Tag Archives: Perth Sheriff Court

Accountant in Bankruptcy unfreezes benefits payments of client caught up in sequestration battle with Perth law firm Kippen Campbell

aibAccountant in Bankruptcy seized disability benefits to pay law firm’s disputed fees MEDIA REPORTING of a case in which a sequestrated client’s Disability Benefits payments were illegally seized for nearly FOUR MONTHS by the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) over a wrangle involving debts which a Perth based law firm, Kippen Campbell claim are owed to them over a collapsed court case, appears to have helped the client, Mr William Gordon (also of Perth) finally gain access to money desperately needed for living expenses.

Mr Gordon apparently discovered his accounts had been unfrozen last weekend, but no one from the AIB has contacted him over the matter or offered explanations as to why they had seized his benefits payments.

Diary of Injustice reported last week that Mr Gordon was apparently sequestrated by his former law firm after a series of bitter, ‘one sided’ court actions held in Perth Sheriff Court, where agents acting for Kippen Campbell demanded Mr Gordon be sequestrated to pay fees they claimed were due to them for legal services provided for a medical damages claim being heard in the Court of Session.

Even though it transpired Mr Gordon was too ill to attend court for any of the hearings, and his doctor had written to the court informing them of his patient’s medical circumstances, it appears Sheriffs at Perth Sheriff Court ignored the doctor’s medial opinions and sided with the local law firm who were demanding fees for representing Mr Gordon in the now collapsed medical damages claim. More on the story can be found here : Personal injury client dropped by Perth based solicitors Kippen Campbell ‘being hounded’ by court attempts to recover disputed fees

Earlier last week, the Herald newspaper & Scottish Law Reporter reported that attempts had been made to seize Mr Gordon’s home by Glasgow based accountants Wylie & Bisset who are acting on behalf of the Accountant in Bankruptcy. Wylie & Bisset were apparently convinced Mr Gordon owned his property. Apparently not content with seizing Mr Gordon’s home, the agents acting for the AIB attempted to seize another property owned by an unconnected family who live in Rattray, Blairgowrie, whose surname is also Gordon.

Jane Irvine SLCC ChairJane Irvine, SLCC Chair : £300 a day for some, benefits seized to pay lawyers for others as regulator accused of failure to clip disputed fees. It is clear from persistent failures & a reluctance on the part of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) to use their powers to abate or nullify disputed legal fees, that had the SLCC chose to exercise its powers in Mr Gordon’s case, he would not have been facing the wrath of courts, the Accountant in Bankruptcy & attempts to throw him onto the street over fees a law firm are claiming for walking away from his case. Diary of Injustice tackled these issues in last week’s report here : Solicitors regulator blamed for failure to use powers on fees as accountants seize Disability benefits to pay Perth law firm for collapsed court case,

In the article, it was also pointed out by a senior official from one of Scotland’s Consumer organisations that it was against the law to seize state benefits under section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 which clearly states “On the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.”

The official went onto tell Diary of Injustice that her organisation had received numerous reports of law firms threatening clients with bankruptcy if they did not pay what appear to be dubious demands for fees. In other cases, law firms have simply gone ahead and made their clients bankrupt without even giving them a chance to question the legitimacy of the fees claimed to be owed.

The Accountant in Bankruptcy was asked to explain why Mr Gordon’s bank accounts & benefits payments had now been unfrozen after the media coverage. The AIB refused to issue any comment.

It has also been revealed the Financial Ombudsman is investigating why Mr Gordon’s bank accounts were seized and why benefits payments were also frozen by the AIB. While the Financial Ombudsman has declined to comment on the case, documents provided to them appear to raise serious questions over the validity of court documents coming out of Perth Sheriff Court which were used to ‘sequestrate’ Mr Gordon and put him through months of torture.

Since last week’s report, a number of individuals have contacted Diary of Injustice with regard to problems with the Accountant in Bankruptcy, and their agents apparently seizing benefits payments on multiple occasions. Coincidentally or not, some of these cases also relate to dubious fee demands by law firms who have left their clients with ruined legal cases.

