RSS

Tag Archives: Law

POLICE REGISTER: ‘First responder’ Police Officers transparency in cops business interests register beats ‘last responder’ secretive elite judges still locked in 5 year battle against Holyrood on judicial interest register

Police Officers business interests register beats secrecy on judicial interests. POLICE SCOTLAND has released the latest data on their officers business interests, revealing enterprises from property letting to golf, education, entertainment & consultancies.

The information, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request, follows on from an article in May which revealed 1,512 Police Officers in Scotland have secondary businesses & jobs in addition to their work as Police Officers.

The information relating to business interests of Police Officers is recorded on the Police Scotland HR system (SCOPE).

Police Officers in Scotland  are required to conform to the provisions of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013 which state: “A constable must not have a business interest without the consent of— (a) the Authority, in the case of a senior officer; (b) the chief constable, in the case of any other constable, provided that, in the case of any such constable in whose case the chief constable has an interest otherwise than as chief constable, the chief constable must refer the matter to the Authority for it to consider whether to consent.”

While the details disclosed by Police Scotland does not name actual companies and businesses in which officers are involved, the level of detail gives a flavour of potential cross over between cops second jobs and activities in public authorities, public contracts and particularly relationships with the legal world.

Police Scotland refused to provide an actual breakdown of organisations by name, claiming the cost would be too much to provide this information.

However, there is a significant public interest in the identification of businesses in which Police Officers operate, alongside their occupation as law enforcers, given potential conflicts of interest which can only truly be judged by the public, rather than Police Scotland itself.

The latest figures from Police Scotland reveal that since January 2015 there has been 354 Police Officers and 48 Police Staff who have been granted a business interest which is recorded on their SCOPE record.

However, Police Scotland refused to provide information on the number of Police Officers and Police Staff who have had a business interest refused – citing cost grounds on providing the information.

Police Scotland claimed they would have to “manually check each and every individuals personnel file to see if any individuals have applied and been refused”.

The full disclosure from Police Scotland on Police Officers & civilian staff outside business interests as of July 2017:

Executive: Property Letting.

Chief Superintendent: Education, Entertainment, Property Letting.

Superintendent: Agriculture, Property Letting, Shop or Other Like Business.

Chief Inspector: Coach, Director of Scottish Police Credit Union, Driving, Education, Golf, Photography, Property Letting, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Voluntary Worker

Inspector: Administration, Board of Director, Football Club, Coach, Consultant, Crew member, Dance Class, Driving related, Education, Entertainment, Holiday Letting, Photography, Play in a Band, Property Letting, Referee, Retail Industry, Sales, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Trade, Voluntary Worker:

Sergeant: Account manager, Administration, Agriculture, Childminding, Coastguard Rescue Officer, Construction, Consultancy, Driving, Education, Entertainment, Fitness, Football, Interior design/upholstery business, Gardening related, Health related, Landscape gardening, Musical interest, Office work, Photography, Piper, Play in a Band, Property Letting Retail, self-employed Joiner, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Trade, Voluntary bailiff, Voluntary Worker.

Police Constable: Administration, Agriculture, Army cadet force instruction, beauty therapies, Catering, Cake making, Child-minding, Child nursery, Cleaning services, Coach, Coastguard Rescue Officer, Construction, Consultancy, Crew member, Cricket, Deer stalking, Driving, Education, Electrician, Entertainment, Fitness, Football, Foster carer, Freelance instructor, Gardening related, Ground maintenance worker, Gym attendant, Handicrafts, Handyman, Health related, Home carer, Indent chipping, Joiner, Martial arts, Motorcycle training instructor, Musical interest, Office work, Partner in family own farm, Parent Council, Photography, Piper, Play in a Band, Political, Professional footballer, Property Letting, Referee, Reservist, Retail, RNLI Lifeboat crew, Sales, Search Team Member, Self-defence Instructor, self-employed Joiner, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Sports Therapy/rehabilitation, Spray Painter, Stockman, Tele-marketing, Territorial ARMY, Therapist, Trade, Training, Tutor, Unpaid Garage assistant, Voluntary Worker, Volunteer – Highland hospice, Volunteer – HM Coastguard, Web development and hosting, Writer.

Police staff (Civilian employees): Administration, Agriculture, B&B / Guest House, Beauty Therapies, Bicycle repairs, Caretaker, Cleaning Services, Comedy writer / Performer, Consultant, Consultant trainer, Dance class, Director, Driving, Education, Electrician, Entertainment, General maintenance Person, Handicrafts, Musical interest, Office work, Photography, Play in a Band, Property Letting, Receptionist/Administrator, Relief Support Worker, Reservist, Retail, Sales, Sale and Marketing, Secretary/treasurer, Self-catering holiday accommodation, Shop or other like business, Sport Related, Therapist, Trade, Voluntary Worker Wedding planner and car hire.

A Freedom of Information request recently published by Police Scotland on the website whatdotheyknow reveals figures of at least 1,512 Police Officers who have business interests outside their main employment in the Police Service for Scotland.

Regulation 5 of the aforesaid regulations outlines the provisions concerning any ‘business interest’ of a police officer. Police officers may also choose to disclose business interests of spouses or partners.

All police officers business interests are granted by the Chief Constable, which are based on their own particular circumstances and review dates are similarly set (based on individual).

Legislatively, the term ‘business interests’ covers a variety of categories and directorships fall within this. While a member of police staff is not legislatively required to declare business interests/secondary employment, contracts of employment can outline constraints on such activity.

For instance, some senior posts in Police Scotland are restricted; some politically, some commercially, some both.

Furthermore, the Anti-Corruption Policy includes putting in place procedures that support the identification of risks that business interests or secondary employment may pose to the organisation or individual.

An earlier Freedom of Information request to Police Scotland revealed certain business interests of the force’s top cops, :

For Chief Officers, this permission is granted (under Regulation 5 of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013) by the Police Authority. The conditions and circumstances are outlined in this legislation which is available online, therefore section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 applies: information which the applicant can reasonably obtain other than by requesting it under section 1(1) is exempt information.

Information provided by Police Scotland revealed executive members (including the now resigned DCC Neil Richardson) business interests from 1 April 2014-31 March 2015.

Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick: Property letting, Member and Trustee of various Charitable Organisations

Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson: Property letting, Board Member for Scottish Institute of Policy Research Trustee/Vice President of various Police Associations

Journalists then requested further details from Police Scotland in a request for review of the FOI disclosure, requesting the organisations referenced in the initial disclosure be identified.

The subsequent response from Police Scotland revealed:

Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson: Trustee, The Police Treatment Centres charity; Vice President, Police Mutual Board Member; The Scottish Institute for Policing Research.

Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick: Member, Scottish Chief Police Officers Association; Trustee, The Rank Foundation (Charitable Organisation); Trustee, Salle Ossian Community Sports Club (Charitable Organisation); Advisory Panel Member, Dfuse (Charitable Organisation; Patron, Revolving Doors (Charitable Organisation)

In relation to the numbers of properties rented out by senior Police Officers, Police Scotland refused to release details on the numbers of properties.

Police Scotland said in their response to the Freedom of Information request:  “In relation to the number of properties relating to each Deputy Chief Constable, I have decided not to provide this level of information requested by you as it is considered to be exempt in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (the Act).”

“The number of properties which the respective Deputy Chief Constables hold as business interests is classed as personal information and as such Police Scotland believes that the disclosure of this information would cause unwarranted prejudice to the rights and freedoms and legitimate interests of the data subjects. Accordingly, release of this  information into the public domain would breach the requirement to process personal data fairly, as laid down by the first data protection principle in Schedule 1 of the Data  Protection Act 1998. This is an absolute exemption and does not require the application of the public interest test”

Police Scotland also refused to provide any values for the properties rented out by senior Police Officers, claiming the force did not hold the information:

Police Scotland said in their response: “Finally, Police Scotland does not hold details on the value of each property, as there is no requirement to do so under Regulation 5 of the Police Service of Scotland Regulations 2013.”

In comparison to the Police Scotland disclosure – members of Scotland’s 700 plus strong judiciary – who take the ultimate decisions on the results of Police detection of crime – do not share any details on their outside interests save a handful of judges who serve on the ruling Board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS).

COPS DECLARE, JUDGES CONCEAL:

Members of Scotland’s judiciary continue to wage a bitter five year campaign against proposals to require members of Scotland’s judiciary to declare their interests, and links to big business.

