise further down the road.

The Convener: The suggestion is that we put it in our legacy paper and write to Professor Paterson, as John Wilson suggested, so that his response would be available to the new committee, which could take it into consideration. Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Kenny MacAskill: I am fine with that. It would also be up to the future committee to consider what will be on-going in the United States of America, where judicial declarations go to an extreme that we might not wish to emulate—I am thinking of the replacement of Justice Scalia.

The Convener:It is interesting to watch what is happening there and compare it.

Writing in the Scotsman newspaper, Moi Ali said :

“I hope that when the Scottish Parliament’s petitions committee reconsiders a proposal to implement a register of interests for the judiciary next Tuesday, it does not accept the Lord President’s advice to throw out this petition.”

“When I was Scotland’s first independent Judicial Complaints Reviewer, I gave evidence to the committee in support of a register of interests. I am a ministerially-appointed board member in Scotland, where I am rightly required to complete a register of interests to provide assurance to the public that my dealings are above board. For the same reason, the judiciary should also complete such a register.”

“The judiciary can take away people’s assets, separate families, and lock people away in prison. Given this position of power, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity – but crucially, that they are seen to be beyond reproach.”

“A register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case – financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any ­other way.”

“Conversely, the refusal to keep a register of interests creates public suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. Thus, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”

JUDICIAL BLOCK: Transparency on judicial interests not welcome in my court – Lord Carloway.

Last month, Diary of Injustice reported on written evidence provided by Lord Carloway to the Public Petitions Committee on plans to require judges to declare their interests.

Lord Carloway (real name: Colin Sutherland) told MSPs: “The proper administration of justice could be inhibited by the disclosure of the judiciary’s otherwise confidential financial arrangements. In that connection, there is the possibility that an individual judge may be the subject of misconceived criticism, deriving from the disclosure of personal financial information, where those interests are tangential and de minimis.”

The move by Scotland’s latest Lord President to undermine the Scottish Parliament’s efforts to increase judicial transparency follows a bitter three year campaign against the petition – led by Carloway’s former boss – Lord Brian Gill – which culminated in an ‘aggressive’ evidence session with the former top judge at Holyrood in November 2015.

Responding to Lord Carloway’s letter, the petitioner told the Committee: “Lord Carloway presents the same view of his predecessor Lord Gill in that a register of interests for the judiciary is unnecessary or undesirable. Similarly, as Lord Gill has already inferred, Lord Carloway speaks of constitutional problems if the judges are asked to declare their interests.”

“In reality, there are no constitutional issues created by this petition, nor is there an impediment to the creation of a register of judicial interests. Such a register already exists for the Scottish Court Service and Tribunals Board, of which Lord Carloway and others declare their interests.”

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

EVIDENCE, M’LORD: Scotland’s next top judge to be asked to give evidence in Scottish Parliament’s probe on secretive world of undeclared judicial wealth, interests & judges’ links to big business

Former Justice Secretary calls for top judge to appear at Holyrood. SCOTLAND’S as yet unnamed new top judge who will take on the role of Lord President & Lord Justice General – is to be called to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s three year probe on creating a register of interests for judges as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

The call to hear from the new top judge was made by former Justice Secretary and Petitions Committee member Kenny MacAskill MSP during a brief discussion of  Petition PE1458 at last week’s meeting of the Public Petitions Committee on 1 December 2015.

Calling on whoever is named to be Scotland’s new top judge, Kenny MacAskill said: “We have heard from the previous Lord President and I think that we should hear from the new Lord President, whoever he is likely to be—I do not think that there is a “she” on the shortlist. That appointment is likely to be made in the next week or so, so there is still time for him to appear before us.”

The petition calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

The proposal to require judges to declare their interests enjoys cross party support, and was widely backed by MSPs during a full debate in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber on 9 October 2014 – reported in full with video footage of MSPs and Scottish Ministers speaking during the Holyrood debate, here: Debating the Judges.

Petition PE1458 Register of Interests for Judges Public Petitions Committee 1 December 2015

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

The Convener: Our next petition is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on the creation of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note on the committee’s previous consideration of the petition and the submissions from the petitioner.

Do members have any comments?

Kenny MacAskill: We have heard from the previous Lord President and I think that we should hear from the new Lord President, whoever he is likely to be—I do not think that there is a “she” on the shortlist. That appointment is likely to be made in the next week or so, so there is still time for him to appear before us.

The Convener: In that case, we will write to the new Lord President, as we said that we would.

Decision: The Committee agreed to write to the new Lord President once appointed.

During an earlier evidence session held on 10 November 2015, MSPs on the Public Petitions Committee heard from former Lord President, Lord Brian Gill (73) – who suddenly retired in May 2015 – after serving three years as Lord President & Lord Justice General – one of the shortest terms of a Lord President in recent history.

Lord Gill vehemently opposes any call for judicial transparency and calls to require judges to disclose their interests, and twice refused invitations to appear before MSPs to give evidence on the probe into judicial interests.

Gill spent two of his three years as Lord President writing a series of eight angry letters to the Public Petitions Committee, calling on MSPs to exit the petition and any discussion of judicial transparency – reported in detail here: Top judge branded media & public aggressive in attempt to avoid interests register & judicial transparency

The stormy evidence session with Lord Gill, reported here: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth & interests saw ex top judge Brian Gill hound MSPs on three occasions with demands to close the petition.

Video footage of Lord Gill’s terse 50 minutes evidence to MSPs is available here: Evidence of Lord Gill before the Scottish Parliament 10 November 2015.

Highlights of the former top judge’s vested interests must remain secret approach include:

In an angry exchange with MSP Jackson Carlaw, Lord Gill demanded to control the kinds of questions he was being asked. Replying to Lord Gill,  Mr Carlaw said he would ask his own questions instead of ones suggested to him by the judge.

And, in responses to independent MSP John Wilson, Lord Gill dismissed media reports on scandals within the judiciary and brushed aside evidence from Scotland’s independent Judicial Complaints Reviewers – Moi Ali & Gillian Thompson OBE – both of whom previously gave evidence to MSPs in support of a register of judges’ interests.

Facing further questions from John WIlson MSP on the appearance of Lord Gill’s former Private Secretary Roddy Flinn, the top judge angrily denied Mr Flinn was present as a witness – even though papers prepared by the Petitions Committee and published in advance said so. The top judge barked: “The agenda is wrong”.

And, in a key moment during further questions from committee member Mr Wilson on the integrity of the judiciary, Lord Gill angrily claimed he had never suspended any judicial office holders.

The top judge was then forced to admit he had suspended judicial office holders after being reminded of the suspension of Sheriff Peter Watson.

Several times during the hearing, the retired top judge demanded MSPs show a sign of trust in the judiciary by closing down the petition.

Questioned on the matter of judicial recusals, Gill told MSPs he preferred court clerks should handle information on judicial interests rather than the details appearing in a publicly available register of interests.

Lord Gill also slammed the transparency of judicial appointments in the USA – after it was drawn to his attention judges in the United States are required to register their interests.

In angry exchanges, Lord Gill accused American judges of being elected by corporate and vested interests and said he did not want to see that here. However, the situation is almost identical in Scotland where Scottish judges who refuse to disclose their interests, are elected by legal vested interests with hidden links to corporations.

Scotland’s first ever Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR) – Moi Ali gave backing to the the judicial transparency proposal during a must watch evidence session held at Holyrood in September 2013.

Scotland’s current Judicial Complaints Reviewer Gillian Thompson OBE also backed the petition and the creation of a register of judicial interests during an evidence session at Holyrood in June 2015.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations on judicial interests including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

PURGE LAW: ‘Reform minded’ Legal complaints chief ousted for Law Society insider as solicitors regulatory body retakes control of ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Law Society’s Neil Stevenson retakes complaints quango for lawyers.THE LEGAL profession’s definition of ‘independence’ took a full turn yesterday as the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) and the Law Society of Scotland announced long time Law Society insider Neil Stevenson is to be the SLCC’s latest Chief Executive, replacing former Foreign Office careerist Matthew Vickers who took on the role in June 2012.