Indeed, the trend of law firms using threats of bankruptcy against clients appears not to have gone unnoticed by the Scottish Government, reported in last week’s article where a senior source in the Government acknowledged there was a growing problem with law firms threatening clients over legal fees. He went on to say he believed law firms were using their influence in local courts to easily obtain bankruptcy orders against clients who have little or no chance of obtaining legal representation to challenge the law firms demands.

Diary of Injustice would like to hear from any reader who has endured difficulties with the Accountant in Bankruptcy and law firms demanding fees which cannot be substantiated. Please contact us with your information via :


Tags: , , , , , ,

Scottish Parliament documents reveal Perth law firm in complaint fees case campaigned against Holyrood clean-up of regulation of lawyers

Debating chamberHolyrood sourced documents reveal Perth law firm pursuing client over ‘disputed’ fees campaigned against independent regulation of lawyers. DOCUMENTS obtained from the Scottish Parliament and brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice by legal insiders concerned over a case reported last Friday, that of Perth based law firm Kippen Campbell who are pursuing a personal injury client they dropped for ‘disputed feels’, after complaints were made about their service, stunningly reveal two of the law firm’s partners made almost identical submissions to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee in 2006, challenging legislation created to usher in independent regulation of complaints against solicitors. The Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, as the legislation is now known, was eventually passed in December 2006.

Kippen Campbell drops personal injury client, 1 year cout case for fees October 2010Last week Diary of Injustice reported on Perth law firm pursues client for disputed fees. Last week, Diary of Injustice reported on a year long case in Perth Sheriff Court where a local law firm Kippen Campbell, are pursuing a former client, Mr William Gordon for allegedly due fees (Kippen Campbell v William Gordon A334/09). Documents seen by Diary of Injustice show Mr Gordon had been dropped by the law firm after he made complaints to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission & Law Society of Scotland over the level of service he had received from Kippen Campbell in connection with a personal injury claim in the Court of Session (A625/04 William Gordon v Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd Party Litigant – HBM Sayers), now stalled due to lack of legal representation. Kippen Campbell then attempted to charge Mr Gordon for dealing with the complaint.

LB115 Submission from Sally McCartney for LPLA (Scotland) BillKippen Campbell partner Sally McCartney sent letter to Scottish Parliament over ‘concerns’ of independent regulation of solicitors. Documents provided to Diary of Injustice today now reveal Kippen Campbell solicitor Ms Sally McCartney, who ironically represented Mr Gordon’s legal interests and is named in Mr Gordon’s complaints to the SLCC & Law Society of Scotland, sent a template letter distributed by the Law Society of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee who were considering the LPLA Bill and independent regulation of complaints against solicitors in 2006. The letter challenged & questioned legislative moves to bring increased protection to consumers of legal services in Scotland in the shape of independent regulation and independent oversight of claims against ‘crooked lawyers’.

Ms McCartney wrote : “As a practising solicitor I am extremely concerned with some of the provisions of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, particularly with regard to the handling complaints against solicitors.”

Ms McCartney’s letter to Holyrood’s Justice 2 Committee continued : “The Law Society of Scotland previously backed an independent complaints handling body. However, the Bill goes significantly further in a number of areas where the Society made it clear in its response to the consultation that it did not believe action was required. The Society made it clear when it backed an independent complaints handling body that it must be demonstrably better than the current system, particularly so given the cost and disruption involved. There are a number of areas where the Society, and I, as a member of the Society, believe that the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will not fulfil this aim.”

“Independence – The new Commission has to be independent from Government. The proposals in the Bill suggest that the appointments to the Commission Board should be made by Scottish Ministers. This not appropriate – they should be made by an independent body which is free from political influence. Also, there is no guarantee of solicitor representation on the nine-member Board, despite the fact they comprise around 95% of the legal profession in Scotland.”

Douglas Mill 4Former Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill threatened Scottish Parliament, Government with legal action over complaints legislation. Ms McCartney’s letter then went on to mention the Law Society of Scotland obtained an ECHR opinion from an English LibDem Peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, who claimed it was against the human rights of a solicitor for a complaint to be independently investigated by anyone other than another solicitor. The Law Society of Scotland’s then Chief Executive Douglas Mill challenged the Scottish Parliament’s right to pass the LPLA Bill, and issued a threat of legal action to the Parliament & Scottish Government, based on Lord Lester’s opinion.The Law Society of Scotland’s threat of legal action against the Scottish Parliament & Scottish Government was not pursued, although amendments to the LPLA Bill passed by MSPs did stymie some of the original measures designed to protect consumers from ‘rogue solicitors’.