The salary scales of officers in Police Scotland – where all officers are required to declare their interests – show a Police Scotland constable can expect £24,204 per annum going up to £83,925 for a Chief Superintendent with 3 years experience to Assistant Chief Constables: £115,000, Deputy Chief Constables: £169,600 and the Chief Constable: £212,280

However – Scotland;s judges have no such requirement to declare interests, despite their huge  judicial salaries skyrocketing from Sheriffs on £144,172 a year up to Sheriff Principals on £155,706 a year while judges of the Outer House of the Court of Session earn £179,768 a year, Inner House judges earning £204,695. The Lord Justice Clerk (currently Lady Dorrian) earns £215,695 a year, and the Lord President (currently Lord Carloway, aka Colin Sutherland) earns £222,862 a year.

The proposal to bring greater transparency to Scotland’s judiciary – Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary – first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in January 2013 – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, 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.

A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014 – ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties.

Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the Sunday Herald and Sunday Mail newspapers, 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.

Advertisements
 

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

COPS & LAWYERS: Concerns on Public Bodies Legal Fees spending as figures reveal Scottish Police Authority fork out over £1m in legal fees, Police Scotland spend at least £1.3 million on external lawyers

Millions from Police budget ends up funding lawyers. SCOTLAND’S single national Police service – Police Scotland is spending millions of pounds of public cash on external law firms, advocates & QCs over and above the significant costs of it’s own in-house legal teams.

The single national Police service for Scotland has admitted paying at least £1,316,819 to external solicitors, QCs, advocates and the courts over a three year period – over and above costs for in-house legal teams.

The largest beneficiaries of public cash from Police Scotland are Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick) who were paid £361,801.91.

However, while that firm was still Simpson & Marwick prior to its merger with Clyde & Co, they earned £284,914.15, giving total earnings since January 2014, of £646,716.06.

Other big-earning firms from Police Scotland’s public cash splurge on major law firms were Morton Fraser (£278,069.60) and Ledingham Chalmers (£103,906.08).

However, the figures – released in response to a Freedom of Information request – Police Scotland & SPA Fees to external lawyers, law firms & QCs 2014 to 2017 – are now subject to scrutiny – after journalists questioned the Police as to why over half a million pounds paid by the Police to a law firm named in a £400m collapsed Hedge Fund scandal and a suspended judge were excluded from the figures handed over by Police well out of timescales tolerated by the Scottish Information Commissioner.

It was reported by the Scottish Sun in March 2016, a sum of £187K was paid to lawyer Peter Watson – a sheriff who has been suspended from the judicial bench for well over two years, and a further £364,830 was paid to Levy and Mcrae – the Glasgow based law firm named in a £28m writ in connection with the collapse of the Heather Capital hedge fund, run by Gregory King who is subject to a Crown Office probe now in it’s fourth year.

Police Scotland also disclosed at least £52,014 has been paid to in respect of Opinions of Counsel and Senior Counsel instructed by in-house Legal Services directly and at least £32,378 has been paid to the Scottish Court Service since January 2014 by in-house Legal Services directly.

Police Scotland also disclosed the names of law firms and Advocates Chambers who have received legal fees.

And, today, it has emerged in an additional, three months late FOI disclosure – the controversial Scottish Police Authority (SPA) has admitted to spending millions more on legal fees for it’s own use, with at least £623K spent on external law firms and £435K on it’s own in-house legal teams.

SPA Legal Costs (in-house and Third Party) From Jan 2014 to June 2017 saw the following public cash spends on third party legal costs: £154,449 (2013/14) £104,570 (2014/15) £175,785 (2015/16) £167,667 (2016/17) and £20,543 spent already in this financial year which runs to 2018 making a total of £623,012 on third party legal costs.

Costs for the SPA’s own in-house legal team has now reached £434,512 in just three years.

However, unlike Police Scotland, the secretive Scottish Police Authority refused to identify the names of law firms & counsel involved in it’s £1million plus legal expenses bill.

The SPA’s refusal to identify legal firms via FOI legislation has now been submitted for review, and possible investigation by the Scottish Information Commissioner, after weeks of deliberate delays by the SPA in disclosing the legal costs.

Additionally, questions are also being raised with the Scottish Information Commissioner on Police Scotland’s attitude towards Freedom of Information timescales after weeks of deliberate delays in the force’s handling of FOI requests.

The breakdown of the total figure for solicitors’ fees by solicitor from 2014 – 2017 as paid by Police Scotland are as follows:

AC White £396; Allan Black & McCaskie £300; Allcourt Solicitors £462; Balfour & Manson £1236.3; Blackadder & McMonagle £342; Brazenall & Orr £168; Carruthers Curdie Sturrock & Co. £324; Clyde & Co.(Simpson & Marwick) £361801.91; Cockburns  £54; Corrigal Black £306; Criggies £42; Douglas Gilmour & Son £36; DWF £134.8; Gray & Gray £60; George Mathers & Co £600; Grigor & Young £1920; Hamish L Melrose £540; Hunter & Robertson Solicitors £1872; John Henderson & Sons £2232; Leddingham Chalmers £103906.08; Linda George Family Law £984; MacIntosh Humble £174; Mackie Thomson £96; Mackintosh Wylie £48; Macnabs Solicitors £312; Malcolm & Hutchison £132; Mathie McCluskey £78; McCluskey Browne £2032; McCusker McElroy & Gallanagh £30; McIntyre & Co £258; McLellan Adam Davis £54; MacDonald McIver & Co £353.1; Morton Fraser £278069.6; Patten Prentice £96; Rankin & Aitken £42; Reid Cooper £15901.92 ;Russel & Aitken £60; Russell, Gibson McCaffrey £4084.8; Simpson and Marwick £284914.15; Stewart Balfour £48; Thorntons £3760.16; W & AS Bruce £60 TOTAL: £1,068,320.82

The sum paid to advocates broken down by chamber and year are as follows:-

Chambers fees from 2014 – 2017: 5 Essex court £16620; Ampersand £84000; Arnot Manderson £12840; Axiom  £8640;  Black  £6600; Compass £20334; Terra Firma £3780 TOTAL: £152,814

The National newspaper reports on the Police spend on external law firms, here:

Police Scotland ‘spends £1k a day to fight legal battles’

Martin Hannan Journalist 13th August

Police Scotland’s legal costs were exposed after FoI requests

DESPITE having its own legal team, Police Scotland has spent more than £1000 per day on external legal lawyers and court costs since January, 2014.

In the three years and six months to June of this year, Police Scotland paid out £1,316,819 to external solicitors, QCs, advocates and the courts, according to figures released under Freedom of Information (FoI) rules.

Peter Cherbi, the legal issues campaigner and blogger who made the FoI requests, has criticised the force after it refused to answer The National’s questions on the issue, directing us to use FoI questions.

Cherbi said: “There are firms on the FoI list provided by Police Scotland who specialise in legal issues relating to defence of damages claims and other similar legal issues, yet at this time the force appears unwilling to cough up the real reasons for running to lawyers at all hours of the day.”

More than 950 fee notes were issued to Police Scotland by law firms and individual solicitors, with £32,378 paid directly to the Scottish Courts Service for costs incurred in numerous actions.

More than 40 law practices across Scotland were paid for work, some of which is believed to have been connected to the many police property disposals which have taken place over the past few years since the national force was created in 2013. Other firms were paid for expertise in various personnel and legally complex matters, and QCs, solicitor and advocates all represented the force in court, including cases at the Court of Session.

In all, solicitors received £1,068,320 in that time. The National can reveal that the biggest earners from police work were Clyde & Co (formerly Simpson & Marwick) who were paid £361,801.91 for their involvement in such high-profile cases as former Assistant Chief Constable John Mauger’s failed action for judicial review of a decision by then Chief Constable Sir Stephen House – Maria Maguire QC acted for the force in that case.

While that firm was still Simpson & Marwick prior to its merger with Clyde & Co, they earned £284,914.15, giving total earnings since January 2014, of £646,716.06.

Other big-earning firms were Morton Fraser (£278,069.60) and Ledingham Chalmers (£103,906.08). By contrast, Renfrewshire law firm McCusker, McElroy and Gallanagh were paid just £30.

The total sum paid to advocates and QCs was £152,814 – in its response to the FoI request, Police Scotland explained: “These figures relates to instances where advocates have been instructed directly by Legal Services.”

The force’s response added: “I regret to inform you that I am unable to provide you with the figure in respect of fees charged on occasions where Counsel and/or Senior Counsel have been instructed by external solicitors acting for the Chief Constable as it would prove too costly to do so within the context of the fee regulations.”

The response did state, “951 fee notes have been rendered by external solicitors since January 2014”.

The National asked the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) which is supposed to superintend the national force if it was aware of the extent of usage of lawyers outside the legal services section of Police Scotland. We also asked if Police Scotland had to pay the legal costs of anybody taking out a court action against the force, and why do many solicitors firms were used?