Stevenson’s appointment to the tarnished position as head of the pro-lawyer anti-client SLCC – created in 2008 and at a staggering cost since to Scots clients of over £20 million in complaints levies paid by solicitors and recovered via legal fees to clients – comes after widely reported evidence showing the SLCC has failed to live up to expectations of dealing with rising numbers of rogue solicitors who rip off their clients.

And, the Law Society’s decision to retake control of the ‘independent’ SLCC by placing one of their own in charge also comes after a challenging year for self regulation of the legal profession – left reeling from the effects of the damaging BBC Scotland investigation “Lawyers Behaving Badly” –  which blew the mask off lawyers investigating their own and legal aid fraud.

For the past fifteen months since the BBC programme aired in January 2014,  the Law Society have demanded significant changes at the SLCC after concluding the hapless complaints quango – staffed mostly by former Law Society insiders – failed to stand up for lawyers during the BBC Scotland investigation.

And, earlier this year, further friction between the two legal regulators emerged when the SLCC criticised a rigged poll organised and funded by the Law Society which claimed solicitors are ‘well liked’.

Articles on the client satisfaction poll – published in some media outlets were written by the Law Society’s own president Alistair Morris in which the Law Society President extolled the virtues of lawyers, backed up with dodgy statistics.

However the full extent of how the poll had been rigged –  featured in an investigation by DOI reported here: OWNED POLL: Law Society ‘scripted’ survey criticised by Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – new data reveals few clients of dodgy lawyers ask legal regulators for help

Another twist to the friction between the SLCC & Law Society emerged after it was revealed a series of communications between the SLCC and law reformers brought about a tipping point forcing Law Society bosses to act.

The communications – which fell into the hands of the Law Society – ‘in real time’ – appear to have helped the decision to force out the then SLCC CEO – Matt Vickers – who stood down out of the blue earlier this year to pursue a career at Ombudsman Services, reported here: GONE MEDIATIN’: Pro-lawyer legal regulator loses another CEO as Matthew Vickers leaves Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for Ombudsman Services role

The replacement of an outsider with a Law Society insider as head of the SLCC have led to further suggestions the anti-consumer quango can do nothing without a say so from the Law Society.

In an announcement the SLCC said yesterday: The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the independent body for complaints against solicitors, advocates and other legal practitioners in Scotland, has announced the appointment of Neil Stevenson as its new Chief Executive Officer.

Neil Stevenson has been with the Law Society of Scotland since 2004.  He is currently the Society’s Director of Representation and Professional Support.  He will be joining the Commission in mid-July.

As the new CEO Neil’s priorities will be to drive the full implementation of the SLCC’s strategy – to provide an excellent complaint resolution service for legal complaints in Scotland, to provide guidance on service standards to the profession and consumers and to raise the confidence in the legal profession in Scotland.

Bill Brackenridge, Chair of the SLCC welcomed the appointment. He said : “I am delighted to welcome such an accomplished professional to the Commission; he will inspire our staff to deliver their challenging role and move the Commission to a higher level.

Neil Stevenson, the new CEO said “I have thoroughly enjoyed my time with the Law Society and am grateful to have all the opportunities and challenges afforded to me.  I am looking forward to joining the SLCC and working with the staff to deliver some very challenging objectives.”

The Society’s chief executive, Lorna Jack commented: “I am delighted for Neil and congratulate him on his appointment. As someone who understands the legal profession and with his passion, good judgment and positive attitude, I know Neil is going to make an outstanding contribution as SLCC chief executive.”

Jack continued: “Whilst I am sorry to lose Neil from the Law Society, we will benefit from his hard work for many years to come. In his time as director of representation, he has helped to transform the range of services and support we offer the profession. He has championed our innovative new Smartcard project, ensured we remain a leader on equality and diversity, and has helped develop our new long term strategy. All of us at the Law Society are grateful for everything he has done.

“I am now looking forward to working with Neil in his new role. The relationship between the Law Society and the SLCC has improved greatly over the last few years. Given the specific roles we play in the regulation of solicitors, this has been important, particularly for the public who depend on both of our organisations to work together to protect their interests.”

The current biography of Neil Stevenson on the Law Society of Scotland’s website says: “Neil joined the education team of the Society in 2004, having previously worked on medical and dental training for NHS Education for Scotland. He holds an Edinburgh law degree and a masters in management, and has previous experience in the oil and gas sector and management research. Neil is responsible for the confidential helpline service provided by the solicitors in professional practice and for the provision of CPD to the profession through Update. The professional support team focuses on ensuring the Society listens to and learns from its members, campaigns on their behalf, and provides support services to individuals and firms. He is a director of both the independent charity LawCare and the Scottish Arbitration Centre.”

Stevenson’s directorship of “Law Care” – a charity set up by the legal profession to help and defend solicitors who have been found out for ripping off their clients – will be of interest to clients who end up in the unenviable position of having to approach the SLCC to make a complaint about their solicitor. The charity has filed numerous reports with the pro-lawyer SLCC & Law Society Complaints Committees – pleading for corrupt solicitors to be let off the hook on everything from embezzlement to faking up paperwork.

Stevenson’s directorship of the Scottish Arbitration Centre may also put him in conflict of interest with SLCC policy of forcing complainants into the murky world of arbitration – where clients who are ripped off for large sums of cash by their solicitor end up with only a pittance in return. The Scottish Arbitration Centre – started by the Scottish Government and backed by lawyers, is a sponge for taxpayers cash and international trips by lawyers & former judges who are trying to promote Scotland’s tarnished legal sector as a haven for international mediation.

REVOLVING DOOR OF LEGAL REGULATOR CHIEF EXECUTIVES:

The post of the SLCC’s Chief Executive has seen considerable controversy since the legal quango was created in 2008. Now, eight years on and five Chief Executives later, the SLCC is looking for another boss to steer it through troubled waters and continuing accusations of pro-lawyer bias.

mkmc slcc openingMacAskill as Justice Secretary backed secret payoff for ‘too ill to work’ former Chief Executive. The SLCC’s first ‘appointed’ 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 from her role at the SLCC on grounds of “ill health”. Eileen Masterman then returned to work for her former employer – the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) as a “complaints reviewer”, and was accused of whitewashing the circumstances of the death of a baby at the NHS Forth Valley Hospital – reported by Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper 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 – civil servant Richard Smith – resigned from the role after disagreements about how the SLCC would act as a regulator. Mr Smith was then replaced by another civil servant before Mrs Masterman was eventually appointed as the first ‘official’ CEO.

Concluding a turbulent few months which saw exchanges of letters between current Deputy First Minister John Swinney and Masterman over claims and counter-claims about the Master Policy – reported here: SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh’ Masterman stood down from the SLCC – which by that time had suffered significant reputational damage.

After a speedy recruitment round, Rosemary Agnew then became the SLCC’s fourth Chief Executive, reported here: The £80K job no-one wants : Lawyers lobby seek FIFTH time unlucky Chief Executive for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission role. However Ms Agnew later resigned to take up the post of Scottish Information Commissioner in early 2012.

The SLCC’s current and now outgoing CEO Matthew Vickers took on the role in June 2012, reported here: “Customer Service” main focus for Ex-Foreign Office Consul taking over as FIFTH Chief Exec at ‘anti-consumer’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GONE MEDIATIN’: Pro-lawyer legal regulator loses another CEO as Matthew Vickers leaves Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for Ombudsman Services role

Matthew Vickers, CEO of law regulator resigns for mediation post. TROUBLED regulator of solicitors – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has announced the resignation of yet another Chief Executive – Matthew Vickers – who steps down in March 2015 for a post in the world of big business mediation.

Mr Vickers, who took on the CEO role at the SLCC during summer of 2012 after the ‘independent’ regulator had lost several bosses over a four year span – is leaving to take up the post of Deputy Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services – a not-for-profit organisation which provides independent dispute resolution for the communication, energy and property sectors.