Ms McCartney said in her letter : ECHR Compliance – This is related to the issue of independence (see above). The Bill at present does not allow for the right of appeal for the public or the profession about a decision by the Commission on a service complaint. The current system has safeguards – a Reporter makes a recommendation and a Committee, made up of solicitors and non-solicitors, reaches the decision. If solicitors believe that the Society has reached the wrong decision, in a service complaint, they have a right of appeal to the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. The complainer is entitled to take the Society’s handling of the matter to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman. I understand that the Society has obtained an Opinion from Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Q.C. and he is of the view that the Bill, as it stands is not ECHR compliant.”

Ms McCartney’s letter also went onto challenge the increase in compensation to clients of solicitors who had provided inadequate service, a complaint now levelled at Ms McCartney and Kippen Campbell by their former client Mr Gordon. Ms McCartney’s letter continued : “Compensation – This relates to the issue of cost (see above). The increase in compensation for Inadequate Professional Service from £5,000 (a level which was raised from £1,000 just last year) to £20,000 is excessive and no explanation for such a large rise is given. The English white paper on complaints handling introduced the £20,000 figure – it appears that an English solution is being imported to resolve a perceived Scottish problem, despite the promise of Scottish solutions for Scottish issues.”

Master Policy Report Suicides revealedSLCC’s investigation linked Master Policy to client suicides, in the name of allowing solicitors to sleep at night. In the key area of claims made by clients against solicitors involving the Master Policy, the Law Society of Scotland’s Professional Indemnity Insurance scheme operated by Marsh UK which was investigated last year by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and subsequently revealed to have caused the deaths of clients who had attempted to make claims against the Master Policy, Ms McCartney stated in her letter to the Justice 2 Committee : “Negligence – It appears the Commission would take on the functions of the courts in negligence matters where the claim is less than £20,000, even though there is no consultation mandate to do so. Again, this raises issues in relation to ECHR compliance. Negligence should remain a matter for the courts. Every solicitor pays a premium additional to his or her Practising Certificate subscriptions to be covered under the Master Policy for Professional Indemnity Insurance. That already covers claims up to £1.5m for clients if there has been negligence by the solicitor. Many solicitors are prepared to advise and take on cases from the members of the public where there is a concern that a solicitor has been negligent.”

Readers familiar with the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee of the LPLA Bill during 2006 will remember it was questions over the operation of the Master Policy, which resulted in a bitter confrontation between the then Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill and the current Scottish Government Finance Chief, John Swinney MSP, eventually leading to Mr Mill’s resignation from his post in early 2008. The report on Douglas Mill’s resignation is here : Breaking News : Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill who lied to Parliament, pursued ‘personal vendetta’ against critics – to resign

LB203 Submission from Susan Wightman for LPLA BillSecond Kippen Campbell partner sent almost identical letter to Scottish Parliament challenging move to reform regulation of complaints against lawyers. In a curious case of dejavu, Holyrood insiders & law reform campaigners have pointed out an almost identical letter to that of Ms McCartney’s, challenging the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee consideration of the LPLA Bill, was sent by a second partner of the same law firm, Kippen Campbell. Both letters are still available on the Scottish Parliament’s website here : 115_LB115_SallyMcCartney.pdf and the second one here : 203_LB203_SusanWightman.pdf. The two letters form a long list of similar, almost identical correspondence sent in by solicitors as part of the Law Society of Scotland’s campaign against the bitter Holyrood passage of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Submissions to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Committee consideration of the LPLA Bill, as it was in 2006 can be viewed here : LPLA Bill Evidence (Scottish Parliament Justice 2 Committee 2006)

On reading the almost identical submissions made to the Scottish Parliament by partners from Kippen Campbell, who are now involved in the now publicised Perth Sheriff Court action over disputed fees, law reform campaigners suggested this afternoon anyone considering using a Scottish solicitor should check their prospective legal representative’s stance on complaints handling, and also ensure any work they ask a solicitor to undertake for them is properly estimated in terms of costs before clients agree to proceed.