We also asked what is the annual budget for the legal services section and asked both Police Scotland and the SPA to say if any of the costs were for defending Police Scotland personnel accused of crimes, or if any external cost was incurred in defending Police Scotland personnel in civil cases. The reply we received was “you would have to submit an FOI request in relation to these questions”.

Peter Cherbi commented: “While chief constables and senior officers have been talking up their lack of resources and funding in public, Police Scotland have been keeping law firms afloat with huge public spends of funds better spent on front line policing.

“The force’s overuse of law firms for legal action and other legal services must be opened for public inspection on a case-by-case basis. What are Police Scotland spending all this money on lawyers, and why? What are the processes employed by Police Scotland for using legal services? A key question given they have their own in-house lawyers.

“The public have a right to know and the Scottish Parliament should be looking to raise questions on this issue, which would make for some interesting exchanges before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice sub committee on Policing.

“This addiction to lawyers and exorbitant legal fees by Police Scotland and other public bodies must be brought to a halt as the operational budgets for policing and any public service are not meant to act as unaccountable public subsidies for the legal profession.”

Previous articles on the Scottish Police Authority can be found here: Scottish Police Authority – Poor governance, private meetings & lack of accountability at Police regulator

 

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

FROM ROGUES TO RICHES: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to identify corrupt solicitors in case findings – as derisory payments to executry fraud & legal malpractice victims revealed

‘Independent’ lawyer’s self regulator continues to look after profession. SCOTLAND’S ‘independent’ self regulator of solicitors – the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has refused to publish the identities of tens of high profile law firms and solicitors across the country involved in serious malpractice resulting in upheld complaints & compensation payments to clients.

The ‘independent’ SLCC – controlled by the Law Society of Scotland and funded by clients legal fees to solicitors – also revealed brief details of case summaries where small payments with a range from a miserly £1 to £299 and up – have been paid out to the bereaved families of deceased loved ones.

The paltry compensation sums were paid out after lawyers look advantage of a regular scam by ripping off the wills & executry estates of dead clients.

Even in cases where tens of thousands of pounds were plundered from bank accounts and assets relating to wills handled by solicitors – a mere few hundred pounds were paid out to families & loved ones who were intended to inherit the possessions of their relatives.

The SLCC has refused to publish figures quoting actual payments or any figures identifying the extent of the actual losses suffered by victims after lawyers fleeced client assets and executry estates.

Instead, the lawyer backed self regulator has set out a vague structure of figures, which allow the lawyer backed regulator to make spurious claims of protecting consumers while in actual fact failing to deliver back to victims what is estimated to be tens of millions of pounds a year defrauded out of the executry estates of deceased Scots and their families – by the legal services industry.

Mired in accusations of pro-lawyer bias and corruption – the SLCC has also announced its latest 4 year strategy to:

* Increasing public awareness of the right to make a complaint about a lawyer and increasing the SLCC’s visibility

* Working to understand the public’s and the legal profession’s expectations of professional standards, including highlighting complaints processes

* Developing a culture of learning, so that  complaints made to the SLCC can be used to improve levels of service, as well as national professional standards and regulation

* Further developing the SLCC as a high performing organisation

* Making sure that compensation or fee refunds awarded by the SLCC are always received by consumers (in a tiny minority of cases this doesn’t happen at present)

Commenting on the strategy announcement, SLCC Chair Bill Brackenridge said: “We’ve finalised our strategy at a time when consumer rights have been climbing the public agenda”

He continued: “And we’re now planning for the years ahead.  We’ll have been running for ten years in 2018 and we now have a path, for then and after, to a more effective and efficient system for legal complaints.  Working in partnership will be crucial to its success and I’d like to thank our stakeholders for an open and challenging debate around the consultation.”

However, a recent media investigation into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission recently revealed most of the SLCC’s key staff and investigators are in-fact families, friends & business associates of solicitors, reported here: ‘Independent’ Scots legal watchdog consists of solicitors’ husbands, wives, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, & employers.

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.

SOUNDS FAMILIAR? Read on – Your solicitor could be among the guilty:

Determination Decisions

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission now publishes anonymised Determination decisions – which give a brief description of complaints decided upon by the SLCC.

However, the heavily redacted case summaries crucially exclude the identify of law firms and solicitors involved in the complaints – meaning any consumer could unknowingly be using the same law firm or talking to the same solicitor – who has just been found guilty of dodging complaints investigations and ripping off other clients.

The SLCC claims it believes the information is useful information for both potential complainers and practitioners and “that this demonstrates better transparency of our process”

However, the SLCC goes on to state “We need to balance that transparency with our duty to protect confidentiality. Because of that, we publish anonymous complaint information and have, as far as possible, removed any identifying features.”

The SLCC further stated “It is also important to bear in mind that information given about a complaint is only a brief summary of the Determination Committee’s findings. In making decisions, consideration will have been given to specific facts and circumstances which, again for reasons of confidentiality, cannot be provided here. We hope, however, that the published information is sufficient to benefit both potential complainers and also those who provide legal services.”

Where a complaint has been upheld, the total amount the SLCC can award is capped at £20,000 – a cap set by the Scottish Government & Scottish Parliament after the legal profession lobbied against higher amounts of compensation during the passage of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2008.

Compensation for actual loss (quantifiable): Level 1 : £1-£299, Level 2:  £300-£649, Level 3: £650-£999, Level 4:  £1,000-£4,999, Level 5: £5,000-£9,999, Level 6: £10,000-£14,999, Level 7: £15,000-£20,000

Compensation for inconvenience, distress and loss of opportunity:Band A £1-£150, Band B: £151-£750, Band C: £751-£1,500, Band D £1,501-£5,000

Determination Decisions: January – March 2016

Upheld and part-upheld decisions

16/1 Residential conveyancing: The complainer complained that the named solicitor had (a) failed to obtain instructions from the complainer’s partner until a week before completion of the sale, and (b) failed to ensure that there was a provision in a Minute of Agreement for the sale proceeds to be held on deposit, rather than distributed on completion of the sale.

The Determination Committee was satisfied that the solicitor had acted correctly in distributing the funds, but that there was lack of effective communication with the complainer prior to the sale about distribution.  The Committee agreed that the solicitor had failed to act in the best interests of the complainer by failing to clearly explain what would happen in the event of implementation of a Minute of Agreement agreeing to equal division of the sale proceeds.

The Committee decided that both issues amounted to inadequate professional service.  The Committee decided that the firm should pay to the complainer compensation of Band C for distress and  inconvenience on several occasions.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £500.

16/2 Executry: The complainer complained that the opposing named solicitor had failed to respond to a significant amount of correspondence sent by their own legal advisor over a significant period of time.

The Determination Committee decided that there was sufficient evidence to support the complaint that the firm had failed to reply to 12 items of correspondence over a period of approx. 20 months.  The Committee agreed that the failure had resulted in an inadequate professional service having been provided to the firm’s own client and having reached that conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that there was a direct adverse effect on the complainer.

The Committee decided to uphold the complaint and  ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Band B for inconvenience and distress and level 1 for actual loss. The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £150.

16/3 Executry: The complainer complained that the opposing named solicitor had failed to respond to a significant amount of correspondence sent by their own legal advisor over a significant period of time.

The Determination Committee decided that there was sufficient evidence to support the complaint that the firm had failed to reply to 12 items of correspondence over a period of approx. 20 months.  The Committee agreed that the failure had resulted in an inadequate professional service having been provided to the firm’s own client and having reached that conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that there was a direct adverse effect on the complainer.

The Committee decided to uphold the complaint and  ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Band B for inconvenience and distress and level 1 for actual loss. The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £150.

16/4 Executry: The complainer complained that the opposing named solicitor had failed to respond to a significant amount of correspondence sent by their own legal advisor over a significant period of time.

The Determination Committee decided that there was sufficient evidence to support the complaint that the firm had failed to reply to 12 items of correspondence over a period of approx. 20 months.  The Committee agreed that the failure had resulted in an inadequate professional service having been provided to the firm’s own client and having reached that conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that there was a direct adverse effect on the complainer.

The Committee decided to uphold the complaint and  ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Band B for inconvenience and distress and level 1 for actual loss. The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £150.

16/5 Executry: The complainer complained that the opposing named solicitor had failed to respond to a significant amount of correspondence sent by their own legal advisor over a significant period of time.

The Determination Committee decided that there was sufficient evidence to support the complaint that the firm had failed to reply to 12 items of correspondence over a period of approx. 20 months.  The Committee agreed that the failure had resulted in an inadequate professional service having been provided to the firm’s own client and having reached that conclusion, the Committee was satisfied that there was a direct adverse effect on the complainer.

The Committee decided to uphold the complaint and  ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Band B for inconvenience and distress and level 1 for actual loss. The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £150.