Commenting on the resignation SLCC chair, Bill Brackenridge said: “We are grateful to Matt for his leadership and contribution since he joined the SLCC as CEO in June 2012. He and the management and staff have worked hard to make the SLCC a more efficient, effective and influential organisation. We are now well established as an independent and impartial body. Of course, we recognise that there is a great deal of work to be done and we have started our search to find a CEO who will help us to tackle it.”

The overly pro-lawyer, anti-consumer SLCC – frequently accused of bias towards solicitors over poor handling client complaints has cost clients a staggering £18 million since it was created in 2008 with an extra £2million of taxpayers money handed over by the Scottish Government.

The cost of running the SLCC is  met by a complaints levy of around £300 a year, paid by solicitors who then go on to recover the levy through hikes in legal fees to clients.

In the eight years since the SLCC has existed, not one rogue solicitor or law firm has been named & shamed by the poorly constituted regulator – once touted as the key to cleaning up the poor and often corrupt reputation of legal services in Scotland.

Over the years, the regulator has been subject to numerous scandals, ranging from board members drunken jibes against victims of rogue lawyers, to accusations it failed to use powers to monitor damages claims made in the courts by financially ruined clients against the Law Society’s Master Insurance Policy.

A report commissioned by the SLCC on the Master Policy revealed clients were not getting a fair deal from the Law Society’s ‘crooked lawyer’ compensation scheme, and that clients had committed suicide after not being able to repair the damage to their lives caused by their solicitors. However nothing has been done by the SLCC on this matter since the report came out in 2009, reported here: Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society’s Master Policy which ‘allows solicitors to sleep at night’

The SLCC’s latest annual report for 2013-2014 claimed the regulator had awarded a record £365K in compensation to clients who filed complaints about rogue Scots lawyers.

However an analysis of the figures revealed the SLCC only used its powers to nullify fees to clients on two occasions in the past year, raising questions as to why the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission continues to solicitors found guilty of providing poor legal services to demand fees from clients even after ruining their legal interests.

REVOLVING DOOR OF LEGAL REGULATOR CHIEFS:

The post of the SLCC’s Chief Executive has seen considerable controversy since the legal quango was created in 2008. Now, eight years on and five Chief Executives later, the SLCC is looking for another boss to steer it through troubled waters and continuing accusations of pro-lawyer bias.

mkmc slcc openingMacAskill as Justice Secretary backed huge secret payoff for ‘too ill to work’ former Chief Executive. The SLCC’s first ‘appointed’ 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 from her role at the SLCC on grounds of “ill health”. Eileen Masterman then returned to work for her former employer – the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) as a “complaints reviewer”, and was accused of whitewashing the circumstances of the death of a baby at the NHS Forth Valley Hospital – reported by Diary of Injustice & the Sunday Mail newspaper 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 – civil servant Richard Smith – resigned from the role after disagreements about how the SLCC would act as a regulator. Mr Smith was then replaced by another civil servant before Mrs Masterman was eventually appointed as the first ‘official’ CEO.

Concluding a turbulent few months which saw exchanges of letters between current Deputy First Minister John Swinney and Masterman over claims and counter-claims about the Master Policy – reported here: SLCC’s Eileen Masterman resigns, questions remain on attempt to mislead Cabinet Finance Chief John Swinney over secret meetings with insurers Marsh’ Masterman stood down from the SLCC – which by that time had suffered significant reputational damage.

After a speedy recruitment round, Rosemary Agnew then became the SLCC’s fourth Chief Executive, reported here: The £80K job no-one wants : Lawyers lobby seek FIFTH time unlucky Chief Executive for Scottish Legal Complaints Commission role. However Ms Agnew later resigned to take up the post of Scottish Information Commissioner in early 2012.

The SLCC’s current and now outgoing CEO Matthew Vickers took on the role in June 2012, reported here: “Customer Service” main focus for Ex-Foreign Office Consul taking over as FIFTH Chief Exec at ‘anti-consumer’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

TOO MANY SECRETS: Legal Affairs Minister ‘anti-transparency’ evidence to MSPs a ‘poor substitute for top judge’ as Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee consider next move on proposal to create a register of interests for judges

Minister fails to convince MSPs judges wealth & links to big business should remain secret. MSPs from the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee are now deciding their next moves in their investigation of proposals to create a register of judicial interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary, after taking evidence from Paul Wheelhouse – the Minister for Community Safety & Legal Affairs.

The Petition Committee’s evidence session with Mr Wheelhouse, taking place at Holyrood on Tuesday 9 December, published today in it’s entire written record & accompanied by video footage, also heard of comparisons with a US register of financial interests for judges which could serve as a model for any register of judges interests in Scotland.

Petition PE1458 – a proposal to increase judicial transparency and submitted to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in late 2012 envisages the creation of a single independently regulated register of interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

Legal insiders who have studied Mr Wheelhouse’ evidence believe the Minister gave several misrepresentations to members of the Committee about interests disclosures of Scotland’s judges. A Scottish Parliament insider branded Mr Wheelhouse as “anti-transparency” and “a poor substitute for Lord Gill”.

Lord President Lord Brian Gill – Scotland’s top judge has refused several invitations to appear before the Scottish Parliament and explain his opposition to the creation of a register of judicial interests.

Mr Wheelhouse also followed Lord Gill’s lead in criticising the media, implying a register of judicial interests may cause judges some problems if the press find out more about judges secret interests, such as tax avoidance, investments in companies with criminal records, criminal records & convictions, and other matters the judiciary prefer not to reveal to the public.

None of Mr Wheelhouse’ reasons against a register of interests for judges were accepted by members of the Petitions Committee.

It also became clear from admissions by Mr Wheelhouse’ civil servants they and Mr Wheelhouse had not even met Lord Gill, or the new Judicial Complaints Reviewer – Gillian Thompson – who. it was confirmed, had not even bothered to reply to the Petitions Committee request for sight of the latest JCR annual report.

It also came out during questions from MSPs that neither the Minister or civil servants had yet had sight of Lord Gill’s proposed changes to the complaints rules – even though the consultation held by the top judge on rules changes had ended over a year ago.

Input in the debate from new Committee member Kenny MacAskill was also lampooned by parliamentary insiders, noting the sacked Justice Secretary’s attempt to criticise how judges are selected in America, gave little weight to reasons to conceal the secrets of wealthy Scottish judges. Mr MacAskill was rushed in to the Petitions Committee to replace the popular Chic Brodie – who supports transparency and declarations of interests.

Legal Affairs Minister Paul Wheelhouse evidence to Petitions Committee Petition 1458 Register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary

Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)

The Convener:The next item of business is an evidence-taking session with the Scottish Government as part of the committee’s consideration of PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

Nothing has been received from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. However, the petitioner notified the clerk that the JCR’s annual report to 31 August, which covers the tenure of the previous office-holder, Moi Ali, was published on Friday. Some members might have already received it.

I welcome Paul Wheelhouse, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs. He is accompanied by Kay McCorquodale and Catherine Hodgson from the Scottish Government’s civil law and legal systems division.

I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement of approximately five minutes.

The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Paul Wheelhouse): Thank you for inviting me to speak to the committee today.

I welcome this further consideration of the issues around a register of interests for the judiciary and, in particular, the sufficiency of the existing safeguards.

The Scottish Government takes the view that it is not necessary to establish a formal register of judicial interests. That is because, as my predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham, has stated, the Scottish Government considers that the current safeguards are sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the judiciary in Scotland. There is no evidence to date that the safeguards have failed.

There are three important safeguards. The first is the judicial oath, taken by all judicial office-holders before they sit on the bench, which requires judges to

“do right to all manner of people … without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”

The second safeguard is the statement of principles of judicial ethics, which states at principle 5 that all judicial office-holders have a general duty to act impartially. In particular, it notes:

“Plainly it is not acceptable for a judge to adjudicate upon any matter in which he, or she, or any members of his or her family has a pecuniary interest.”