Clients are also advised to thoroughly check fee demands from their solicitors to ensure they are not being ‘ripped-off’ or charged for issues such as complaints handling, if a client has been forced to submit a complaint to either the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or Law Society of Scotland regarding their solicitor’s poor service or conduct.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Personal injury client dropped by Perth based solicitors Kippen Campbell ‘being hounded’ by court attempts to recover disputed fees

Perth Sheriff CourtPerth Sheriff court is the latest setting for Scots law firms pursuing clients over fees. PERTH SHERIFF COURT is again at the centre of questions over the progress of a year long case involving a local law firm Kippen Campbell and their attempts to recover fees from a client they were representing in a personal injury claim against Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd & Reg Vardy plc. Partners at Kippen Campbell allege the fees are due, even though the law firm dumped their client, Mr William Gordon, in a move which brought to a halt any progress on Mr Gordon’s personal injury claim as he has since been unable to secure legal representation.

Mr Gordon has now been put in the unenviable position in Scots Law of being an unrepresented party litigant trying to stave off demands from a law firm for disputed fees. Letters sent by Mr Gordon to Perth Sheriff Court in the case of Kippen Campbell v William Gordon A334/09 reveal Mr Gordon, the defender, has offered to settle the law firm’s claims, although it now appears the pursuing law firm Kippen Campbell prefers the case continue in the Sheriff Court.

Kippen Campbell Fee NoteFee note released during SLCC investigation detailed Kippen Campbell attempted to charge dropped client for dealing with Law Society complaints. As I reported in December 2009, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission began an investigation into complaints made late last year against Messrs Kippen Campbell by their former client, Mr William Gordon over issues related to their representation of Mr Gordon in a personal injury claim. The SLCC’s investigation was ‘complicated’ according to legal insiders, although court documents seen by journalists revealed the law firm had, among its now disputed charges to Mr Gordon, charged a fee note to Mr Gordon for a phone call between the Law Society of Scotland and a partner from Kippen Campbell over a complaint Mr Gordon had made regarding service provided by his now former legal representatives.

Sources at the Law Society said such moves by law firms are severely frowned upon by the regulatory body as solicitors are ‘not allowed to charge clients for dealing with complaints’. Suggestions have since been made that a complete audit be carried out of the law firm involved, and a wider investigation be initiated by the Law Society & SLCC into practices of law firms charging clients for dealing with complaints – a secretive practice which may be contributing to similar cases across Scotland of law firms pursuing clients for fees they claim are due, where the coincidence exists the client has been dropped by a law firm who are themselves subject to complaints & investigations by solicitor’s regulators.

Jane IrvineSLCC Chair Jane Irvine may still have to appear as ‘expert witness’ in Perth Sheriff Court over disputed fees & law firm’s conduct. Progress on the case, now more than year on since I last reported on developments, where Jane Irvine, the Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and at least one SLCC investigator faced being called as witnesses to be cross examined on the law firm’s conduct towards Mr Gordon and his personal injury claim, has been painfully slow, with almost no movement other than a succession of postponed hearings at Perth Sheriff Court on the law firm’s own pursuit of fees it claims it is owed.

The fee recovery case being pursued by Kippen Campbell against their former client, has, according to court documents seen by Diary of Injustice, not even been allocated to a Sheriff even after a year of being passed around the local Sheriff court system.

It has recently been revealed by legal insiders close to the case, the constant barrage of court hearings initiated by the law firm who dropped their own client and attempted to charge him for dealing with complaints, has taken its toll on the unrepresented Mr Gordon, whose well being has suffered so extensively his Doctor has been forced to write up to seven times to the court, stating his patient cannot attend proceedings due to failing health.

It has also been alleged that Mr Gordon has been treated with some disdain by local Sheriff court officials, who, appearing not to take Mr Gordon’s predicament as an unrepresented party litigant into account, have failed on numerous occasions to notify Mr Gordon of successive dates of court hearings. The court staff’s failures to notify Mr Gordon of events concerning the case against him have now become so numerous, some claim it is an attempt to ensure his former law firm who are pursuing him for fees they allege are due, obtain a decision in their favour during Mr Gordon’s absence from proceedings he is not being kept up to speed with and may not be aware of.