16/6 Family: The complainer complained that the named solicitor had (a) advised the complainer at the initial meeting that the information relating to the source of the deposit was not required, but later advised that this information was vital and incorrectly alleged that the complainer had failed to provide this information at the initial meeting, (b) failed to communicate effectively by failing to respond to basic questions, (c) failed to proceed with division of assets and sale proceeds when instructed, and (d) failed to deal adequately with the complaint.

The Determination Committee decided that there was sufficient evidence to uphold issues (a) and (c) as inadequate professional service.

Regarding (a), the Committee agreed that the solicitor had failed to identify the client’s objectives at the outset, and thus advised the complainer to pursue an un-necessary course of action.

The Committee decided in respect of (b) that the client had been kept informed during the case.  The fact that the solicitor had not been able to answer very specific questions about matters extraneous to the case had also been explained, and as such, there was no breach of the Service Standards.

In respect of (c), the Committee was satisfied that the solicitor had delayed raising the action for several weeks.

Regarding (d), the Committee agreed that the evidence showed that the solicitor had attempted to address the complainer’s concerns, and that the suggestion to the client to seek alternative representation was unreasonable or unusual where dissatisfaction had been raised.

The Committee decided to uphold the complaint and  ordered the firm to reduce its fees by one third and to pay to the complainer compensation of Band A for inconvenience and distress.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £700.

16/7 Residential conveyancing: The complainer complained that the named solicitors and the firm had (a) unduly delayed registering the disposition, and (b) delayed informing the complainer of the mistake.

The Determination Committee decided that there was sufficient evidence to uphold a finding of inadequate professional service against the firm.

The Committee decided, (a) the solicitor had failed to prepare and register the disposition following settlement and had delayed registration by approx. a year and a half.

In respect of (b), the Committee agreed that the solicitor had failed to inform the client that the disposition had not been registered timeously, and only after a number of months, once the defect had been rectified.

The Committee ordered the firm to refund part of the fees (£100) and outlays (£30), and to pay to the complainer compensation of Band B for inconvenience and distress.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £500.

16/8 Family: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and the firm had (a) delayed/failed to obtain all of the husband’s financial information, failed to set up meetings and failed to follow instructions to communicate with the opposing solicitor, (b) failed to provide consistent advice, (c) included incorrect information in the offer of settlement, (d) failed to thoroughly examine the proposals for settlement, (e) failed to submit cravings on the complainer’s behalf, (f) failed to respond to requests for an interim account and failed to keep updated regarding escalating costs, and (g) delayed settlement negotiations.

The Determination Committee was of the view that there was no evidence to support the complaint, save as for issues (e) and (f) regarding the failure to submit cravings in the Defence, as required by the Ordinary Cause Rules, and the failure to issue an interim account as per the complainer’s request, or communicate adequately with the complainer about the increasing fees.  The Committee was satisfied that these issues could amount to inadequate professional service, as there had clearly been a breach of the Service Standards for diligence and communication.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Band B for the inconvenience and distress caused by the inadequate professional service.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £500.

16/9 Litigation: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and the firm had (a) raised an action incorrectly naming the complainer individually, rather than in the name of the business, (b) failed to lodge the application timeously, (c) failed to lodge a properly framed application and delayed amending the application.

The Determination Committee decided that (a) there was insufficient evidence to reach any conclusion that the court action had been raised in the name of an incorrect party.  However, the Committee was satisfied that (b) the firm had failed to exercise the normal care and diligence expected of a competent solicitor by delaying the lodging of the application, and (c) failing to properly frame and amend the application.

The Committee decided to uphold the complaint and  ordered the firm to pay compensation of Band D for inconvenience and distress.  The Committee directed that no fees or outlays should be charged to the complainer.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £800.

16/10 Litigation: The complainer complained that the opposing named solicitor and the firm had failed to act in the best interests of his client by unduly delaying the conclusion of the dispute for over 2 years.

The Determination Committee was satisfied that the cumulative effect of the identified delays adversely impacted on the service provided by the firm to its own client. Consequently, the complainer suffered as a direct effect of the deficiencies in the service to the client.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Level 4 for actual loss and Band B for inconvenience and distress.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £300.

16/11 Residential conveyancing: The complainers complained that the named solicitor had (a) failed to ensure that a Completion/Habitation Certificate was available at conclusion of the purchase, (b) failed to advise of the consequences of completing without the Certificate, (c) failed to take instructions/obtain informed consent before agreeing a retention sum with the builder’s solicitors, and (d) failed to advise prior to completion that the property had not been passed as fit for habitation.

The Determination Committee was satisfied that the firm (a) did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that their clients’ interests were protected at settlement, and (b) & (d) failed to clearly and fully explain the significance of settling without the relevant Completion and Habitation certificates. The Committee accepted that the firm had not investigated why the Certificate had not been issued or asked about any underlying issues.

Regarding (c), although the Committee was satisfied that the firm had sought instructions about the retention of £10,000, there appeared to be no evidence to show that the consequences of proceeding in the way suggested by the developers was explained to the complainers, and that they were not advised about what a Completion Certificate was or the implications of proceeding without one.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay to each the complainers compensation of Band D for inconvenience and distress.  The Committee directed that fees in the sum of £660 (plus VAT) should be refunded to the complainers.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £3,000.

16/12 Family: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and the firm had prepared an initial writ which contained a number of serious errors, including incorrect details of the children’s address and what was in the children’s best interests.     The Determination Committee was satisfied that the evidence showed that the firm had failed to ensure that the writ contained the necessary averments and fundamental flaws, which resulted in the action having to be dismissed and resurrected by newly instructed agents.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Band B for inconvenience and distress.  The Committee directed that there should be a full refund of fees (£700) and no further fees charged to the complainer.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £400.

16/13 Family: The complainer complained that the named solicitor had (a) failed to deal with a Motion to recall the Sist and request a Proof, contrary to numerous requests, (b) failed to submit the Motion to Court and charged inappropriately for doing so, (c) unduly delayed sending the Motion to the opposing solicitors, despite confirming that this would be carried out the following week, (d) unduly delayed updating on the position regarding the failed submission of the Motion, despite having given an undertaking to do so, (e) unduly delayed reminding the opposing solicitors that a response was still outstanding, despite two reminders to do so, (f) unduly delayed forwarding correspondence from the opposing solicitors, despite being reminded and advised of the urgency of the matter, (g) failed to raise various financial issues with the opposing solicitors, despite numerous requests to do so, (h) failed to confirm advice provided in writing, despite having agreed to do so, (i) failed to challenge a report, despite having accepted instructions to do so, (j) declined to provide further advice until the outstanding account had been settled, despite this being contrary to the terms of business, and (k) failed to deal adequately with the complaint, by ignoring concerns.

The Determination Committee was satisfied that (a) & (b) the solicitor had failed to enrol a Motion, despite having undertaken to do so and charged the complainer for having done so.

Regarding (c), although the Committee was content that the complainer had been advised of a timescale, there was only a 4 day delay.  The Committee was not satisfied that this short delay amounted to an inadequate professional service.

In respect of (d), the Committee noted that there had been a 4 week period between the date when the solicitor intended to enrol the Motion and the failure to do so being advised to the complainer.  The Committee’s view was that the solicitor should know the client’s business at all times, regardless of when he actually remembered the oversight.  The Committee’s view was that the delay was a breach of the standards of both diligence and communication and amounted to inadequate professional service.

Regarding (e), the Committee was satisfied that there had been a 5 week delay, despite 5 prompts by the complainer.

As regards (f), the Committee was satisfied that there had been a 4 week delay in the information being provided to the complainer, despite the solicitor being aware of the urgency.

In respect of (g), the Committee agreed that the solicitor had failed to follow instructions in this regard on at least 4 occasions.

Regarding (h), the Committee was satisfied that the evidence showed that the complainer had requested the information on a number of occasions, and that this had not been provided.  The solicitor had the opportunity of clarifying the information sought after the meeting, as subsequent requests were made.

In respect of (i), the Committee agreed that the evidence did not support the complaint that the solicitor had been asked to challenge the content of the report, other than in relation to fees.  Accordingly, this issue was not upheld.

Regarding (j), the Committee agreed that the solicitor had acted unreasonably by refusing to continue to provide advice to the complainer prior to the expiry of 30 days for settlement of the account, as allowed for in the terms of business letter.

Finally, in respect of (k), the Committee noted that there was no evidence to support the solicitor’s indication that the complainer had been invited to discuss the complaint, as per the terms of business letter.  The Committee was satisfied that without written confirmation and the complainer having denied having received any such invitation, that there had been a failure to comply with the terms of business and that this failure amounted to an inadequate professional service.

The Committee decided to uphold the complaint in part and ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Band C for inconvenience and distress.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £700.