The third safeguard is in the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which contains provisions to regulate and investigate the conduct of judicial office-holders. Under section 28, the Lord President has a power to make rules for the investigation of

“any matter concerning the conduct of judicial office holders”.

The Complaints about the Judiciary (Scotland) Rules were updated in 2013. In autumn 2013, the Lord President also consulted on the adequacy of the rules. The former Judicial Complaints Reviewer contributed to that consultation. I understand that new rules, together with accompanying guidance, will be published early in 2015. The new rules will simplify the complaints process for all concerned and will clarify what can be properly investigated.

In addition, as members are aware, on 1 April 2014, the Scottish Court Service set up a public register of judicial recusals, following the former JCR’s call for greater transparency and accountability and the informal meeting between yourself, convener, the deputy convener at the time—Chic Brodie—and the Lord President. The register sets out the reason why a member of the judiciary has recused himself or herself from hearing a case. That is a welcome addition to the safeguards that I have already mentioned.

With regard to the complaints system, I am aware of the criticisms that were made in the former JCR’s annual report, which was published last week. I acknowledge the former JCR’s positive influence, during her time in office, over the handling of complaints about judicial conduct. That has contributed to the improvements that are being made to the complaints system.

It is, of course, of vital importance that judges are seen to be independent and impartial. They must be free from prejudice by association or relationship with the parties to a litigation. They must be able to demonstrate impartiality by having no vested interest, such as a pecuniary or indeed familial interest, that could affect them in exercising their judicial functions.

Setting up a register of judicial interests would be a matter for the Lord President, as head of the judiciary in Scotland. The Lord President takes the view that a register of pecuniary interests for the judiciary is not needed and that a judge has a greater duty of disclosure than a register of financial interests could address. The statement of principles of judicial ethics states that a judge’s disclosure duties extend to material relationships, and the new register of recusals addresses that issue.

It is also important to bear in mind the potential downsides of establishing a register of judicial interests. The Lord President said in his written evidence to the committee that it is possible that

“information held on a register of judicial interests could be abused.”

He went on to say:

“If publicly criticised or attacked, the judicial office holder cannot publicly defend himself or herself, unlike a politician. The establishment of such a register therefore may have the unintended consequences of eroding public confidence in the judiciary”.

The Lord President provided further information about the new register of recusals in his letter to the committee of 21 November, which records that all but two judicial recusals were voluntary. There is no record of a case in which a judge or sheriff who has an interest that would justify recusal has had to recuse him or herself after a party has raised the matter. There is, therefore, no evidence to demonstrate that the existing recusal system is not working.

I acknowledge the work that the committee has done in taking forward the issues that are raised in the petition. As the convener acknowledged in the chamber debate,

“the New Zealand bill was ultimately withdrawn on the basis that agreement was reached to improve the rules on recusals and conflicts of interests.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2014; c 64.]

We have similarly had the opportunity for open discussion of these issues. Improvements have already been made in Scotland, such as the introduction of the public register of judicial recusals, and improvements to the complaints rules are about to be introduced. The Scottish Government’s position is that a formal register of judicial interests is neither practical nor necessary.

I am happy to take questions.

The Convener: Thank you, minister. Why should the judiciary be treated any differently from other holders of public office, such as ministers, MSPs or MPs?

Paul Wheelhouse: The point that was made by the Lord President in his letter of 21 November, to which I just referred, is pertinent. I recognise that, as politicians, we have a duty to be accountable to the public who elect us, and we need to be able to demonstrate that we do not have any conflicts of interest. However, the position of the judiciary is somewhat different. As the Lord President outlined, judges are not able to answer for themselves if they are criticised or attacked for their interests, which means that they are vulnerable in that sense. In addition, they or their families might be open to threats or intimidation if property details were registered or if other details were shared that might cause security concerns.

In my previous role, I was aware of Scottish Environment Protection Agency officials who were stalked and harassed on social media, as were their families, and who were being regularly physically and verbally threatened by individuals who were allegedly involved in serious organised crime. I have therefore seen that people of ill intent can attempt to intimidate officials.

The more we protect the privacy of the judiciary in relation to details that could otherwise create security concerns for them, the better, as that will ensure that no one attempts in any way to influence judges’ decisions.

The Convener: How do you respond to the argument from the petitioner and the previous JCR that the current system does not provide individuals with sufficient protection from judicial bias?

Paul Wheelhouse: I am aware of those concerns. I recognise the genuine concerns that have been raised by members of the public, including Mr Cherbi, and, indeed, by committee members during the debate on 9 October. I stress that no one is pointing the finger of blame at any particular judge, but I am concerned to ensure that there is a perception that the judicial system in Scotland is above reproach and that there is no danger of bias in the decision-making process.

The concern that has been expressed has been addressed in a number of respects. We have the JCR and the ability to lodge a complaint against the judiciary if a conflict of interest that has not been disclosed comes to light. There is, therefore, a mechanism for people to raise a complaint, which the JCR can take forward.

As I said in my opening remarks, we have no evidence to date to suggest that anyone has been forced to recuse themselves after someone has raised a conflict of interest. In every case so far, the judge concerned has brought forward their own issues and therefore recused themselves. I am aware of two other cases, one of which involved Sheriff Cowan, who said that her membership of the RSPB might be perceived as a conflict of interest. She put that to both parties in the case, who were given the option to decide whether to allow her to continue in her role or whether she should recuse herself. Ultimately, the defendant in the case asked her to recuse herself.

The process seems to work, and therefore we have no evidence—to date, at least—to suggest that any such bias has been identified in any court case.

The Convener: But how will the parties know that there is a conflict if there is no register of interests? They are not psychic.

Paul Wheelhouse: I take the point. I will take forward these concerns when I meet—for the first time; I have not yet met them—Lord Gill and the new JCR, Gillian Thompson OBE. I will raise the issues in the context of wider discussions and see whether they have any thoughts.

The principle is whether there should be a public register. I note for the record that New Zealand, which was the prompt, if you like, for the matter coming before the Scottish Parliament, has decided to drop the proposal for a public register and instead strengthen its recusal process and complaints procedure. A recusal process and a complaints procedure are already in place in Scotland, and the rules on the complaints procedure are being updated by the Lord President. Those systems are being deployed in New Zealand as well, rather than a public register.

There are concerns about ensuring that there is no undue influence over or harassment of the judiciary as a result of information that they present in a register. In any case, a register could never be completely complete, if I can use that phrase, because it is difficult for a judge to anticipate the full range of cases that might come before them. They could have to declare absolutely everything—every person they know, every organisation they are a member of and every financial interest that they have—yet that might be entirely unnecessary given the case load that comes before them.

The Convener: Exactly the same is true for ministers. You are not expected to declare every single aspect. There is a laid-down procedure for what ministers—and indeed MSPs—have to disclose. No one is asking us to be psychic, but we need to make sure that we follow the rules. If they are good enough for us, why are they not good enough for judges?

Paul Wheelhouse: I take the point entirely. It is entirely appropriate that we declare that information as ministers and MSPs, and, indeed, that MPs do the same. However, we have the opportunity to answer for our actions and get our point across in a way that judges might not be able to—albeit that sometimes it does not feel like that, in terms of the media. As politicians, we can answer for ourselves, and we are usually pretty robust when we do so. It is more difficult for members of the judiciary, and I think that Parliament has to recognise that. They are in a different position and are unable to answer for themselves in the way that we would.

The Convener: I must say that I have not noticed that judges have been slow to come forward in the Sunday Mail recently, but I will leave it there.

David Torrance (Kirkcaldy) (SNP): Good morning, minister. According to the Lord President’s letter to the committee of 21 November, new rules for the judiciary and new guidance are to be published early in 2015. Do you think that they will go some way towards addressing the petitioner’s concerns?

Paul Wheelhouse: That is a very good question—congratulations on being chosen as deputy convener, by the way.