Details from an investigation carried out by Diary of Injustice into the case can now reveal Mr Gordon, even in his weakened medical state while signed off appearing in court by his Doctor, has been forced on each occasion to ask for access to court interlocutors, detailing motions & events concerning the law firm’s court pursuit of fees they allege are due.

On many occasions interlocutors have apparently been produced to Mr Gordon late, or in what some contend to be a questionable format with some papers provided by court officials appearing to have been adjusted photocopies of earlier postponements. It can also been revealed that curiously, the Sheriff Court wrote to Mr Gordon’s Doctor during his annual leave, and set a date for reply and the next hearing of the case on the same day the Doctor returned to work.

SLCC LAW SOCIETYLaw Society & SLCC failures over regulation of complaints against solicitors are impacting on clients health. The numerous Doctor’s letters required by Perth Sheriff Court in the Kippen Campbell v William Gordon A334/09 case are now causing concern in terms of their frequency & detail required by the court, to the point some are now questioning just how many times a Doctor should be harangued over the fitness of his client to attend proceedings in cases where the client has a long term medical condition, and when the likelihood is the stressful nature of such a case as it is continuing, against a background of serious allegations of complaints made against a law firm, and allegations of significant regulatory failures by the Law Society of Scotland & the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are only likely to make matters worse for Mr Gordon’s health.

The Scottish Court Service were asked for comment on what guidance exists to sheriffs & judges on how to handle “Soul & Conscience” style letters from doctors relating to parties in civil law cases.

A response from the Judicial Studies Committee, a division of the Scottish Court Service established for the purpose of supporting the judiciary in the carrying out of their non-judicial functions stated : “No specific guidance is issued to judges in relation to soul and conscience certificates. These tend to appear in support of an absence of a litigant or witness before or during court proceedings. They are tendered ex parte. If an issue arises about the authenticity or content of the certificate it is open to the judge to continue the case for clarification of the issue. The certificate is one factor to be taken into account in determining an application to adjourn or delay a case.”

“Medical certificates, according to Practice Note of 6 June 1968 (found in the Parliament House Book at p. C2002, which is available to all judges), no longer need to bear the words ‘on soul and conscience’ in relation to an action pending before the Court of Session. They are mainly used when a witness is unable to attend court and they will remove a witness from the court list for up to 30 days.”

“In an opinion of the Court delivered by the Lord Justice Clerk in The Scottish Ministers v Claire Rennison or Smith [2010] CSIH 44, it was observed that ‘although certification on soul and conscience is no longer an indispensable requirement (cf Practice Note, 6 June 1968), the absence of it is a factor that we are entitled to take into account’ when the second respondent failed to appear.”

“Consideration is being given by the judiciary to whether further procedural guidance on medical certificates would be desirable in light of the Rennison case.”

Taking into account cases such as the one reported on here today, there is clearly a need for further procedural guidance on medical certificates & doctor’s letters are now required for Scottish courts, and it seems, retraining for court staff in how to deal with party litigants. After all, just how many times can someone be asked if they are ill or liable to recover in time to pay off fees their solicitors claim are due, even when complaints against the solicitor’s service have been made and the fees themselves are in significant dispute …


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Legal Complaints Chief Jane Irvine to appear at Perth Sheriff Court as Law Society investigates Tayside law firm Kippen Campbell

SLCC squareScottish Legal Complaints Commission in the dock over complaints. PERTH SHERIFF COURT will shortly see a first for board members & officials of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who are to appear as witnesses in a case involving Perth law firm Kippen Campbell, who are currently being investigated by the Law Society of Scotland over a complaint made by a client who was being represented by the law firm in a personal injury claim against Arriva Motor Retailing Ltd & Reg Vardy plc.

Jane IrvineIn the dock : Jane Irvine, Chair of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Documents revealed today show the SLCC’s Chair, Jane Irvine and at least one SLCC investigator are to be cited as witnesses to justify their investigation into the Perth law firm after parts of the SLCC’s complaints investigation were filed at Perth Sheriff Court in connection with a legal action launched by Messrs Kippen Campbell against their former client, for alleged outstanding but disputed fees.