16/14 Residential conveyancing: The complainer complained that the named solicitors and the firm had (a) failed to advise that a more in depth survey report should be obtained, (b) failed to obtain/discuss the terms of a timber report, (c) failed to follow up the issue of guarantees for damp treatment and woodworm, and (d) failed to advise of notification of timber infestation requiring full chemical works being undertaken.

The Determination Committee agreed that the firm had failed to provide the complainer with documents relating to previous investigations of damp and timber defects and failed to advise the complainer that further investigations should be carried out given the terms of those documents.  The Committee also agreed that one of the named solicitors had failed to obtain a copy of the report instructed by the complainer and did not advise about its terms prior to the conclusion of the missives.  The Committee was satisfied that one of the named solicitors had failed to follow up the issues of guarantees and that the firm had failed to advise of the terms of a letter from the sellers advising that there was an infestation of woodworm and that full chemical works should be carried out.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Band C for the distress and inconvenience caused by the inadequate professional service.  The Committee also decided that the firm’s fees should be reduced by 35% (approx. £250 plus VAT) and refunded to the complainer.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £1,000.

16/15 Residential conveyancing: The complainer complained that the opposing named solicitor and/or the firm had failed to register the sale of the ground or have the title deeds updated in relation to the part of the complainer’s garden that the firm’s client had purchased.

The Determination Committee agreed that the solicitor had failed to record the title deed in favour of the firm’s own client (the complainer’s neighbour), resulting in an inadequate professional service to their own client and which had a direct adverse impact on the complainer.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Band A for the inconvenience and distress and level 2 for actual loss, due to the need for a new deed plan to be prepared.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £200.

16/16 Family law; failing to respond: The complainer complained about the named solicitor and/or the firm had (a) failed to include information required in a Pensions Sharing Order and failed to ensure that the Schedule was attached to the Minute of Agreement, (b) failed to ensure that the Minute of Agreement was sufficiently robust regarding the pension entitlement and net proceeds of sale, (c) failed to intimate the Agreement and Decree to the pension trustees within the appropriate statutory timescale, (d) failed to distribute the proceeds of sale in accordance with the Minute of Agreement and unduly delayed discharging the bank loan, (e) inappropriately and without authority, deducted the fee note from the proceeds of sale without having issued a fee note, (f) erroneously withheld the balance of the proceeds of sale, (g) failed to raise a court action, despite having been instructed to do so, (h) failed to respond to the letter of complaint and failed to provide a breakdown of fees, and (i) failed to implement a mandate.

The Determination Committee was satisfied that the evidence showed that the firm had (a) failed to ensure that the pension plan details were contained in the document sent to the pension trustees, (d) failed to distribute funds timeously, and (e) deducted fees from retained funds without the knowledge of the complainer. The Committee was not satisfied that the evidence supported the remaining issues of complaint or that there was lack of evidence to prove these issues on the balance of probabilities.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Band B for inconvenience and distress, and that fees charged should be reduced by £100.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £400.

16/17 Residential conveyancing: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and the firm had (a) failed to obtain a Letter of Comfort from the Council and/or failed to determine the exact amount of the liabilities owed by the sellers in respect of outstanding Statutory  Notices, and (b) failed to negotiate an appropriate retention amount in the missives.

The Determination Committee decided that (a) there was evidence that the firm failed to take adequate steps to determine the liabilities of the sellers, and (b) that the firm failed to negotiate an appropriate retention.  The Committee decided that the complaint should be upheld to this extent.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Band C for distress and inconvenience and Level 4 for actual loss.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £800.

16/18 Litigation: The complainers complained that the named solicitor and/or the firm had (a) systematically lied regarding the action being taken in connection with the claim, and (b) falsely charged the complainers for costs in relation to water and planning applications.

The Determination Committee decided that (a) there was sufficient evidence to support the complainers’ contention that the solicitor had incorrectly advised them that various steps had taken place to progress the action, and (b) the solicitor falsely advised the complainers that the sellers would pay for the costs of the work, despite having obtained no undertaking that they would do so.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay to each of the complainers compensation of Band D for distress and inconvenience, and that no fee note should be rendered.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £1,000.

16/19 Residential conveyancing: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and/or the firm had failed to advise about the Capital Gains Tax liability on the transfer of title.

The Determination Committee upheld the complaint on the basis that the options available to the complainer should have been explored, and the complainer had not been advised of the tax liability and/or was not advised to seek tax advice from another source.  The Committee’s view was that the complainer had suffered a loss of opportunity to consider all available options and was not fully informed as a result of the inadequate professional service.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Band D for worry and distress. The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £850.

16/20 Litigation: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and/or the firm had (a) failed to advise him at any time about the strength of his claim, (b) failed to advise him of the potential for a costs order being made if the case was lost, and (c) failed to keep the complainer updated or advised about what SLAB required for the funding application.

The Determination Committee decided in respect of (a) that the firm had failed to give appropriate advice, either in writing or otherwise, about the strength of the claim. Such advice should have been provided in writing before court proceedings were raised.  In respect of (b), the Committee was satisfied that the evidence indicated that the firm had failed to provide appropriate advice regarding potential liability for expenses if the action was unsuccessful, or the potential magnitude of that liability.  The Committee agreed that the evidence did not support (c), that the firm had advised the complainer of the date of the hearing, that the firm had passed on any requests received from SLAB, or that SLAB had been in touch with the complainer directly.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Level 5 for actual loss and Band C for inconvenience and distress resulting from the inadequate professional service.  Additionally, the Committee decided that the firm should not be entitled to charge any fees or outlays for the service provided.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £1,500.

16/21 Executry: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and/or the firm had failed to ensure prompt and transparent fee arrangements, having issued a final fee note in June 2014, for work carried out between 2008 and 2013, without any prior warning or discussion.

The Determination Committee decided that there was evidence of a failure to set out the basis upon which fees would be charged from the outset and the delay issuing the fee note at the conclusion of the instruction amounted to inadequate professional service.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Band A for inconvenience and distress caused by the inadequate professional service.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £50.

16/22 Executry: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and/or the firm had (a) failed/delayed to respond to telephone calls and keep the complainer updated, (b) failed to explain the increase in fees, despite numerous requests, and (c) failed to provide adequate advice regarding an insurance policy claim.

The Determination Committee decided regarding (b) that the failure by the firm to keep the complainer updated regarding increasing costs and that the fees had exceeded the original amount quoted amounted to an inadequate professional service.  The Committee noted that the firm had failed to provided the complainer with a copy of the Law Accountants fee note, despite there having been a fee rendered for the service and that the letter of engagement was unclear and difficult to understand.

The Committee decided that the evidence showed that the firm had (a) been in regular communication with the complainer who had been kept up to date.  The Committee could find no evidence to support complaint (c).

The Committee ordered the firm to pay to the complainer compensation of Band B for distress and inconvenience and to refund excess fees (approx. £5000).  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £250.

16/23 Residential conveyancing: The complainer complained that the named solicitors and/or the firm had (a) failed to adequately advise of the position regarding the alterations to the attic space, (b) failed to check/advise the complainer to ensure that the attic alterations were in line with building regulations, and (c) failed to fully advise of the risks proceeding with the purchase without verifying the position regarding the alterations.

The Determination Committee decided to uphold all 3 issues as inadequate professional service, as the evidence supported the complaint that the firm had failed to address all 3 matters adequately.  The Committee was satisfied that the firm had failed to fully advise the complainer about the potential issues regarding the building control documentation for the alterations, there was a failure to communicate throughout the transaction, despite requests for clarification, and that the firm had not alerted the complainer to the potential risks or consequences of proceeding without the adequate documentation.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Level 2 for actual loss and Band D for distress and inconvenience.  The Committee also ordered a full fee refund (approx. £600 plus VAT).  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £2,000.

16/24 Family: The complainer complained that the opposing solicitor and/or the firm had failed to obtemper an Interlocutor (which ordered the firm to notify the complainer of a court hearing date), by sending the notice to an address where the complainer had not lived for a number of years.

The Determination Committee decided that the firm had failed to fulfil the commitment to the Court, to the client and to the complainer, to prepare the case diligently and to communicate effectively.  The Committee accepted that the firm had served papers at an incorrect address, which did not match the address on the Court Record for the action.  As a result, the Committee was satisfied that the firm had provided their own client with an inadequate professional service, as a client would expect the firm to properly designate the parties and the failure to do so, could have led to additional time and cost to the client for the rectification of any errors. The Committee agreed that there had been a direct adverse impact on the complainer and on that basis, the complaint was upheld.

The Committee ordered the firm to pay compensation to the complainer of Band B for the inconvenience and distress caused by the inadequate professional service.  The Committee directed the firm to pay a Complaints Levy of £200.