We will have to leave it to the Lord President to provide a detailed response to the issues that were raised by the former JCR and in the most recent annual report. I will look to discuss those issues with Lord Gill when I meet him in due course.

I will bring in Kay McCorquodale to tell you about the detail that we are aware of, but I have every confidence that the Lord President has listened to the criticisms. Moves have already been made to address some of the concerns about the complaints procedure that have been raised by the committee and, importantly, by the former JCR, Moi Ali. Her report raises some concerns about specific cases, and we want to make sure that the complaints procedure addresses all of them. As the minister, I will look to ensure that the procedural weaknesses that have been identified are addressed in due course.

Kay McCorquodale (Scottish Government): Scottish Government officials are in exactly the same position as the minister, in that we have not seen the draft rules. We know that there has been a consultation, and that the JCR fed into it. We anticipate that her concerns will have been addressed. We will meet officials from the Lord President’s private office, and I am sure that they will let us see the rules when they are in a position to share them with us.

John Wilson (Central Scotland) (Ind): Good morning, minister. I welcome you to your new role as the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs.

You have laid out your defence for not having a register. The petition calls for a register to be set up to ensure that the public can have confidence in the judiciary in Scotland. Earlier this year, an article in The Guardian highlighted problems that had been identified in England and Wales to do with who judges the judges.

Are you 100 per cent confident that every judge and every sheriff will recuse themselves when they have an interest that is relevant to the case that they are considering? The petitioner feels that if we do not have on public record information to tell us whether a sheriff or a judge has an interest in the issue that they are considering or in the individual who is before them, that information might come out at a later date and the person who appeared in court might feel that, in the circumstances, they were unfairly treated or unfairly judged.

Paul Wheelhouse: Thank you for your welcome, Mr Wilson.

You raise some highly significant issues. You asked whether I could give a 100 per cent guarantee that every judge will always recuse themselves appropriately. It would be unreasonable for me to say that I can give such a guarantee, just as I cannot be 100 per cent certain that every MSP, every MP and every person in public life, such as celebrities, will always declare their interests. However, I am confident that the system has procedures to address that—or will have, once the reforms to the complaints procedure have been carried out.

Public confidence in the judiciary is extremely important. You hit the nail on the head as far as the rationale for the debate that we are having is concerned. We want to deliver confidence in the judiciary and to ensure that that is maintained. We tried to establish whether any definitive surveys had been carried out on confidence in the judiciary. To date, we have not been able to identify such a survey but, from a personal perspective, I do not have any sense that there is widespread concern about the judiciary or a lack of confidence in the judiciary. There might be disagreements from time to time over the outcome of particular cases, which is entirely understandable, given that there are two parties to a dispute—a defendant and a prosecutor. However, I do not have the impression that there is widespread concern about the judiciary.

How do we ensure that confidence is maintained, and that the ability of the judiciary to be unbiased is never a concern? We need to have a robust system for recusals in place. We are developing that and, at least to my mind, it seems that the judiciary are using the recusal process appropriately.

Do we have a perfect complaints procedure? Apparently not. I recognise the points that the JCR made in her report. I am confident that the Lord President will reflect on those and will reform the process.

Are there sanctions for those who fail to recuse themselves? Yes, there are. If a judicial office-holder breaches the rules and a complaint is made that they should not have taken a particular case, for example, there might be legitimate grounds for an appeal. In such a case, the Lord President may give the judicial office-holder formal advice about what they have done, or a formal warning or reprimand, which would damage their reputation.

Measures are in place to address such situations should they arise, but I recognise the concern about the fact that the recusal process is shrouded in privacy, to some extent, because it happens within the judiciary and is not open to public scrutiny. I will look to discuss with the Lord President and the new JCR, Gillian Thompson, whether they have any suggestions as to how that might be addressed in future.

John Wilson: You are aware, however, that recusal is voluntary. I welcome the Lord President’s submission on the number of recusals, and you have mentioned Sheriff Cowan’s decision to recuse herself from a case that she was hearing on wildlife matters, but the point is that recusal is still voluntary.

A member of the public or someone appearing before the bench may become aware that a sheriff or judge may have a particular interest in an issue after the case and beyond the period of the appeals process, which is very limited—it lasts three months, as I understand it. The information that a judge or sheriff had a particular vested interest in a case that they were hearing may come out 12 months or two years down the road.

How does it give confidence in the judicial system if people feel that the process for complaining about judges is, as you said, shrouded in secrecy? How do we give the public more confidence that they will be dealt with without fear or favour when they appear before a sheriff or judge?

Paul Wheelhouse: I certainly note the points that you have made. There are three possible scenarios when it comes to recusal.

In the first, people voluntarily recuse themselves. They identify themselves as a risk, and they decide for themselves that, because the issue is so significant, they will voluntarily recuse themselves from the case.

The second scenario involves an element of perception. The member of the judiciary concerned might not believe that the issue will materially impact on their decision, but they offer the information to both sides in the case and leave it to them to decide whether the member of the judiciary should recuse themselves. That has happened twice, to my knowledge, so the system has worked.

The third potential scenario is where a judge or sheriff who has an interest that would justify recusal says nothing about it but has to recuse themselves during the court case, when a party raises the matter. We have no record of that happening so far. Further, to date, no information has been provided to me to indicate that a conflict of interest that has not been identified during a court case has been revealed only thereafter. I appreciate that the recusals process is relatively new, and I cannot guarantee that such a scenario has never happened in the past, but the process is up and running now.

Perhaps we have not emphasised this enough, but the oath that the judiciary must take is quite onerous and clear in requiring members of the judiciary to assess potential conflicts of interest under ethical guidance.

The Convener: The big issue that I and my colleagues have been pushing is that it is assumed that those who appear before a judge have some form of psychic powers. How will they know whether there is a conflict? If there is no register, they will not be aware of it.

Until Chic Brodie and I met the Lord President, there was no system for recording recusals. We made that point to the Lord President, and—in fairness—he agreed to put a system in place, but it came into force only in April. It is only since then that we have been able to assess whether judges have recused themselves. Previously, that was a complete mystery; even recusals were a mystery.

You make out that everything is done fairly and is all above board. However, an ordinary person who appears before a judge does not have a clue whether there is any conflict of interest. That is the key point. We want—or rather, the petitioner wants—a system that is similar to the system for other public officials.

Your only real argument is that judges cannot defend themselves. I am sorry, but that is not a very strong argument.

Paul Wheelhouse: If I may say so, convener, you misrepresent what I said. I did not say that that is the only ground for my view. There are serious concerns about potential influence on the judiciary as a result of revealing their interests in a public register. That would open them up to potentially hostile and aggressive press action, which might apply pressure on them to come down in a particular way in an adjudication.

In some cases—as I said—if members of the judiciary reveal property interests or anything that might give away a physical address, that could put them at risk of physical threats. I have experience of that from working with colleagues in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency who have been threatened by those who are involved in criminal activity.

We must be very careful what we wish for. I take on board your points about the need for transparency. People have to know that the judicial service system is fair, above board and unbiased, and it is entirely right that the committee has taken a strong interest in that.

I appeal to the committee to think about the potential consequences of having a public-facing register that could expose members of the judiciary to undue influence from outside the court process and put them or their families at risk. We must recognise that many members of the judiciary deal with extremely sensitive issues, and often extremely violent people, in the context of their work. That is different from the work of politicians.

It is important to recognise that judges would not have the right to defend themselves—I raised that point, and it is fair for the convener to mention it—but I have wider concerns about the risks that such a register would place on the judiciary.

The Convener: I am a bit conscious of the time. I will bring in Kenny MacAskill before coming back to John Wilson but, before we leave that point, I stress that no member of the committee wants to put judges at risk from any security concerns. Ministers and other MSPs do not reveal their home addresses, and we would have a basic procedure that followed that model. I do not want the minister to misrepresent what I suggest. We would obviously have a register that respected the security concerns of judges; to do otherwise would be a very strange policy.