Kippen Campbell Fee NoteFee note released during the SLCC’s investigation shows Kippen Campbell tried to charge for dealing with the Law Society over complaints. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission began an investigation into complaints made late last year against Messrs Kippen Campbell by their client, a Mr William Gordon over issues related to their representation of Mr Gordon in the personal injury claim. The SLCC’s investigation was ‘complicated’ according to legal insiders, but it has now emerged in court documents seen by journalists that the law firm had, among its now disputed charges to Mr Gordon, charged a fee note to their client for a phone call to the Law Society of Scotland over the actual complaint made by Mr Gordon, an action which sources at the Law Society say is severely frowned upon by the regulatory body as solicitors are ‘not allowed to charge clients for dealing with complaints.

Leading figures from Scotland’s legal profession said this evening the move to cite senior officials of the regulatory body as witnesses in a courtroom ‘was unprecedented’ and would shine a much needed light on the poorly performing Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which apparently has yet to show one single success for ‘protecting consumers’ against rogue solicitors & law firms in Scotland.

A legal insider said this evening : “After a year of scandal at the SLCC I doubt very much any of them want to be dragged into a court to explain exactly what it is they do for people but many solicitors and consumers I’m sure will welcome the opportunity for the SLCC’s officials to be questioned under oath on their work.”

A spokesman for a consumer organisation said he was delighted the SLCC may be held to account for its work in an open court. He said : “The SLCC to my knowledge have no successes to show after over one year of operation and all the millions of pounds of money both from the public purse and the legal profession they have taken in.”

He continued : “It is about time someone was able to get a firm idea of exactly what the SLCC stands for, what it does and how it does it. Unfortunately however, it seems in this case the defender, Mr Gordon does not have legal representation and might not be able to ask the same level of technical questions that an experienced solicitor may ask. I would hope this imbalance is corrected immediately to respect the infirmed defender’s Article 6 right to a fair hearing in court.”

SLCC Media releases on Perth Sheriff Court caseSLCC Media release on Perth Court case initially lied over knowledge that officials would be called to give evidence. When questioned about the court appearances, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s Chair, Jane Irvine, initially denied knowledge of the case, saying : “The SLCC are unaware of the situation and therefore have no comment to make.” However, after further investigation and media enquiries, the SLCC backtracked on their initial claim to know nothing with Jane Irvine issuing the following statement : “The SLCC has a duty of confidentiality to all parties involved in all complaints and this is under Section 43 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. In general terms, if an action is raised, either party can submit SLCC documents as evidence without being obliged to inform the SLCC. With regards to the citation of witnesses, the SLCC would not be aware what witnesses either side chose to cite unless a citation was issued to a member of staff or Member.”

Roseanna CunninghamRoseanna Cunningham MSP called in to help constituent’s complaint amid SLCC delays. It has also emerged that Perth MSP Roseanna Cunningham has been called in to help the constituent’s complaint with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, after it emerged the SLCC had not apparently fully understood what had actually happened to the client, causing concern the law complaints body had failed to address all the issues put before it, and in a strange twist, a trail of documents between the SLCC and Mr Gordon reveal the law complaints body was slow to involve Ms Cunningham in the loop on the progress of their investigation and findings, despite receiving letters from Ms Cunningham early on in the case.

Law Society of ScotlandLaw Society are now investigating law firm over fee charges. The media attention to the story has now prompted a new development, with an SLCC investigator announcing : “I have also now heard from the Law Society and am pleased to confirm it has accepted the SLCC’s recommendation to look further at your complaint that Messrs Kippen Campbell charged a fee in relation to dealing with your complaint to the Law Society. I understand the Law Society will be in touch with you to obtain information and evidence.”

No one was available at Kippen Campbell for comment this evening.

My advice to anyone dealing with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission .. if you feel your complaint has been poorly dealt with, and you are fighting a legal case based on issues the SLCC has considered, make sure like Mr Gordon, you cite the relevant SLCC personnel or even board members as witnesses to justify whatever they have said or done in terms of their investigation into your complaints against solicitors & law firms.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,