Not upheld decisions:

16/25 Litigation: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and the firm had (a) failed to conduct the court case adequately by ignoring expert opinions, reports, evidence and failing to call specific witnesses and had quoted an incorrect name in the court documents, (b) failed to provide adequate advice about the settlement, by failing to advise that the opponent was obliged to issue a VAT receipt, despite instructions that the offer was to be inclusive of VAT, and (c) acted in an aggressive manner and threatened to cease acting on multiple occasions.

The Determination Committee was satisfied that the solicitor had exercised professional judgement and there was no evidence to show that this was unreasonable.  The Committee agreed that the solicitor followed clear instructions and there was no evidence that the solicitor failed to advise adequately about the terms of the settlement.  The Committee agreed that the evidence showed effective and clear communication by the solicitor and there was no evidence to support the complaint that the solicitor had acted in an aggressive manner.

The Committee decided not to uphold the complaint.

16/26 Family: The complainer complained that the named solicitors had (a) failed to provide adequate information about fees, (b) failed to keep the bank informed of a significant overspend, despite being aware of the limitations in funding, (c) failed to follow instructions by allowing 3 staff members to attend at court, thus incurring unnecessary costs, (d) failed to pay Counsel’s fees before taking the firm’s fees, and (e) failed to advise Counsel to withdraw from acting.

The Determination Committee decided that (a) sufficient information about fees had been provided before the offer was rejected, (b) the bank had been kept up to date and advised of the reasons for the increases in funding, (c) the firm did not accept the instruction to only have 1 person at the court hearing.  The firm did not, therefore, fail to fulfil a commitment to the complainer and fees were not unnecessarily incurred, as the need for additional staff was explained and professional judgement in this regard was exercised reasonably.

Regarding (d), the Committee could find no evidence to support the complaint that an instruction had been given or accepted that Counsel should be paid in the first instance.

In respect of (e), again the Committee could find no evidence to support the complaint about the withdrawal of Senior Counsel from the case.

The Committee decided not to uphold the complaint.

16/27 Family: The complainer complained that the named solicitor and/or the firm had provided inadequate and inconsistent advice about the availability of Legal Aid within the firm.

The Determination Committee was satisfied that the evidence showed that the advice provided was clear, consistent and in accordance with the firm’s policy on Legal Aid.  The Committee did not consider that there was any contradictory information provided, or that the quality of communication from the solicitor and/or the firm was inadequate.

The Committee decided not to uphold the complaint.

16/28 Residential conveyancing: The complainer complained that the named solicitor of the firm had failed to advise the complainer to take steps to confirm the validity of a Letter of Comfort or advise the complainer to insist on a Certificate of Completion from the sellers.

The Determination Committee was satisfied that the evidence showed that the firm had adequately advised the complainer of the available options and how to protect the position.  The Committee agreed that there was no requirement for the firm to insist on a Completion Certificate.

The Committee decided not to uphold the complaint.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

REGULATION ROBBER: Lawyer who ripped off clients & embezzled £1.04m from Bank escapes Proceeds of Crime prosecution – thanks to solicitors’ self regulation stitch-up

No charges for lawyer who stole from clients & bank – Crown Office. A SOLICITOR who embezzled over £1 million from a bank has escaped criminal charges – because the Law Society of Scotland – who control self regulation of solicitors and the tribunals who ‘prosecute’ rogue lawyers – did not call for the case to be taken up by Police or prosecutors.

David Lyons (64) – who has appeared numerous times before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) was struck off from the roll of solicitors after the tribunal heard in a recent case Lyons had consistently ripped-off clients and executry estates by charging excessive amounts for work and fees.

It also emerged during an investigation Lyons had secured a £1,010,000 property loan from the Bank of Ireland – but kept the cash for himself.

His business partner – Duncan Drummond, of Pollokshields, Glasgow, who was also found guilty of ripping off clients – was struck off at the same hearing.

In one case Drummond charged £15,700 for work he’d carried out which auditors calculated should actually have totalled £2,350 – a mark up of 568%. In another case he sent out a £4,000 bill for £1,125 worth of work.

Despite the severity of fraud and consistent breach of client trust,  there is no mention in the tribunal’s findings of any move to refer the case to Police Scotland or the Crown Office – who have both since confirmed no action is being taken against Mr Lyons or anyone from the now defunct law firm of Lyons Laing, which had offices in Greenock and Glasgow.

The ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has also not issued any comment on the case or the lack of action against Lyons and his business partner.

The Scottish Sun newspaper reports:

‘Untouchable’ lawyer fury: Bent brief in £1m bank theft let-off

CROOK DODGES CASH GRAB

EXCLUSIVE by RUSSELL FINDLAY 14 Feb 2016

A CROOKED lawyer dodged prosecution despite nicking more than £1million.

David Lyons, 64, was struck off after embezzling the money from the Bank of Ireland.

But the Crown Office will not put him in the dock or use proceeds of crime laws to claw back the cash.

Former Labour minister Brian Wilson blasted the decision.

He said: “There are people in jail for embezzling £1,000 but as a lawyer he’s untouchable.

“It’s an example of the madness where lawyers are treated as a separate class of citizen.”

Lyons, of Kilmacolm, Renfrewshire, was struck off over eight counts of professional misconduct, including pocketing the £1.04million in a commercial property deal.

The Dublin-based bank — bailed out with 3.5billion euros of taxpayers’ cash after the 2008 economic crash — would not discuss the case.

But Fergus O’Dowd, who is on the Irish parliament’s justice committee, said: “If they won’t pursue him in Scotland’s criminal courts they should go after the money.”

He added: “It’s a disgrace the bank won’t comment.”

Lyons ran Lyons Laing in Greenock, where clients were ripped off with hugely inflated fees over a decade.

His colleague Duncan Drummond, of Pollokshields, Glasgow, was also struck off over four counts of misconduct.

Mr Wilson is also calling for an end to self-regulation by legal watchdog the Law Society of Scotland.

An LSS spokesman said a judicial factor was appointed in 2009 to run Lyons’ company.

He added: “The factor has an obligation to report findings to the Law Society and Crown Office.”

The Crown said: “There are no criminal or civil recovery proceedings against someone of that name.”

Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal Hearing & Decision: Having heard submissions on behalf of the Complainers and the Second Respondent in mitigation and having noted three previous Findings of professional misconduct against the First Respondent and one previous Finding of professional misconduct against the Second Respondent, the Tribunal pronounced an Interlocutor in the following terms:-

The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 9 April 2015 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against David Richard Blair Lyons, residing at Greenways, Pacemuir Road, Kilmalcolm (“the First Respondent”) and Duncan Hugh Drummond, residing at Flat 1/2, 80 Kirkcaldy Road, Pollockshields, Glasgow (“the Second Respondent”);

Find the First Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to respond to correspondence from the Complainers, his failure to obtemper statutory notices, his taking of grossly excessive fees from executry estates, his failure to comply with the requirements of the Accounts Rules, his taking of fees from the sale proceeds of a property to which he was not entitled, his failure to obtemper letters of obligation, his taking of fees without rendering fee notes, and his embezzlement of the sum of £1,040,000 from the Bank of Ireland;

Find the Second Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his taking of grossly excessive fees from executry estates, his taking of fees without rendering fee notes, his failure to comply with the requirements of the Accounts Rules and his failure to supervise his firm’s assistant, in breach of the undertaking given by him to the Complainers; Order that the name of the First Respondent be Struck Off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland; Order that the name of the Second Respondent be Struck Off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.