Kenny MacAskill: I will pursue the issue of public interest. One jurisdiction that has a register is the United States. I am going only by apocryphal tales, but I have heard of potential candidates for the Supreme Court being dissuaded, if not rejected, by House committees in which they have been pilloried. The issue is where the balance is struck. Is there any jurisprudential evidence from the United States on whether justice has been enhanced or whether the public opprobrium wreaked on many potential nominees for the Supreme Court has dissuaded people from going into that theatre at all?

Paul Wheelhouse: Mr MacAskill raises an important point. The petitioner, in his submission of 21 October, drew attention to the register of interests in America. The origins of the United States as a country explain to some degree the formal regulation of Government ethics there.

There has been great attention to the issue since the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was brought in to require federal judges to file annual financial reports and provide a full financial disclosure to a committee. The purpose is to expose judges’ financial holdings to public scrutiny, which assists them in avoiding conflicts of interest.

A system is in place in the United States. I have seen some of the reporting on particular judges—I will not quote it here—and the kind of details that are posted. Largely, they are on things such as retirement accounts and life insurance policies. I am not sure whether that adds any value, but it opens people up to being pilloried in the way that Mr MacAskill described and to having every aspect of their financial activities pored over in enormous detail.

When people invest in a general insurance policy or a pension fund, they have no day-to-day involvement in the decisions about how that money is invested. I am not sure how relevant such information is to the process. There was one case in Scotland in which a judge had a pecuniary interest, but it was clear that the decision in the case would not have influenced the value of the shareholding, so it was unlikely that the pecuniary interest would have had any influence.

I do not know whether Kay McCorquodale or Catherine Hodgson has any information of the kind that Mr MacAskill asked for about the negative consequences of having a register in the US.

Kay McCorquodale: I do not have any evidence of that to hand. It is interesting that the register there deals only with financial holdings, as Mr Wheelhouse just explained—it does not cover personal interests or anything else, so it is very narrow. In addition, it covers only federal judges; it goes no wider than that.

Anne McTaggart (Glasgow) (Lab): I welcome the panel and I welcome the minister to his new role. There has been discussion about the differences between our role as elected representatives and the role of judges when it comes to declaring information, but will you expand on why you think that judges should not have to declare information, whereas we have to? I am not fully convinced by that argument.

Paul Wheelhouse: I certainly recognise the point, which the convener also made. I do not want to misrepresent his approach. I am sure that his intent is entirely above board; I do not wish to suggest otherwise.

We have concerns on two fronts. First, as MSPs, we disclose our pecuniary interests and any other things that we perceive might give rise to a conflict of interests. A lot of trust is put in us to declare matters that we believe might influence our decision making as MSPs, whether as ministers, committee members or back benchers. We are trusted to do that, and I believe that the Parliament has a good record on that.

If there is any criticism of an entry in the register of members’ interests, we have the ability to defend ourselves. We have the right to do so and we have the forum to do so—in Parliament, we can put things right on the record. I am not a member of the judiciary and I have no axe to grind in this particular fight, other than that I think that there is an issue of fairness, in that judges do not have the same ability to defend themselves in public as we have.

That is not to say that we have no interest in ensuring that everything is above board. I recognise the points that the committee has made. As I indicated, I will look to get feedback from the new JCR, Gillian Thompson, and the Lord President—when I get the chance to meet him—on what they think is necessary to give the public confidence that, although the system is largely hidden from view, it is operating robustly and that those who are perceived to have a conflict of interests in a case raise that and recuse themselves voluntarily or at least make both parties to the case aware that there is a risk of a conflict of interests and give them a choice.

It is extremely important that the system is seen to be properly and robustly applied and that there is no subsequent criticism of the kind that Mr Wilson fairly raised, whereby someone might have been totally unaware of a conflict of interests that the judge who oversaw their case had and it might be too late to do anything about it under the appeals process. We need to get feedback from the Lord President and the new JCR about how that should be dealt with.

Angus MacDonald: Congratulations, minister, on your new portfolio. You have touched on this, but will you expand on the Scottish Government’s argument that the information on a register could be misleading, as it would not cover all the conflicts that could arise? Do you have a view on the argument that, even if a register is incomplete, it could still have value in increasing transparency?

Paul Wheelhouse: If we want to draw people’s attention to something on the register of interests, we can do that at the beginning of a speech. That relates to Anne McTaggart’s point. We can say, “Presiding Officer, I bring to your attention my entry in the register of interests,” and we can flag up any concerns that members should be aware of. We can do that case by case.

If people had to write their entry in a register in advance, it could be difficult to define exactly what should be recorded. If we are dealing with general cases—not specialist cases in a judicial sense—it is difficult to imagine that the register could cover every scenario in which there could be a conflict of interest, every potential plaintiff or defendant who might come forward in a court case, or every interest that might have to be declared.

The register would have to be either entirely comprehensive or targeted. If people have not anticipated that a case might come forward and have not put something on the register of interests, that could be misleading, because it could look as if there was no conflict of interest; something would subsequently have to be added in advance of a case to ensure that everything was clear. I am not sure that it would be easy to operate such a publicly facing register and to ensure that it fully encompassed all potential conflicts of interest that a judge or sheriff could find themselves involved in.

We have heard about the example of such a register in the US but, as Kay McCorquodale said, it covers only the financial aspects of judicial interests. It does not cover personal relationships or memberships of bodies, which might be an issue. A Scottish register would have to be wider than the one in the US to cover all those potential issues, and it would become difficult to manage. At what point would a judge decide that they knew someone well enough to put that on a register of interests? If you meet someone on the bus, do you have to declare as an interest the fact that you had a friendly conversation with them, or is the register for people with whom you have been lifelong friends? That is difficult to define, and I welcome the committee’s views, but I do not see the case as compelling at this point.

Angus MacDonald: I find it strange that, in America, where it is a requirement to register financial interests, judges do not have to register membership of bodies. I was not aware of that.

Paul Wheelhouse: It appears that there is no requirement to register memberships. I find that slightly odd if the intent is to capture all potential conflicts of interest. We have examples in Scotland of people recusing themselves for being members of organisations. In that sense, we are one step ahead of the US.

Sheriff Cowan recently withdrew from a case voluntarily after having raised the issue with both parties to the case. As she had been a member of RSPB Scotland, and as witnesses from the RSPB were going to appear, there was the risk of a perceived conflict of interests, rather than an actual conflict of interests. She gave the parties the option and they asked her to recuse herself. The system worked well in that case.

We have a system that appears to work, but I appreciate the concerns about the need to ensure that it works every time. If one case goes through where it does not work, that is obviously a concern, but we have no evidence to date that that has happened, so let us look at the glass as being half full.

The Convener: I will let John Wilson in again, because I cut him short earlier.

John Wilson: There is an interesting debate on the constitutional issue of the appointment of Supreme Court judges in the United States of America. I am sure that the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland will look carefully at how judges are appointed to the UK’s Supreme Court and will try to draw on those rules. However, I want to concentrate on the register of interests.

You said in your opening statement that you are aware, because of your experience in your previous ministerial role, that senior officials at SEPA are sometimes stopped and harassed by elements in the community. In your new role as Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, do you intend to introduce legislation to protect public office-holders and their families from being harassed, stalked and approached by people involved in criminal activity? If part of the reason for not having a register is that judges and sheriffs might be stalked and harassed by elements in society, surely we must examine the legislation that protects them from such behaviour.

Paul Wheelhouse: I assure Mr Wilson that, in my previous role, we introduced measures in the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to protect SEPA officials, which brought their protection into line with that of other key emergency workers.

I take Mr Wilson’s wider point about the judiciary. It would clearly be a criminal offence to do what has been described, but there is a great argument for prevention over cure. Why create a situation where we have to make a new protection for judges when we do not have to put them in that position in the first place? If we can avoid giving away sensitive information that might lead to them being coerced in any way, that will be better than having to resolve the situation after the event by applying legislation, whether old or new.

Mr Wilson makes a fair point, which is that the Government has a duty to protect people in such a situation. I assure him that I will do everything in my power to help to protect members of the judiciary from being threatened. However, it is better to prevent a situation than to have to resolve it.

Kay McCorquodale can give us some guidance on protection.

Kay McCorquodale: As the minister said, this is a serious consideration and we take it into account.

Judicial appointments to the United Kingdom Supreme Court were mentioned. When the Supreme Court was set up, it was decided that it would not be appropriate or feasible for it to have a comprehensive register of interests, because it would be impossible to identify all the interests that might conceivably arise. The court has a formal code of conduct instead. That is similar to our position in Scotland, where we have a statement of judicial ethics.

The Convener: I would like to follow up that point, but I do not want to cut John Wilson off again, so I will let him continue.

John Wilson: Thank you, convener. Minister, you said that you would be wary of having sensitive information put on the public record. Can you define “sensitive information”? Is that just financial information or would it include family relationship information? We could have a judge or a sheriff hearing a case where their son, daughter, mother, father, aunt or uncle was appearing before them to defend or represent someone. Can you define what you mean by sensitive information appearing on a register?

Paul Wheelhouse: I can give examples, but I would need guidance from justice professionals and the police as to what might constitute information that could be risky in terms of modern technology and the ability to attack or damage the interests of individuals. Information on property might be sensitive. The convener made a fair point that personal household information should be kept off any register; that would be sensible if we ever had a register. It would be appropriate to keep residential information private, to protect the safety of the individual and the family and to ensure that it was not a honey pot for those who might want to coerce someone in advance of a decision.

Other sensitive information would be anything else that threatens people’s safety or potentially opens them up to coercion in relation to a court case. We want to protect the integrity of the decision-making process in court, as well as the safety of those making the decisions.

Kay McCorquodale has just pointed out to me that, in the US, the assets, income and liabilities of judges, spouses and dependent children must all be disclosed, although information may be redacted to protect the safety of individuals if they are in danger. That issue has obviously been considered in the US and the approach there might be worth the committee’s consideration.

Kenny MacAskill: It seems to me that it is for those who wish to have a register to define it. What John Wilson said reminded me of a recent high-profile case relating to a football club, in which the judge declared that he was a season ticket holder at another football club. Is it your understanding that that would not constitute a financial interest that he would be required to declare? The judge did not recuse himself but made the information publicly available, which seemed to me the right thing to do.

Do you have any comments on the generality of what would be registered in the proposed register? It seemed to me that the judge in that case was correct to make his declaration. Perhaps the judgment about what to declare should be made with regard to conflict of interest rather than precise rules. Do we expect a judge to declare an interest if he is a season ticket holder at a football or rugby club?

Paul Wheelhouse: Mr MacAskill is absolutely right that we must be reasonable about this. For example, it is left to MSPs to judge what they believe constitutes, or might be perceived to constitute, a conflict of interest and to declare such matters voluntarily, if need be. There is a section in the register of members’ interests where MSPs can voluntarily declare things that might go beyond the minimum requirements, and I am sure that most if not all MSPs use that facility.

I think that we have to rely on the oath and the guidelines for members of the judiciary on what might be, or be perceived as, a conflict of interest and leave it to them to judge what it is appropriate to declare. I commend the example that Mr MacAskill used of the judge making a voluntary declaration so that there could be no perception of conflict of interest, even though that was not strictly required by the terms of the recusals policy.

We have other examples that we should commend of members of the judiciary behaving entirely appropriately by recusing themselves or giving information that would allow others to decide whether they should recuse themselves. I acknowledge and commend the committee’s role in driving forward and achieving a public register of recusals, which is a welcome addition to the process. That register will help to inform those who are involved in court actions of what constitutes a conflict of interest and will refine the process further.

The Convener: Kay McCorquodale spoke about the Supreme Court. You will be well aware that prior to the setting up of the Supreme Court, the Scottish law lords were members of the House of Lords and had to comply with its register of interests. I am not saying that you have suggested that a register of interests is an alien concept for the Scottish legal system—of course it is not, given that generations of Scottish law lords had entries in the House of Lords register of interests. It is not true that the position would be, “Shock horror! We’ll have to fill in a register.” A register is not a new idea, because generations of law lords used a register. It worked well then, so why could it not work for judges and sheriffs now?

Paul Wheelhouse: That is a fair comment. The law lords had to disclose financial interests. Perhaps it is in areas of pecuniary or financial interests that the public could perceive there to be conflicts of interest. For example, if the judge in a damages case had shares in a company that would be affected by the outcome of the case, that would clearly constitute a conflict of interest.

I can understand why financial interests would be declared under the US position and the disclosure rules for the law lords in the House of Lords, but I think that the petitioner seeks something considerably beyond that in asking for full disclosure of information. As I said, some categories of information might put people at risk of intimidation or intrusive press activity, which would be unhelpful for maintaining—

The Convener: For the record, the petitioner is asking for a register of pecuniary interests.

Paul Wheelhouse: Okay. There are certain bounds: we have discussed property assets, and some safeguards would be needed in relation to personal property, as the convener has identified. There are such examples, and I take that point on board. I would have to take such matters to the Lord President and the new Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Gillian Thompson, in order to get their views.

The Convener: I am conscious of time, but it was important to continue that discussion. Does Angus MacDonald have a quick point?

Angus MacDonald: The minister has just covered the point that I was going to raise.

The Convener: We have a high-quality judiciary, and by European—indeed, international—standards it is remarkably free of corruption, so I would not want to see any other view being promoted in that respect.

However, it is important for ordinary men and women who appear before judges that there is an element of transparency. That is what the committee has pursued, and I thank Lord Gill for agreeing to our request for a register of recusals, which was not in place before we raised the matter in April last year.

Paul Wheelhouse: I welcome that too, and I thank you, convener.

Kenny MacAskill: Paul Wheelhouse mentioned that he is due to meet Gillian Thompson, who has previously held the role of Accountant in Bankruptcy and is a senior civil servant. I wonder whether she can bring a fresh pair of eyes to the matter. Are her views known to you, or could they be provided?

Paul Wheelhouse: I am not yet aware of Gillian Thompson’s views on the matter, but I will be seeking them, and I am happy to invite her to relay those views to the committee in due course.

John Wilson: I put on record my thanks to Moi Ali for the evidence that she has given to the committee in the past. I congratulate her on her comprehensive annual report, which was submitted in August and released last week. It makes very interesting reading, and I hope that the minister will, when he meets the Lord President, raise some of the issues that it highlights.

Moi Ali has raised issues about the judicial complaints procedure, and inferred that when a complaint is made against a judge, it disappears into the ether, and that there is no transparency in how those issues are dealt with.

It would be useful to take on board not only the new Judicial Complaints Reviewer’s view on how she will move forward in her role, but the out-going JCR’s experience in the past three years of dealing with the judicial complaints process, in particular with regard to the way in which complaints were dealt with by the Lord President.

I hope that we can move forward and get a system that everybody feels confident will act in the best interests not only of judges, but of the public and everybody involved in the judicial process.

The Convener: I am conscious of time, minister—

Paul Wheelhouse: I will respond briefly to Mr Wilson. I identify with what he said, and I add my own thanks to Moi Ali, albeit that I was not in post when she was the JCR. I welcome her report, and we will discuss the points that it raises with the Lord President and with Gillian Thompson as the new JCR.

We formally received the report only on 23 October, so the time gap is not quite as big as has perhaps been implied.

The Convener: I back up John Wilson’s point. Moi Ali gave excellent and no-holds-barred evidence to the committee, which was refreshing and very useful.

I suggest that we consider the petition again in the new year, when we can reflect on today’s evidence. We need to look in detail at the previous JCR’s annual report, and at the new rules and guidance that I believe will be published by the Lord President early in the new year.