THE LYONS SHARE – How law firm employed legal industry’s commonly used overcharging scams to rip off wills & executry estates:

In the executry of Mr E, the Respondents took fees totaling £15,950.00 excluding VAT during the period 21 June 2007 to 7 April 2009. A file audit by the Auditor of Court at Greenock assessed the fees due to the firm for that period to be £8,597.00 excluding VAT. The overcharge was 86%. The Second Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

In the executry of Mr AE, the Respondents took fees totaling £12,500.00 excluding VAT during the period 6 December 2004 and 26 June 2008. A file audit by the Auditor of Court at Greenock assessed the fees due to the firm for that period to be £4,338.05 excluding VAT. The overcharge was 188%. The First Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

In the executry of Mr F, the Respondents took fees totalling £15,700 excluding VAT during the period 3 April 2007 to 23 December 2008. A file audit by the Auditor of Court at Greenock assessed the fees due to the firm for that period to be £2,350.00 excluding VAT. The overcharge was 568%. The Second Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

In the executry of Mrs G, the Respondents took fees totalling £13,100.00 excluding VAT during the period 12 April 2006 and 4 August 2008. A file audit by the Auditor of Court at Greenock assessed the fees due to the firm for that period to be £5,917.03 excluding VAT. The overcharge was 121%. The Second Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

In the executry of Mrs H, the Respondents took fees totalling £8,000.00 excluding VAT during the period 5 July 2007 and 6 April 2009. A file audit by the Auditor of Court at Greenock assessed the fees due to the firm for that period to be £4,642 excluding VAT. The overcharge was 72%. The Second Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

In the executry of Mr I, the Respondents took fees totalling £4,000.00 excluding VAT during the period 26 February 2008 to April 2009. A file audit by the Auditor of Court at Glasgow assessed the fees due to the firm for that period to be £1,125 excluding VAT. The overcharge was 256%. The Second Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

In the executry of Mr J the Respondents took fees between November 2004 and May 2008 which exceeded by £90,000 or thereby the value of the work as assessed by the Auditor of Greenock sheriff court. The Second Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

In the executry of Mr M, the Respondents took fees of £2,000.00 plus VAT in December 2006 and £2,500.00 plus VAT in November 2007. On neither occasion did the Respondents issue a fee note. The Auditor of Court assessed the fees due to the Respondents as £3,397.00 plus VAT. The overcharge is therefore £603.00 plus VAT. The First Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

Also in relation to this case, the assistance of the Complainers having been invoked by Ms N, the executor, and the files having been provided to the Complainers, on 15 August 2008 the First Respondent wrote to the Complainers asking for the files to be returned for Taxation. The files were sent to the First Respondent on 1 September 2008. Thereafter the Complainers wrote to the First Respondent requesting return of the files on 10 and 21 October 2008, 10 November 2008 and 7 January 2009. No response was ever sent by the First Respondent. On 16 January 2009 the Complainers issued a notice under Section 42C of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 requiring return of the file. The First Respondent did not return the file. The Complainers wrote with a list of conduct issues to the First Respondent on 25 February 2009 arising out of this executry. No response was ever received from the First Respondent. The files were eventually recovered from the Judicial Factor.

In the executry of Ms O between 20 May 2008 and 28 May the Respondents deducted fees without rendering fee notes to the executor, Mr P, in breach of Rule 6(d) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts etc Rules 2001. The Second Respondent was principally in charge of this case.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

LORD, FIRST CLASS: Scotland’s former Lord President demands expenses from Scottish Parliament – after challenging MSPs to close three year Holyrood probe to create register of judges’ interests

Anti-transparency judge demands MSPs foot bill for rain travel & meals. SCOTLAND’S former top judge has demanded taxpayers pay his dining expenses & travel to Edinburgh – after he was forced to face MSPs over a three year Scottish Parliament investigation of plans to create a register of judges’ interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary.

Lord Brian Gill (73) – who twice refused to attend earlier hearings of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee who are considering proposals to require judges to register their interests – submitted a £225.05 claim for first class return rail fare from London, a £19.50 claim for taxis and a £23.20 claim for a meal the former Lord President treated himself to the night before he finally showed up to face MSPs at Holryood on 10 November, 2015.

Gill – who was dubbed “Lord No-No” for his refusals to give evidence to MSPs on judges’ undeclared links to big business, secret criminal records & hidden wealth, handed the claim to the Scottish Parliament after a stormy session at the Scottish Parliament – where the former top judge demanded MSPs halt their public debate on the judiciary’s interests and close down a long running public petition calling for transparency on judges’ wealth – which is backed by both of Scotland’s independent judicial investigators.

The proposals, backed by cross party MSPs during a debate in the Parliament’s main chamber on 9 October 2014 – Debating the Judges – 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.

As the petition was debated at Holyrood in the Lord President’s absence, it was revealed Lord Gill billed taxpayers for a five day state visit to Qatar. The top judge also travelled to numerous other international destinations – all charged to taxpayers.

An investigation by the Scottish Sun newspaper also revealed Scotland’s top judges spent £26,000 on thirty three international trips funded by taxpayers – including journeys to destinations such as Russia, Israel, Switzerland,Germany, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania.

Previously, Lord Gill refused to give evidence to MSPs on their probe of the petition, instead, the top judge sent a series of letters to MSPs – demanding the judiciary remain exempt from the public’s expectation of transparency in Government and those in public life.

The Scottish Sun reports:

FIRST CLASS FURY – MSPs blast parly quiz judge expenses

Lord Gill claimed £267.75 expenses bill

By RUSSELL FINDLAY, Scottish Sun.

A SENIOR judge is being challenged over claiming first class rail travel to a Scottish Parliament grilling.

Lord Gill, 73 — who stood down from his £220,655-a-year post as Lord President in May — has been asked by MSPs to explain a £267.75 expenses bill.

It covers a £225.05 first class return rail fare from London, £19.50 on taxis and £23.20 for a meal the night ahead of appearing before Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee last month.

The committee discussed the claim on Tuesday and its convener, Labour’s Michael McMahon, is now writing to Scotland’s former top judge about it. Last night, Mr McMahon declined to reveal the contents of the letter, saying: “I can’t discuss this as it was in private.”

But a source said: “There were raised eyebrows at the claim, and they intend to ask why he needed to claim for first class return rail travel. They may also ask about claiming for a meal the day prior to attending.”

After twice snubbing the committee while Lord President, Lord Gill spoke against law journalist Peter Cherbi’s petition for a register of judges’ business, financial and personal interests.

Lord Gill’s successor has still to be appointed. But we told last month, left, how the new Lord President will not be called before the committee.

Last night, a Scottish Parliament spokeswoman said: “It would be inappropriate for us to comment.”

JUDGE DEMANDED MSPS CLOSE JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY PROBE:

Evidence of Lord Gill before the Scottish Parliament 10 November 2015

During  tough exchanges between the ‘retired’ judge and MSPs, Lord Gill got into arguments with members of the Petitions Committee, reflecting his underlying aggressive tone at being hauled before MSPs he twice refused to meet.

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.

A statement issued by Lord Gill at the time of Watson’s suspension said: “The Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.”

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

During the hearing Lord Gill also told MSPs Scotland should not be out of step with the rest of the UK on how judges’ interests are kept secret from the public.

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.

Scotland’s new top judge – Lord Carloway – who served as Lord Justice Clerk under Lord Gill – is to be asked to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee in connection with three year probe on proposals to require judges to register their interests,

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: , , , , , , , , ,

Scotland 2015: Someone said there is a General Election …

Look up, and you can see Scotland from anywhere in the UK. SCOTLAND should have a strong voice at Westminster. That much is certain.

We are a berth for the UK’s nuclear submarines. We build the ships of the Royal Navy. We are so popular (and important) bears fly off our coasts and sneaky submarines sneak around our fishing boats.

We contribute to the UK’s economy and the fabric of the country as a whole (regardless of the denial brigade) so much, London could never bear to let us go. It’s true!

And – yes – we house a collection of 700 year old judges hell bent on protecting their highly secretive and dubiously achieved judicial wealth from prying eyes.

It is also true our little, big, country is a possible candidate for vested interests & big business to frack for their own gain. Yes, their gain, not the wider community at large.

Vested interests, corporate boards and Chief Executives do not toast champagne over throwing free money at citizens or vital public services without some fiddle in the background. Fact.

And – sadly – we are an outpost of dodgy financial & legal services who go to extreme efforts to avoid scrutiny, accountability, regulation & transparency. Heather Heather. And some Capital.

In any case, there is a General Election this Thursday, and it is your right as a citizen – to vote.

Will anything change next week? Not really.

The NHS will still be in crisis. Statistics on crime (and everything else) will still be fiddled beyond plausibility. Increasing numbers of people across the UK will be forced to use Food Banks.

Oh .. Shocker. People in power you rely on for help will write back to you saying they cannot help.

Lord Gill – the Lord President & Lord Justice General – almost Napoleonic in title, will still be in Parliament House dancing to “Mysterious Ways” – or perhaps “Insidious Ways” – gaming out his latest military style exercise against judicial transparency on his WOPR WarGames computer.

Oh yes – and the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

But, once every few years – when you – the electorate – are needed – it is YOUR chance to hold Government and all it’s fantasy and all it’s power – to account.

As you hold Government to account this week with your vote – think on this.

Some might say … a Government is only as good as it’s opposition. Inevitably, a Government is only as good as those who vote for it.

A strong opposition can – or at least should – hold a Government to account.

A strong, independent media often holds, and frequently advances the line on transparency and accountability – which helps hold Government to account.

Thursday 7 May 2015 is your choice, your voice, and your vote. Think. Don’t be bullied by vested interests or false and fantastical promises.

However you decide to vote, you have the right to decide for yourself. But please, do vote.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2015 in Law, Politics, Scotland

 

Tags: , , ,

Voting on 5th May ? Keep in mind Scotland’s Justice system remains far too dishonest, far too “Victorian”, for independence from the UK

In case you didn’t notice, there is an election in Scotland tomorrow, May 5 2011. If you are eligible to vote, it is your privilege, right & duty to do so, no matter how cynical or critical you are of our politicians, the justice system, Scotland’s economy or even if you have a beef with the coalition Government at Westminster. However, as you are probably here to read topics of justice, rather than politics, there are some things you may wish to take into account before casting your vote …

The short version of what I am about to say is “If you are here looking for advice on who to vote for, vote for a party other than those leading the polls so at least there’s a chance of the winners being held to account, and reigned in on any daft, crazy policies which will ultimately do Scotland a great deal of harm.” Remember, Annabel isn’t so bad after all, and unlike some this time around, she does make a lot of sense.

Now, the dreaded long version. One thing which has been glaringly obvious over the past four years since 2007, and indeed much longer than that, probably going back to the ‘re-imagined’ Scottish Parliament of 1999, is that our beloved Scottish justice system is simply not up to the mark, not up to any real level of honesty, in fact, perhaps our beloved Scottish justice system is up to far too much dishonesty to merit & justify Scotland’s independence from the rest of the UK. I mean, really, what use to Scots is independence if the justice system is bent ? None, as far as I can see, and as we know, the justice system has more bends in it than a corkscrew hazel tree.

Individuals and entire groups or classes of people have been discriminated or prejudiced against at the hands of the Scottish justice system, some even thrown in jail for crimes they did not commit, others persecuted by the very legal system itself for daring to criticise it, stand up to it, take issue with their own circumstances by demanding a fair hearing, and there are of course, even those who have suffered at the hands of the legal profession itself, who have used the law & courts as a weapon to deny anyone they do not like, access to justice. It happened yesterday, it will happen today, and it will happen tomorrow.

While the arguments & excuses still rage over the now famous Cadder v HMA ruling at the Supreme Court in London in October 2010, you only need to look back to the Cadder case and what happened to understand that the Government of the day in Scotland, in this case, the SNP, and indeed all previous administrations believed it was right for anyone arrested by Police to be questioned without a lawyer present. Good for a quick guilty verdict of course, saves a lot of detective work and of course a lot of money along the way for the likes of the Legal Aid Board.

Amazingly while such a highly dubious arrangement of interrogating suspects has not been practised in the rest of the UK, and indeed quite a few countries around the world for many years (some jurisdictions would call such interrogation without a lawyer “unconstitutional”), no one in the Scottish legal establishment bothered to raise it as a case until the European Court ruled in Salduz v Turkey and made the law as it now stands.

Did a Scottish court react to this change in European Law first, considering there must surely have been a few outstanding incidents where people were denied access to a lawyer while being held by the authorities ? No. After the European ruling, it took a court based in England, the UK’s Supreme Court to rule on the Cadder case, and decide Scots, like everyone else in the rest of the UK and many other jurisdictions, had the right to a lawyer being present while being interrogated by the authorities.

Take it from me, Scotland’s Court of Session would never have done the same. Indeed, this is exactly why the Cadder case ended up in the Supreme Court in London, because the Court of Session thought it was fine (and I dare say would like it still to be fine) to hold someone, whether guilty or not, and get an admission without the right to having a lawyer present. Easy money for the judges, the prosecution team, and someone put away with a protracted press release touting yet another “successful prosecution” and triumph for the authorities. Great, until someone realises the wrong person is behind bars.

If the Supreme Court had not ruled as it did, as Scots, we would still not have the right to a lawyer being present during interrogation, and the courts would be fine with it, but of course Cadder and its outcome goes much further than that, sending a shot across the bows of Scotland’s antique justice system where the right to a fair hearing, the right to legal representation, or even the right to have funding for legal representation all appear to be a right too far those in the legal establishment who sometimes feel it is in the interests of the justice system to deny justice to certain individuals or cases.

If we were independent, you can kiss goodbye to the Supreme Court in London. If not immediately, certainly when it issues another controversial ruling requiring Justice-Secretary-for-Life Kenny MacAskill to change the law. You might also kiss goodbye to certain parts or maybe all of European Commission Human Rights Legislation (ECHR) which any future independent Scottish Government may begin to find ‘inconvenient’ to its management, or as we have seen in the past four years, lack of management of Scotland’s justice system.

For another comparison of recent events in the English justice system compared to our own, look at the death of Ian Tomlinson, who, a jury in London yesterday decided had been “unlawfully killed” by the actions of a Police Officer. Does anyone really think a Sheriff presiding over a Fatal Accident Inquiry in Scotland would have came to such a decision in a similar case had some Policeman did the same north of the border ? Fat Chance, and we all know it. The bereaved family would be fighting for justice for years, and they themselves would probably end up being victimised by the legal system for daring to take issue with it.

Look around the Scottish justice system and you will see a litany of miscarriages of justice, where for instance, the say so of dubious witnesses or even Police Officers themselves have contributed to guilty verdicts and long sentences of ‘the so-obviously guilty’, only to be found later the investigation was compromised, perhaps even evidence was falsified, and those dubious witnesses lied through their teeth. Result : Someone ends up being freed after 12 years in jail for a crime they didn’t commit and spends the rest of their life trying to clear their name while politicians sit back, promise much yet do little, and all the while the court, the judges, the legal system carrys on regardless.

How about the Lockerbie case and the long running controversy over the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi’s conviction & release. Despite all the calls for independent inquiries, calls for, & half hearted attempts at the release of documents to answer the many inconsistencies in the case, nothing has changed other than the fact Mr Megrahi was released back to Libya on compassionate grounds by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, so conveniently avoiding any further progress in Mr Megrahi’s appeal at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, where the gritted teeth of the judges (one looked like he had bruxism) was much more obvious to most who saw the spectacle rather than any hope the court would turn its attention to matters at hand and quash a verdict which many around the world question. Last time I checked, this farce happened under an SNP administration.

How about Legal Aid ? If you really need it, do you think you might really get it ? It appears if the Scottish Legal Aid Board don’t like the look of your face, or someone, perhaps a someone of very high standing or position in the legal system puts in a bad word for you, perhaps accompanied by a long poisoned pen letter saying why you shouldn’t get legal aid, you don’t get it. No legal aid for you, therefore no access to a lawyer and no access to justice.

Yet over the past four years, certain lawyers as I previously reported, have been claiming hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal aid for themselves, collectively, millions of pounds, yet many of their clients never really had access to justice, and guess what ? the Scottish Government just let it happen. Yes, all those millions of pounds of legal aid, paid for by taxpayers, ended up lining the pockets of a few solicitors who were never prosecuted for one penny of misuse of public funds, rather than that legal aid going to those who really needed it, or to those lawyers who really do represent their clients.

How about the much heralded Scottish civil courts review by Lord Gill, the big “sea change” for our “Victorian” justice system which was supposed to give access to justice for all ? The Civil Courts Review has said much but achieved little under the SNP. Admittedly though, the same could well have been true no matter which political party was in power. Lord Gill’s “groundbreaking” Civil Courts Review is now just another piece of history in the shattered landscape of Scotland’s justice system, a review which itself is now being reviewed, and all the trappings of easier access to justice which many expected to come from it, are but a pipe dream.

Do you think independence might change all that ? No. The same people who still rave about independence did nothing about clearing up the justice system in the past four years and did nothing about giving justice to those who are denied it. These same people will do nothing to clear up Scotland’s justice system. In fact, some of those raving about independence and taking back the oil wealth for Scotland, have in some cases I am privy to, actively blocked access to justice for many people denied it .. even some of their own constituents. To be sure, the only constant here in Scotland is, “Nothing Changes” when it comes to justice.

As an observation from someone who has seen many cases where the legal system has been used as a weapon against those who take it on, or those who dispute the legal establishment’s line on all things justice, Scotland’s justice system is probably worse off now than it was in 2007, and that’s saying something. All of those people who said the system will change with a new party in power after 2007, where are they now ? Still fighting the same battles, still arguing over the finer points of detail and still knee deep in inquiries which will end up changing nothing.

It is certainly not my job to tell you who to vote for, but you must vote if you want to have a say in Scotland’s political future. By this, I’m not telling you not to vote for the SNP, and I’m not telling you to vote Labour, Scottish Conservative or Liberal Democrat, or Independent, or Green or for any of the other parties out there, but I am asking you TO VOTE, and to ensure that consensus politics, fairness and even justice is delivered in this next Scottish Parliament.

Make the next five years Scotland’s five years, make the next five years your five years to give all Scots a say in our country, access to justice, and the right to be heard against those groups & vested interests who regularly talk over or even interdict our expectations of reforms, jobs, financial security, justice and life for the better. If you want to be part of something positive, vote, and vote to make sure those who you elect are held accountable to you.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,