John Wilson: I agree that we should look at the petition again in the new year. I suggest that we tie that in with the release of the information from the Lord President on the new rules, rather than the committee deciding to discuss the issue only to find out that the new rules have not yet been published.

The Convener: Yes, that is sensible.

Kenny MacAskill: It might be useful to hear in due course, either via the minister or directly from the new JCR, what her view is as a fresh pair of eyes.

The Convener: Yes, that is a good point. Do committee members agree that we will do what we have discussed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener: I thank the minister and his two colleagues for coming along. Your evidence has been very helpful in enabling us to work out the committee’s next steps, and I appreciate you giving up your time. I suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow for a change of witnesses.

10:54 Meeting suspended.

Scotland’s top judge and Scottish Ministers continue a coordinated opposition the creation of a register of interests. A curious policy for the Scottish Government, considering the First Minister’s words on transparency in other matters. However, a debate in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber on Thursday 7 October 2014 saw cross party support for the proposal. MSPs overwhelmingly supported motion S4M-11078 – in the name of Public Petitions Convener David Stewart MSP on petition PE1458, urging the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges.

The parliamentary debate was reported by Diary of Injustice along with video coverage here: TRANSPARENCY TIME: Top judge & Scottish Government told to rethink refusal on declarations of judges as Holyrood MSPs support calls to create a register of judicial interests

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : A Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

A FINE MESS: Complaints cost Scottish lawyers £1K a day in £365K ‘anonymous’ fines & compensation as regulator refuses to identify rogue solicitors & law firms

Fined by them & do it again – regulator fails to name rogue lawyers. THE CHANCES are – if you have ever been fined in a Scottish court – your identity, address, picture, date of birth, much of your life – private, criminal, or otherwise, and even perhaps a strand of your DNA will make it to a Crown Office Press Release to boost their ‘seasonally adjusted’ conviction rates.

However, if you are a member of the Law Society of Scotland, fear not. For solicitors who end up facing fines, compensation orders and fee reductions ordered by Scotland’s ‘independent’ regulator of complaints about lawyers – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) – not one rogue solicitor or law firm fined by the SLCC has been named in the past six years since it began investigating complaints in 2008. Not one.

In fact, you stand a better chance of finding out if there is a re-housed spy, mafia supergrass or a serial abuser – living in a safe house in your neighbourhood – than you do finding out the name of a lawyer fined by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for ripping off other clients.

This year, the SLCC 2014 Annual Report chose to highlight awards of a ‘whopping’ £365,000 in compensation & fee reductions for clients of dodgy Scottish solicitors – yet, again, not one solicitor fined in connection with a complaint – is named.

The rising fee reductions & compensation orders are good, but the lack of names are not. The suspicions are –  the numbers of ‘repeat offenders’ – lawyers who end up being fined for the same thing, the same complaints, over & over – are starting to mount.

But, let’s put this £365,000 gained for ‘complainers’ by the SLCC into a little more perspective.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was created in 2008 with over £2million of public cash from the Scottish Government. £2 million of yours – in their tummy. Nice – for them.

And, SLCC board members make tidy expenses claims of £150K or more each year since 2008. Nice again – for them. Get the picture? Right. It’s a quango. With lots of money – Your money.

Since 2008, the SLCC has cost around £2.7m – £3million a year to run. Making a total cost of operating the SLCC since 2008 now at around £20million – including that £2million public cash splurge from the Scottish Government.

And – where does this £3million annual complaints levy come from ? It comes from a complaints levy paid by solicitors- who – naturally – recover the money via hikes in client fees.

That’s right. You pay for the SLCC. And, you pay a lot for the SLCC.

You pay so much, some clients have found their legal fees doubled, trebled, even quadrupled to pay for the SLCC.

The complaints levy is only £324 or so a year – however, it is well known in the profession many solicitors recover the levy at least twice, three times or more – per client – from you.

£324 … the price of a half decent widescreen telly …easy to slip that one into your legal bill, and again, and again, and again.

And, there is another problem. A bigger problem. Did you guess correctly ?

Shocker – Rogue solicitors who are found out and told by the SLCC to reduce fees or pay compensation – are recovering their losses by overcharging legal fees to other clients. Now that’s what anyone might call a racket.

There is no escaping a fact – the legislation which created the SLCC – the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 – created a multi million pound money monster – much worse than any honey monster.

And what success stories do the SLCC have to tell us about in their annual report. Very few. Actually, hardly any. For fear of identifying someone no doubt.

And what failures do the SLCC have to tell us about in their annual report. None. A little here and there, a reach out to advocates, a tinkering with the edges – otherwise known as “window dressing”.

But, most importantly – not one rogue lawyer or law firm named or shamed since 2008. Imagine that. Around one thousand complaints a year, every year, for six years, and not one lawyer named. Amazing. How did that happen ?

If the Police on £1.2billion a year, or the Lord Advocate & Crown Office on £107million a year stuck to those rules, there would never be any convictions, no one would ever know who was a criminal, and Bambi would wake you up in the morning, accompanied by Thumper the bunny.

So here we have a quandary – from the regulator that once dished out the price of a fish supper as compensation to one victim, to this year’s claim of £365K in compensation & fee reductions, not one corrupt solicitor or law firm who ripped off a client in the past six years has ever been identified.

So, you know what that means, right?

Your own solicitor – yes, that trusty, honest lawyer you handed over all your legal affairs to – may have already been fined by the SLCC for ripping off another client for the very same task you are asking them to perform, at an impending huge cost to yourself.

Your lawyer might actually be under investigation by the SLCC at the very same time you are in their office chatting away about your case – and, you don’t even know it. And you will never know it. Never. Not as long as a lawyer can move a monkey puzzle tree around a garden and get someone else to pay for it.

Your solicitor is not required to admit anything to you about their complaints history, and the ‘independent’ SLCC certainly wont tell you – they have rules they must keep all complaints confidential, and cannot dare tell the public the name of serial rogue lawyers for fear of having the entire weight of Scotland’s £1 billion pound publicly subsidised legal profession sit on it’s head. Lawyers, saw to that.

The SLCC does have its fans, of course. Lawyers. Lawyers love the SLCC. Why wouldn’t they? It’s the Law Society in disguise.

Even lawyers who pose as [now sacked] Scottish Ministers – loved the SLCC so much, they appeared at the Scottish Parliament – claiming they were reforming the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission – by giving corrupt lawyers the right to complain about complaints. Only in Scotland.

Here’s former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill giving his take on the SLCC’s form of regulation and his take on the definition of a ‘reform’. It’s great. Well, not really.

Kenny MacAskill evidence to Justice Committee Scottish Parliament 5th August 2014 SLCC Rules change

Although the now sacked Mr MacAskill – argued a range of consumer groups took part in the modification of the SLCC’s rules, suspiciously, none showed up at Holyrood to back him up. Neither were they called to appear before MSPs and face some questions.

Scotland’s top judge, who must also approve any changes to the legislation which governs the SLCC, also did not appear at the Justice Committee. By watching the video clip – you can see why no one else showed up. Anyway, who exactly speaks up for lawyers and sings their praises in public? That’s right – more lawyers.

As for those ‘reforms’, legal observers expect little change to the current way in which a mainly lawyer orientated regulator investigates complaints against other lawyers.

And, how independent or impartial is the SLCC? Well, in a previous investigation by Diary of Injustice – it was revealed much of the SLCC’s staff are qualified solicitors or have served at the Law Society of Scotland.

The SLCC disclosed material via Freedom of Information legislation indicating:  15 members of staff qualified as solicitors, 5 members of staff held a previous position at the Law Society of Scotland, 8 members of staff held a previous position at a law firm and 5 members of staff have held previous positions at a law firm and Law Society of Scotland.

Admit it, people – You just cant get more pro-lawyer than that.

Oh yes … Season’s Greetings from Diary of Injustice. And – Do yourself a favour in 2015 – Look after your own instead of looking after a lawyer. Your family, your pets, along with Bambi  and Thumper will thank you all the more for it.

 

Tags: , , , , ,